The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Nex-5n vs Nex7

C

curious80

Guest
Hmm you guys should look at this DPReview comparison between G10 and Canon 1000D:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonG10/page20.asp

G10's pixel density is much greater than 1000D or any other current APS-C / FF sensor, but its 14.7MP still provides a real resolution advantage over 10MP APS-C sensor. I think that shows that the pixel densities where we stop getting any advantage from increasing number of pixels is is still far away.

At high ISO though the G10's extra resolution gets eaten away quickly. And thats pretty much the reality of high MP sensors in general. You enjoy the extra resolution at low-ISOs where the per-pixel SNR is good enough to make those pixels useful. As you go to smaller and smaller pixels the per-pixel SNR will go down and the ISOs at which you can enjoy the extra resolution will go down as well, until you hit a pixel-size where even at base ISO the SNR is low enough to be not acceptable.
 

jonoslack

Active member
BTW WRT data rate on copper - VDSL (around 50Mbps) is still the limit for copper wire telephone cable and 1Gbps is the limit for Cat6 (shielded) when trying to achieve reasonable distances.

These limits are there since long time (over 10 years) and are not being pushed upwards because simply not possible with reasonably priced technology.

Pretty much the same is true for optics and image sensors.
Just look back a little further Peter - I can't remember what 'the proof' was WRT copper wire, but it was something around 15kbps. . . . and it was 'proved'
 

jonoslack

Active member
All this pixel density and noise at high ISO chat reminds me when the Canon G10 came out and DPR forums ripped it and DPR followed with a silver review for these issues. Knuckling under to consumers complaints Canon came out with a lower pixel count G11 which few considered better than the G10 for IQ. A new G10 goes for 3 times the price of a new G12 today and is still a very high demand item for those who liked and used them. I use one still today in a underwater housing for my wet work and enjoy its IQ.
Indeed - and if we're speaking of the difference between 10 and 14mp at that sized sensor, then we're speaking of much much higher mp counts for APS-c.
 

Jim DE

New member
I mean you have to buy a camera for how it's strengths perform in regard to ones needs and wants. The buyer has to also understand that these strengths were evolved and there are compromises that have to be made to develop them. If I was looking for low noise at high ISO there are cameras which that is their strengths but other compromises had to be made to bring these features to market that may not ever effect my photography or they may be deal breakers. No one can make that determination but that photographer.

I will never say any camera is the be all end all photographic tool for everyone because that tool does not exist and when it does there won't be any other cameras to select from. I just dig my heels in when comments by non owners/users whether a test site or individuals rave or condemn a product or feature's in a camera. Plus there is no way these individuals or site can know what is good or bad for the individual photographer.

I have watched this BS go on with nearly every new Sony product over the past several years. Non owners/users come on DPR and spout their theoretical bunk and battle and try and defend their "theories" to the point many mistake this rhetoric for facts. One has to wonder what their actual agenda's are or who they may work for. I personally, do not give any site or non users opinion much credit at all whether its good or bad. You can't know till you have used it ..... this is why I ask people who I have respect for and who actually own the products if I need a suggestion or advice. Several people in this category are active members on this site and I have asked their opinions even as recently as today on a new product I am considering. The reviews or people who repeat the reviews as if they are hardcore facts without ever using or seeing the product are of no value in my decision making process.

Bottom line is you pay your money and you take your best guess chances...... ;)
 
C

curious80

Guest
Jim, I am not sure which posters do you have in mind, but in case I am one of those than let me say I have been a Sony user for a few years now :) My main DSLR currently is a Sony A580. And I have also been a NEX-5 owner for a couple of months though it did not work out for me at that time, so I stayed with m43 for my compact system. Though taking a good look again at the 5N.

And I agree completely with you that no one can make a determination of which tool is best for you as it depends on your particular needs. This is why I pay no attention to the scores and awards handed out by review sites like dpreview or to their subjective assessments. But I do look at the detailed objective tests which help me make my own conclusions based on my own needs.
 

Jim DE

New member
curious80, Mine was just a general rant not pointed at anyone. I apologize if you felt I was referring to you.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Anyone bother to look at the video?

Sure got a lot of panties in a knot :)

The other quote says "assuming ideal sensor technology" ... that is assuming a lot.

IMO, the best quote so far is one of his self confessed "favorite sayings"... "The force of marketing is greater than the force of engineering." Man-o-man is he right on that one.

However, it is 100% true that it is totally up to the photographer what is and is not right for them and their eye. That's one of those statements that no one can argue ... but then gets attached to a discussion to support anything that follows it :eek:

As it stands, from all of the samples I've seen to date from the A77 ... Sony has gone one toke over the line for marketing bragging rights, and to get your money at an increasingly faster pace: NEX5, NEX5N and NEX7 which will become the NEX7N before you can even charge the battery on your new NEX7 ... :ROTFL: ... so I'll pass ... and did so by voting that way by canceling my premature NEX7 order.

As far as Canon is concerned, I don't think the 1DX is 2007 think, it is 2013 think ... seems a perfect balance for an all around camera you could live with for some time, and fits how the market has been going for a while now. Besides, who said this is their only coming camera innovation? Another assumption.

As always, to each their own. I'll stick with my 2008 think Sony A900s for the time being.

-Marc
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Just look back a little further Peter - I can't remember what 'the proof' was WRT copper wire, but it was something around 15kbps. . . . and it was 'proved'
This was never proved for me :)

With transmission technologies known today we only can go so far as we are now. Comes down to physics and how we can use them.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Sure got a lot of panties in a knot :)
Certainly did :ROTFL:

As it stands, from all of the samples I've seen to date from the A77 ... Sony has gone one toke over the line for marketing bragging rights, and to get your money at an increasingly faster pace: NEX5, NEX5N and NEX7 which will become the NEX7N before you can even charge the battery on your new NEX7 ... :ROTFL: ... so I'll pass ... and did so by voting that way by canceling my premature NEX7 order.
I'm waiting for firmware 2 and some refined raw converters before I decide on this one - Sony do, after all, have a history of improving noise on their sensors with firmware upgrades (the A700 being the obvious example).
In the meantime I'm liking the results I'm getting from the A77, wherever dpreview decide to place the focus point :deadhorse:

As far as Canon is concerned, I don't think the 1DX is 2007 think, it is 2013 think ... seems a perfect balance for an all around camera you could live with for some time, and fits how the market has been going for a while now. Besides, who said this is their only coming camera innovation? Another assumption.
For those who want 14fps you are unquestionably right . . . . for the rest of us?
Anyway, after remarks like that I'll be interested to see your response when yours arrives :p:)

all the best
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I can not comment which sensor is better or worse or where the physical limit of pixel density would be (today) but I believe 2 things:

- High ISO and MP stand much too high in priority list for new cameras

- IMO color and tonality, and this not only in raw but also jpg would help me much more and are more of a creteria for me deciding between brands than MP; I am dreaming of film modes which supply colors really in the quality of various films; Most film modes today seem to extereme to me, and unrealistic;

I also wish for a sensor which works well in mixed light, which has a WB setting which works in daylight/Shaddow/cloudy.

And I believe user interface is underrated as well. Dontr we want big viewfinders, intuitive user interface, etc.

And last lenses and lens quality.
 

m_driscoll

New member
I just reread this entire thread. Great discussion! I like, and am keeping, my A77 and 5N. I'm also looking forward to getting my NEX 7 (shipping on 11/11/11, according to two emails from the Sony Store). :)

My D3 was better then my D300s, and my D700 was better then the D3, but not better then my D3s, and my D7000 was almost as good as my D700...I no longer have any of them, and the decision to get rid of them had nothing to do with mp count. :D

Keep posting. it's fun to read and I'm learning stuff. :salute:

Cheers, Matt

http://mdriscoll.zenfolio.com
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
I'm being given a January ETA for the NEX-7 I have on order from a UK supplier, which suits me fine - only just got a 5n! Waiting for a 30mm macro to arrive.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Certainly did :ROTFL:


I'm waiting for firmware 2 and some refined raw converters before I decide on this one - Sony do, after all, have a history of improving noise on their sensors with firmware upgrades (the A700 being the obvious example).
In the meantime I'm liking the results I'm getting from the A77, wherever dpreview decide to place the focus point :deadhorse:



For those who want 14fps you are unquestionably right . . . . for the rest of us?
Anyway, after remarks like that I'll be interested to see your response when yours arrives :p:)

all the best
No Canon for me right now Jono .... been there, done that. However, now that the S2 has taken over so many things I used to do with the A900, I really only need a camera like the Canon 1DX for the remainder ... not for 14 FPS, but the AF speed and dual CF card back-up as well as higher ISO stuff. However, as usual, all the lenses one invests in for a system is more of a determining factor on sticking with a brand. Big PITA to swap systems. Nothing to worry about right now since the 1DX is going to be vaporware for most photographers for some time to come.

All the best.

-Marc
 

douglasf13

New member
No panties in a knot here. I just watched Dr. Fossum's video, and he made a nice distinction between the effects of smaller pixels and sensor size. Ultimately, it backs up claims from the likes of Emil Martinec (Dr. Fossum used one of his graphs in the charts) in that lowlight image quality is connected to sensor size, not pixel size.

One chart illustrated the effect of smaller pixels when you make the sensor smaller:


The second chart illustrated the effect of smaller pixels while keeping the sensor size the same, and you'll notice the negatives are different from the first chart:


While things like data throughput and power consumption are issues with more megapixels on the same sized chip, lowlight IQ reduction is not mentioned.

Dr. Fossum is certainly right that, with image sensors in camera phones, where the lens is rarely faster than f2.8, there isn't much reason to make sensors with pixels smaller than 4 microns, outside of marketing. However, in the case of the A77/NEX-7, we're only talking about 4.65 microns, and lenses get much faster than f2.8, so we have a ways before the pixel count increases only for marketing reasons.

Dr. Fossum actually participated in a discussion on dpreview about this video and maintains that he "still believe(s) in smaller pixels," so things need to be taken in context.

As for the 1Dx, Canon clearly stated in their press release that this is the combination of the 1D and 1Ds lines into one, so if they do have a higher MP camera coming, I guess it'll be an all new line.
 

jonoslack

Active member
No Canon for me right now Jono .... been there, done that. However, now that the S2 has taken over so many things I used to do with the A900, I really only need a camera like the Canon 1DX for the remainder ... not for 14 FPS, but the AF speed and dual CF card back-up as well as higher ISO stuff. However, as usual, all the lenses one invests in for a system is more of a determining factor on sticking with a brand. Big PITA to swap systems. Nothing to worry about right now since the 1DX is going to be vaporware for most photographers for some time to come.

All the best.

-Marc
Indeed - I was kinda playing devils advocate. Still, for me, the interesting thing with the a77 (or one of the interesting things) is the focus peaking for manual focus . . . I've started to buy some Leica R lenses before everyone else twigs. I'm going to start off using them on the NEX cameras with an adapter, but if it's a success I'll certainly consider some Leitax lens mount changes.

My current experience of focus peaking is that it suddenly makes using 3rd party lenses a real and useful solution . . . . and those R lenses are very sweet!

Clearly primes are the realm of the M9 . . . . but I managed to get hold of three lenses:
180 f2.8 APO
28-90 f2.8/4.5 zoom
21-35 f3.5/f4 zoom

all mint (so they say). . . for the price of a lower range M lens. . . . I will report back!
 

kuau

Workshop Member
Jono,
have you tried the 21-35 f3.5/f4 zoom on the your 5n, or A77 yet?
if so how are the results

Steven
 
J

jcoffin

Guest
Given the nature of a Bayer array, the lower limit of diffraction limiting (i.e., not for looking at a print, but when pixel-peeping at 100%) is (approximately) when the Airy disk is larger than the triangle of three sensor sites that produce a single output pixel.

To put that into perspective, let's start with f/4. What's the smallest meaningful sensor pitch given an ideal f/4 lens? It turns out to be approximately 2.2 microns. For a 35mm sized sensor, that works out to over 185 megapixels.

Things do get worse in a hurry as we reduce the aperture though. By f/8, that's already dropped to about 45 megapixels. By f/11, it would be about 25 megapixels, so the current A90/D3x are already just about diffraction limited. By f/16 the diffraction limit is below 12 megapixels (and at f/22, the useful limit is about 6 megapixels).

OTOH, (remember, for theoretically perfect glass) as we increase the aperture, the theoretical maximum goes up pretty quickly as well. By f/1.4, the theoretical limit is approximately an 1500 megapixel sensor (and for f/1.2, it's about 2000 megapixels).

Of course, I'd be somewhere between surprised and flabbergasted to find an f/1.4 lens that had anywhere close to that resolution, but if the lens was good enough, that's the limit that diffraction would set.

Of course, the pixel pitch is what really matters here. I've picked full-frame 35mm as kind of a middle point. For an APS-C camera, those numbers would obviously go down, and for an MF camera they'd equally obviously go a lot higher still). Just don't ask me to carry your diffraction limited 210mm f/1.4 Super Symmar, okay?
 
Top