Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 78 of 78

Thread: NEX-7 problem with CZ85

  1. #51
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Noosa Australia
    Posts
    61
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: NEX-7 problem with CZ85

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    Looks pretty good to me, Vivek. Thanks. The thing is that shots like this don't really get us anywhere. We need either resolution tests with charts, or at least direct comparisons with the 5N.
    I really got curious about this issue and did some comparison shots between 5N and 7 with the 30 macro. I am not a lens or camera tester but this type of test helps me to decide on a lens or camera.
    I did 4 frames each, the first 4 are NEX7 the second 4 are NEX5N. The snaps were taken at f3.5 and focus (AF) was on upper left corner, upper right corner, lower right corner and lower left corner.
    If you are interested look at flickr VH-20120229-DSC01888.jpg | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    337
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: NEX-7 problem with CZ85

    FWIW, here is a quick synthesis of my experience with a NEX 7 so far. For reference, I have shot thousands of pics with a NEX 5, hundreds with a C3 and thousands with a 5N, all with alt glass, before getting the 7.
    There are at least 2 WA that work fine of NEX 7, alas neither of them cheap: the Leica R 19mm V2, which was expected, since it is a DSLR lens, and the totally unexpected LEICA WATE. The WATE shows no softness issue even at 16mm even wide open, even in the extreme corners. It just works, period. This shows that lens construction is much more relevant than FL. If this one lens works, then other similar designs in terms of geometry and placement will work, irrespective if it is an ultra-expensive Leica or not. Careful examination fails to show any camera issues, which proves to my satisfaction that the camera itself "can" work just as specified providing a lens is mounted on it that suits it.

    One WA lens shows mid-to-strong colour shift, which otherwise works fine on the NEX 5N, the Zeiss ZM 18mm f:4.0. However, it cleans up very nicely with Cornerfix, and the result fails to show any issues (test shot at f:8.0, I have not yet tried wide open, but will before deciding to keep and shoot the ZM 18).

    One wide-ish lens showed mid-to-strong colour shift, which otherwise works fine on the 5N: the Contax G 28, and I have not been able to clean it up with Cornerfix. I believe that the result, even if rid of colour shift, would also display unacceptable softness issues. This is a Biogon, symmetrical design, and likely the most problematic construction for the NEX 7 to accept, since even the much more tolerant NEX 5N is marginal with the otherwise brilliant ZM 25 Biogon.
    I briefly tried the Leica M 28 Summicron f:2.0, and got clear but mild shift, but did not try to clean it up, as I had no interest in buying that lens.
    I tried less wide lenses, and did not come across any trouble at all: Contax G 45 and G 90, Leica R 35-70 f:3.4, Leica F 60 mm Makro.
    For reference, the "easiest" way to see shift is shooting straight into a blue sky. Second best is a white or light gray target. In my experience, it is possible to "get away" with even severe shift if you are ready to work around it. I sold a Contax G 21, a fantastic piece of glass, which I couldn't get to work even on a 5N. Even cleaned up, I got mush in the corners, and I am far from a "sharpness-über alles" ayatollah. Well, that guy whom I sold it to has been showing awesome pics from it and his 5N....

    In summary, the NEX 7 is a camera that can work as specified and advertised, and its IQ is awesome. BUT, to get there, one needs to understand that (1) viewing a 100% crop of a 24Mp camera is a significantly higher magnification than with a 16Mp camera, and thus a much harder test, and (2), the higher the pixel density, the more it will show any weakness in the shooting itself. For example, the 7 clearly shows the difference between critically sharp and hyperfocally sharp, which the 5N does not. It also requires that I use much higher shutter speeds if I am to avoid seeing motion blur. When shooting from the waist, on a good day I can use my 5N down to 1/3 of 1/focal length. I have not been able to get lower than 1/focal length with the 7, and even that was not with a great keeper rate.
    So the 5N is a really great ultra-small platform for alt glass, delivering very good IQ pretty easily and without fuss. Perfect for shooters who want a platform for a variety of existing glass, or use it as a "take-anywhere-shoot-any-time-and-any-place" camera.
    That, the 7 is not, and it will punish you for trying. BUT, as a small-ish platform for chosen glass shot carefully, it will produce IQ that is on a par with the absolute best DSLRs, with the exception of what a FF sensor can do (very thin DOF).
    I rest my case (and the pot)
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #53
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: NEX-7 problem with CZ85

    Thanks for sharing your experiences.

    I asked the question in another thread but nobody responded to it.

    Has anyone tried any of the WA lenses with a Hawk's adapter? My (limited) understanding of the issue with the WA lenses is the distance from the back of the lens to the sensor means that light is hitting the sensor at very acute angles. With the Hawk's adapter wound out as far as it will go, there would be an extra 4mm between the back of the lens and the sensor. Would this be sufficient to make a difference in the colour cast issues being seen with the troublesome lenses?

  4. #54
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    65
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: NEX-7 problem with CZ85

    bcm, I have no experience of Hawk's adapter on my NEXs, but I have heard M9 users remark that, when using uncoded M-mount lenses on their cameras, they noticed fewer red-edge problems when focusing more closely. Based on that experience, I'd expect close-focusing with Hawk's adapter to provide a reduction in red edge on the NEX 7 (for example). However, the extent of any reduction is another matter... Nettar

  5. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    590
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: NEX-7 problem with CZ85

    Quote Originally Posted by philber View Post
    So the 5N is a really great ultra-small platform for alt glass, delivering very good IQ pretty easily and without fuss. Perfect for shooters who want a platform for a variety of existing glass, or use it as a "take-anywhere-shoot-any-time-and-any-place" camera.
    That, the 7 is not, and it will punish you for trying. BUT, as a small-ish platform for chosen glass shot carefully, it will produce IQ that is on a par with the absolute best DSLRs, with the exception of what a FF sensor can do (very thin DOF).
    I rest my case (and the pot)
    fair enough

  6. #56
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: NEX-7 problem with CZ85

    I'm gonna lazily repost my comment from another forum:

    Has anyone shot resolution tests with the WATE on the 5N vs. the 7? This isn't about whether a lens performs good enough at the edges of the 7, it's about whether the 7 is still needlessly robbing edge resolution compared to other cameras. Maybe the WATE is very good on the 7, but perhaps it is supposed to be very, very, very good? We're starting to see more and more Nex-7 test examples, but I'd imagine that in another six months, once some are willing to take the time to shoot actual test targets, we'll get a sense of what is going on. Right now, it's still a lot of opinion based observation.

    Remember, Klaus was attempting to use the Nex-7 as a basis for lens testing, so he cant use a camera that potentially has such wide swings in edge performance, depending on the lens design. It doesn't mean that the camera is unusable in real life, just his tests. Imagine trying to do Nex lens testing when the 5, 5N and 7 all seemingly have different reactions to edge performance. What a nightmare.

    Being that the 5N was such a step up in edge performance from the 5, it seems odd that Sony would go backwards with the 7's corners, leading me to believe the 5N may have just been a happy accident.

  7. #57
    Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    3,026
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1117

    Re: NEX-7 problem with CZ85

    Can someone help me understand how a camera manufacturer takes an OEM sensor (from Sony) and tunes it in their own way. We know, for instance, that the Ricoh M-mount has been thoroughly tested and shown to have very little adverse IQ in corners for RF lenses. Sean Reid's tests of the 5N against the M-mount are very exhaustive and come out firmly in favor of the Ricoh.
    Ricoh uses offset micro lenses and takes off the AA filter. I assume they do this themselves to a "bare" Sony OEM sensor? I guess Sony does not do that for them?
    Does this mean that Ricoh have some special know-how to get their sensor to perform better? If not, why doesn't Sony do what Ricoh does. I would like Ricoh use the same mojo on the Nex 7 sensor.

    Keith

  8. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    187
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: NEX-7 problem with CZ85

    Because Sony wants you to buy e-mount lenses.

    They didn't design these cameras specifically for using M mount lenses like Ricoh did.

    The fact that the NEX sometimes works with M lenses well is a happy accident for users but camera makers make money on lens sales, not quite as much on bodies.

  9. #59
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: NEX-7 problem with CZ85

    Quote Originally Posted by woodmancy View Post
    Can someone help me understand how a camera manufacturer takes an OEM sensor (from Sony) and tunes it in their own way. We know, for instance, that the Ricoh M-mount has been thoroughly tested and shown to have very little adverse IQ in corners for RF lenses. Sean Reid's tests of the 5N against the M-mount are very exhaustive and come out firmly in favor of the Ricoh.
    Ricoh uses offset micro lenses and takes off the AA filter. I assume they do this themselves to a "bare" Sony OEM sensor? I guess Sony does not do that for them?
    Does this mean that Ricoh have some special know-how to get their sensor to perform better? If not, why doesn't Sony do what Ricoh does. I would like Ricoh use the same mojo on the Nex 7 sensor.

    Keith
    To tell you the truth, we don't actually know whether the "special" micro lenses are anything more than marketing speak, like with the M9. Removing the AA filter could be the only real difference between how the GXR and the 5N behave with symmetrical wides. Who knows?

    Removing the AA filter is an entire subject on its own, with both positives and negatives. The major camera companies generally tend to use AA filters, because they feel the positives outweigh the negatives, but, with a camera like NEX that has such a short registration distance, I agree that they should've gone ahead and yanked it, as it would not only improve rangefinder lens performance at the edges, but also e-mount lens performance (slr lenses, too, to a lessor extent.) Granted, I'd guess video performance is another reason Sony is shackled to using AA filters. Ricoh, Fuji and Leica don't have to cater to the video crowd, much, but Sony is forced to make video compromises.

  10. #60
    Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    3,026
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1117

    Re: NEX-7 problem with CZ85

    Thanks Douglas:

    The 16Mp sensor on the new Ricoh GXR zoom will be interesting as Ricoh have said there is no AA filter on it - so this should be the same as a 5N "unplugged"

    Keith

  11. #61
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: NEX-7 problem with CZ85

    Quote Originally Posted by woodmancy View Post
    Thanks Douglas:

    The 16Mp sensor on the new Ricoh GXR zoom will be interesting as Ricoh have said there is no AA filter on it - so this should be the same as a 5N "unplugged"

    Keith
    Potentially. Granted, I can't say for sure that Ricoh doesn't spend the money on designing new micro lenses, I just doubt it. They also likely use their own color filter, so there would be differences there.

  12. #62
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    3,542
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: NEX-7 problem with CZ85

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    To tell you the truth, we don't actually know whether the "special" micro lenses are anything more than marketing speak, like with the M9. Removing the AA filter could be the only real difference between how the GXR and the 5N behave with symmetrical wides. Who knows?

    Removing the AA filter is an entire subject on its own, with both positives and negatives. The major camera companies generally tend to use AA filters, because they feel the positives outweigh the negatives, but, with a camera like NEX that has such a short registration distance, I agree that they should've gone ahead and yanked it, as it would not only improve rangefinder lens performance at the edges, but also e-mount lens performance (slr lenses, too, to a lessor extent.) Granted, I'd guess video performance is another reason Sony is shackled to using AA filters. Ricoh, Fuji and Leica don't have to cater to the video crowd, much, but Sony is forced to make video compromises.
    Speaking of video. Is there any way to disable that pesky red video button that always seems to get accidentally turned on at the wrong moment?
    Carl
    Gallery

  13. #63
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: NEX-7 problem with CZ85

    Unfortunately, no. Disabling the video button has been a common firmware update request.

  14. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    590
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: NEX-7 problem with CZ85

    For M and LTM even the current M module for the GXR seems way ahead.

    Even the focusing is apparently more accurate--but uglier.

    I just hope my 5n lasts untill we have FF EVIL with decent sensor.

  15. #65
    Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    3,026
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1117

    Re: NEX-7 problem with CZ85

    This one works fine with no corner issues. Maxxum lenses fit the Nex well with the LA-EA1 adapter - nice handling package (even lighter with the Nex 5n)

    Keith


  16. #66
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,610
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: NEX-7 problem with CZ85

    I happened stumble upon a 28mm T/S that I used to use on Nikon DSLRs and tried it on the NEX-7. Tilted to more than 15 deg. No worries.

  17. #67
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: NEX-7 problem with CZ85


  18. #68
    Senior Member thrice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,266
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: NEX-7 problem with CZ85

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    I happened stumble upon a 28mm T/S that I used to use on Nikon DSLRs and tried it on the NEX-7. Tilted to more than 15 deg. No worries.
    Surely shift would be much more problematic than tilt, you don't change the incident angle very much with front tilt... *view camera 101*

  19. #69
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,610
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: NEX-7 problem with CZ85

    Excellent point , Daniel! However, the particular 28mm T/S lens I tried has to shift during the tilting process and the degree of movements affecting the incident angle is determined by the exit pupil.

    No worries at all with the NEX-7 when I compare how that lens performed on a 10mp Nikon DSLR.

  20. #70
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    38
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: NEX-7 problem with CZ85

    Lloyd Chambers suggest that a thick cover glass is the problem with the NEX-7. This would concur with what Zeis is saying about the use of certain lenses on digital (cover glass/filter interferes with edge performance of certain lenses).

    http://diglloyd.com/...ro1-sensor.html

  21. #71
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,610
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: NEX-7 problem with CZ85

    There is no useful link.

    Do you know how much glass is involved and how much is too much?!

    FYI, Nikon DSLRs have far too much glass between the sensor and the lens than the Sony NEXs.

    Typically, ~3.5mm (total) for Nikon and ~2.2mm (total) for Sony. m4/3rds have ~5mm (!) of glass.

  22. #72
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    38
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: NEX-7 problem with CZ85

    If you look at page 12 of this paper, it is explicitly mentioned that Leica uses thin glass to make the M digital work with rangefinder lenses (in this case the biogon design).

    http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/wp-c...s_Distagon.pdf

  23. #73
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,610
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: NEX-7 problem with CZ85

    Yes, I am aware of that.

    That does not mean

    1. Zeiss performs better than Leica lenses on M digital bodies.

    2. Llyod Chambers isn't the author and the earlier link posted gets nowhere.

    3. Nikon and others have thicker glass on the sensor than the NEX- a fact.

    So, this hypothesis that NEX has more glass on the sensor than others and presumably manufactures a non existent problem is incorrect.

  24. #74
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    38
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: NEX-7 problem with CZ85

    I do not think it is a not existing problem. I also think it is not such a big deal as suggested on some places. But I do see, for myself, that the CZ85mm f1.4 performs better, edges and corners, on the 5n as it does on the 7.
    I also think the 7 is a brilliant little camera, but it is a pity that Sony has not used the same ‘solution’ as they have used on the 5n.

  25. #75
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,610
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: NEX-7 problem with CZ85

    For the money, it is a lot. Can't say the same thing about the lenses though.

    The Fuji X Pro 1 is a bit more expensive but looks (not the appearance) a lot better. The lenses there have no such issues, it seems.

  26. #76
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: NEX-7 problem with CZ85

    Have there been any further updates to this potential issue?

  27. #77
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Varese Italy
    Posts
    226
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: NEX-7 problem with CZ85

    I think that a problem exists.
    I have been testing a few leica r lenses on the nex 7, and particularly on the
    elmarit 19 II and elmarit 35 I noticed soft borders and corners.
    Those lenses are retrofocus design, and should be perfectly compatible with
    the nex so at beginning I attributed the fault to the lenses.
    I was planning to use the lenses on a (still unavailable) d800, so I borrowed
    a D700 to see if the problem persisted with this camera also.
    To my surprise, and in particular the elmarit 19, the leicas were quite sharp
    on the whole field at infinity.
    The following test seems to indicate strong field curvature at the lateral borders
    of the nex7 sensor.

    Full image on d700, elmarit 19- f5,6-infinity focus

    DSC_6231 by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr

    D700 crop

    DSC_6231a by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr

    nex 7 full image elmarit 19-f5,6-infinity


    _DSC0852 by sergio lovisolo,
    on Flickr

    nex 7 crop

    _DSC0852a by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr

    It seems to me that while the crop from the d700 is out of focus as correct,for
    a shot taken at infinity, the crop from the same image area with the nex7 is in full focus while in other shots with all image at infinity that same area is soft.

    Note that apparently the same image taken with the kit lens at 19 on the same
    conditions is out of focus in correspondence of the crop.

    Suspects?

    Sergio
    a
    Last edited by sergio lovisolo; 7th May 2012 at 10:56.

  28. #78
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: NEX-7 problem with CZ85

    Wow, Sergio, that's a pretty wild test result. Something certainly seems strange there.

    FWIW, according to some on other forums, this phenomena may not be limited to the NEX-7. From what I understand, the D3x shows a much flatter field at the sensor edges than the A900 when using the same lens. It apparently has to do with sensor toppings.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •