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-7 noise is just too much!

RichA

New member
It's at least 1.5 stops worse than the NEX-5N, worse than any other APS sensor including Samsung's 20MP model, worse than most of the m4/3rds gear and lastly, apparently worse than even Nikon's diminutive-sensor V10! Detail at 100-200 is very good, but once past that, cameras like the 5N actually do better despite the lower pixel count! I was going to get the 7, but for the money difference, the G3 looks better.
 

hot

Active member
And this world is baaaaad ... and all people are baaaaad ... and all cameras are devil's work ... and NEX7 is a new m4/3 ....
 

jonoslack

Active member
Criteria - source - samples - methodology - proof
it's not what DxO says
It's not what Luminous Landscape says
It's not what AP says
It's not what dPreview says
. . . .
of course, if you're comparing 100% crops of a 24mp camera with 100% crops of a 10mp camera . . but you aren't doing that are you Rich?
 

kwalsh

New member
The G3 is a great camera, and personally I have no interest in NEX until they have a lot more lenses, but I haven't seen anything across multiple sites and users that substantiates what you are saying at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

Ken
 

retow

Member
It's at least 1.5 stops worse than the NEX-5N, worse than any other APS sensor including Samsung's 20MP model, worse than most of the m4/3rds gear and lastly, apparently worse than even Nikon's diminutive-sensor V10! Detail at 100-200 is very good, but once past that, cameras like the 5N actually do better despite the lower pixel count! I was going to get the 7, but for the money difference, the G3 looks better.
Considering its sub standard sensor, it must be a spectacular camera otherwise as testers rave and customers pre-ordered it like crazy:p
 

RichA

New member
Details Rich... details?

Like source....

Thanks,

Bob
Dpreview's test. They downplayed the noise with nonsense about "uprezing" the 5N images. Sorry, but the NEX-7 has pushed the APS to the limit. They not only put 24mp into an APS, they "defined" the noise more clearly! It's actually noticeably sharper (the grain) than the 5N. Now, just wait until Nikon releases their D400 and see how it compares.
 

RichA

New member
Considering its sub standard sensor, it must be a spectacular camera otherwise as testers rave and customers pre-ordered it like crazy:p
I've handled the thing, it's nice, good build quality, not as nice as handling a good DSLR, but for a miniature camera it's good. So far (though Dpreview didn't seem thrilled with its focusing) in the small camera category, it seems to hit all the marks, except for its noise.
As usual, if there are any issues with it, the users will discover it long before the "reviewers."
 

Lars

Active member
Now, just wait until Nikon releases their D400 and see how it compares.
A Nikon D400 is purely speculative at this point, comparing to what's available on the market makes much more sense.

Noise in RAW seems a bit high though, judging from dpreview samples. The tradeoff between resolution and noise seems obvious, suggesting that there currently is a sweet spot at about 16 Mpx with APS-C/DX sensor size?
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Dpreview's test. They downplayed the noise with nonsense about "uprezing" the 5N images. Sorry, but the NEX-7 has pushed the APS to the limit. They not only put 24mp into an APS, they "defined" the noise more clearly! It's actually noticeably sharper (the grain) than the 5N. Now, just wait until Nikon releases their D400 and see how it compares.
I don't know....I have a real problem with DPReview's test pics...they all look about the same to me...not real life subject matter...not really into coins myself. Truthfully I get frustrated when I look at their stuff...cannot tell if they are significant differences or not. Their summary rates the NEX-7 as the best APS-C chip cameras they have studied so something must be a bit off.

Please keep in mind that I use MF digital and agree that photosite size is EVERYTHING...I think. However I am very pleased with the Ricoh A12 M lens unit...I will look into the NEX-7 as it seems that many of the reviewers I respect...Michael at LuLa...seem to be pleased.

Noise is not a disadvantage...either NIK DFine or LR 3 handles it well...and I personally loved TriX with Rodinal .... edge effects do make a difference.

Time will tell and I am sure that in three months time there will be 5 clones to consider.....

Bob
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
It's all about needs. If you print very large, mostly take photos at low ISO and need a compact camera, it must be ideal. Or if you are a camera buff. I think I've counted at least a couple of those on this forum :ROTFL:

Me? Nah... I'm quite happy with the L1 at the moment. With the PanaLeica zoom, I get spotless, sharp prints in A2 format, and I don't plan to buy a larger printer. Can't afford an E-5 right now (need a new Mac), so considering an L10 as well.

The problem with the NEX 7 isn't the noise. The problem is the thousands of dollars I would have to spend on yet another camera and lenses, monies that can be used for airline tickets, motorbike rentals and cozy, little hotel rooms in the middle of nowhere :)

--

Written on my lethargic Acer Netbook on the seventh floor of a boutique hotel in downtown Phnom Penh where I'm staying for money that I didn't spend on a NEX.
 
Last edited:

clark666

New member
You are missing the point. You are not expected to make photographs with a new camera, just to have it and read the manual.
 

Internaut

New member
When the light is not good for taking photos, I read a bit, and what I'm reading about the NEX7 is this:

- Class leading resolution for an APS-C sensor with great results at lower ISOs
- Perhaps less DR in the shadows than the superb 16MP sensor in the NEX7n
- High ISO not as good as the NEX5n
- But when you down-sample the images to 16MP, hey presto!

There's no two ways about it: Sony have produced something quite remarkable in the NEX7 and they're charging accordingly for it. Consider this though..... If you never print above A3(ish) do you need a 24MP camera?
 

RichA

New member
It's almost impossible to see a resolution loss on a print at 16x20 if the camera has at least 8 megapixels so "need" 24MP is likely not an issue until you hit at 30x40 inch or larger print. However, apart from pure resolution, there "may" be qualitative differences that the NEX-7 at low ISO can offer above and beyond say a 12 megapixel camera with larger prints. People have to experiment and see.
 

Riley

New member
Im as sceptical as some of you guys
I once wondered how
DxO only manage to get 10.5 stops out of 4/3rds 11.5 stop IMATEST RAWs
how large Mp cameras seemed like a great idea, until you downres to anything else

now I just think about photos...
 

Amin

Active member
All the well-done tests I have seen have shown that the NEX-7 is almost as good (close enough to be the same for practical purposes) as the 5N at high ISO. It seems to be a fantastic sensor with very little downside other than slightly worse edge performance than the NEX-5N and NEX-C3 with certain wide angle lenses.

The one thing which impairs high ISO ability with the 7 from a practical standpoint is that Sony capped the Auto ISO at a max of 1600. That is a ridiculous mistake which they ought to remedy in firmware. Heck, I keep my E-P3 auto ISO max at 6400 and got a couple usable prints at ISO 4000 from family gatherings over Christmas.
 

Riley

New member
cooked RAWs arent they ?
not that there is anything wrong with that, but it makes the numbers game of comparison a bit lame
 
Top