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!

pegelli

Well-known member
The more pixels you have (regardless of format), the better quality of lens you need. More importantly, you need to use a tripod more because the sensor is less forgiving not because the sensor is bad.
I read this a lot, but my take on it is different in that this is only true when pixel peeping at 100%.

Comparing at the same output (print) size it makes no difference.

This famous WTD came back to mind reading this thread:

:ROTFL:
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Could a moderator move this thread into the right forum. Thank you.
Thanks for making that request! :)

If I could, I would request the thread be completely banished because it just starts with no noble notion (to put it mildly ;)), in my view.
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Too bad he also showed, convincingly, that a $6000 Leica 24mm was required to get the most of our that camera.
No he did not. He showed, convincingly, that the cheaper (but still pricey) Zeiss 24 mm nearly matched the 6x more expensive Leica and was a great match. Each lens had its strong points; both were excellent. i agree with him. I think you should re-read his article.

The Nex-7 is not unique in requiring good lenses. Hasselblad ugraded their 50mm and Macro lenses to meet the higher resolution available from newer H series cameras. Other manufactureres have done the same.

I would also add that I am impressed at the absence of noise with the Nex-7. It was one of the first things that struck me - how Sony have improved their sensors even since the A900 line was introduced.
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
What is particulary impressive about such noise as there is with the Nex-7 is that it is very even, and thus relatively easy to minimise with a noise removal programme like Neat image. I tried this with a 1600 ISO image and the result was very impressive. In fact I rarely shoot at higher than 400ISO (must be a lagacy from my film days, when 400 was considered quite fast..).
 

jonoslack

Active member
I read this a lot, but my take on it is different in that this is only true when pixel peeping at 100%.
I agree with this so completely. I think it has had some interesting and not necessarily good results as well - it seems to me that some camera manufacturers are actually making cameras with lower pixel counts just because they realise that they will be judged by their performance at 100% NOT by the image performance overall.

Of course, you will need better lenses to take FULL advantage of the extra resolution - but lesser lenses will still give you just as good results over the frame as a whole as a sensor with less resolution (just not when pixel peeping)


Comparing at the same output (print) size it makes no difference.

This famous WTD came back to mind reading this thread:

:ROTFL:
:ROTFL:
Thank You.
Excellent :)
 

Lonnie Utah

New member
You're joking, right? I ask because my other camera is a Contax 645/Phase One P30+ combo and even with its 31 MP of AA-filter free pixels, 15x20 prints on 17x22 paper are as large as I'm comfortable printing the average photo. To my eyes, my m4/3 gear (G1, GF1, E-P1) runs out of IQ with prints larger than 12x16 (although it appears the GX1 may be good for prints a bit larger than that) and I was never happy printing my 7.5MP L1 files any larger than 7.5x10. There are exceptions to the above, of course, but not too many, so either I'm a lot pickier than you are and/or your standards are lower than mine...
I print 24x36 from my A900 all the time. They look awesome.
 

kuau

Workshop Member
On the other hand - if you want a landscape with lots of foliage in it, then the 18mp of the M9 (without an AA filter) is pushing it.
+1 on the M9 for Landscape, Though I had trouble focusing it with the 90, I wish I never sold mine.... :(

-Steve
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I've found my own observations to echo those of Mr. Reichmann, plus stuff I've gleaned from the fine folks in the Medium Format sections and chats I've had with Doug Petersen of CI: The more pixels you have (regardless of format), the better quality of lens you need. More importantly, you need to use a tripod more because the sensor is less forgiving not because the sensor is bad.
Yeah, a common myth. But it does sell lenses and tripods.

From a MFD 40MP shooter that used his camera handheld at 1/60s or slower with film era lenses. (100% example taken at 1/60s at ISO 400 with a big honkin' mirror and a manual focus film lens handheld in sucky light which represents a tiny part of the 40MP image.)
 
Last edited:
Top