Jump to content

The Leica Forum uses cookies. Read the privacy statement for more info. To remove this message, please click the button to the right:    OK, understood.

Photo
- - - - -

New look at NEX-7 with Lux M 24mm


  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

#1 mmradman

mmradman

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 1,291 posts
  • City / Ort:UK

Posted 06 December 2011 - 18:08

Advertisement (Gone after free registration)
For some of you this is old news Luminous Landscapes are re-doing NEX-7 review, this time Lux 24mm is focused more carefully and it shows its true colours.
Review is heavily Sony biased but images speak for themselves. It doesn't mean that Sony/Zeiss lenses are total rubbish but that little camera has real something.

Sony NEX-7 Rolling Review


Leica response to EVIL threat and in light of Leica stated plans to increase market share - discuss.

Edited by mmradman, 06 December 2011 - 18:15.

Regards,

Mladen

#2 Sp12

Sp12

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 194 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 03:36

Sony is absolute rubbish and that review is clearly biased. There's no way we should be comparing that toy lens/camera with a Leica.

#3 Shade

Shade

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 802 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 03:49

I don't think it comes down to rubbish, but I applaud Sony for taking a different and bold approach to the camera game. And I think it targets just right at the market segment that wants a range finder, but don't want a too mechanical camera, yet gives high resolution results.

Good or bad is for each of our own to decide. :)

#4 eleskin

eleskin

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 334 posts
  • City / Ort:Allentown Pennsylvania USA

Posted 07 December 2011 - 05:53

I own 2 M8's and have a full collection of Leica M lenses and tested the M9 3 times and I can tell you the NEX 5n I just bought is not junk. It can do things the M8 and M9 cannot in certain situations. Evf focus peaking with my Noctilux is great, especially with moving subjects like my 7 year old daughter. High IS0 is superior and adds to what M lenses can do. And of corse you get HD video. Not bad for $599 USD. It is not an M replacement but it complements any digital M well as another tool in the bag to add more capability. Nice thing is the NEX 5n is small and fits in my camera bag with my M8, Noctilux, 35mm f1.2 Nokton and 15mm Super Wide Heliar with no difficulty at all.
  • vanhulsenbeek, colonel and sydkugelmass said thank you to this

#5 Ecaton

Ecaton

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 1,707 posts
  • City / Ort:USA

Posted 07 December 2011 - 10:27

Sony is absolute rubbish and that review is clearly biased. There's no way we should be comparing that toy lens/camera with a Leica.


It is always refreshing to read such articulate and educated views, which are evidently based on extensive hands on experience of the poster. Not that I'd own a Sony, nor that I'm lusting after one.:rolleyes:
  • Eastgreenlander, colonel, kdriceman and 3 others said thank you

#6 lct

lct

    Ex-Newbie

  • Members
  • 12,039 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 11:08

Agree but i'd like to know the truth about the Nex-7. Does it produce color shift with M wides or not?

#7 Ecaton

Ecaton

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 1,707 posts
  • City / Ort:USA

Posted 07 December 2011 - 11:22

Agree but i'd like to know the truth about the Nex-7. Does it produce color shift with M wides or not?


As per the LL write up it does. The 5N seems to perform better with M-wides.

#8 lct

lct

    Ex-Newbie

  • Members
  • 12,039 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 11:35

Ah yes i did not scroll down far enough thank you.

#9 jaapv

jaapv

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 38,691 posts
  • LocationBehind a Red Dot

Posted 07 December 2011 - 11:37

According to LL with sy metrical designs yes, with retrofocus designs not.
Jaap

WWW.JAAPVPHOTOGRAPHY.EU

Posts in blue bold font are made as a moderator

Leica user since 1976

#10 anderswi

anderswi

    Benutzer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 11:41

DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

#11 lct

lct

    Ex-Newbie

  • Members
  • 12,039 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 12:13

DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

Which lenses have been used to do this curious comparo?

#12 Jaybob

Jaybob

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 860 posts
  • City / Ort:MD, USA

Posted 07 December 2011 - 13:33

Sony is absolute rubbish and that review is clearly biased. There's no way we should be comparing that toy lens/camera with a Leica.


It seems to me the reviewer is more impressed than biased.

I've been using a first generation NEX-5 with adapted Leica glass for the better part of all of last year. I have never reset the frame count, and I have taken 9115 exposures with it, maybe 35 of those with the Sony lens that came with it. Is the NEX perfect? Hardly. The shutter's WAY too loud, battery life could be better, and the interface, when first faced with it, is not very intuitive. Wide angle performance is not great, but I guess that has something to do with the acute angles that digital sensors take in the certain parts of the light spectrum. I only use the 35, 50, and 90mm focal lengths listed in my signature (52.5, 75, and 135, with the crop factor), mostly the 50. There's no way to connect anything but the crappy flash, and there's no viewfinder. The film speed progression goes 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400 and 12800. I'd like to see intermediate settings, and quite honestly the 6400 and 12800 settings don't really produce anything except an abundance of unfixable color noise. I use it with a Hoodman cinema kit, so I can hold it up to my eye and focus.

I can say, without hesitaiton, that the RAW files that the combination of adapted Leica glass and the NEX5 are capable of, are certainly not rubbish. Unlike Leica's Digital M's, there is a complete use-ability of the files that this camera sensor writes at ISO 1600 and 3200. At 14MP, they are bigger than my D3 NEF files and they have a unique lens signature that no Nikkor can even think about.

I would also contend that with a 50mm Summicron attatched, at ISO 200, 400, or 800, there wouldnt be one person who frequents these forums who could tell the difference between an on-screen cropped jpg from a Sony NEX3, NEX5, or NEX 7, or any variation of the M8 or M9. To me, it's about the lenses, not the digital sensor or the camera that contains the sensor.

I saw the NEX-7 at the PDN Photoplus Expo in NYC about 5 weeks ago. The viewfinder is the real deal, and makes the hoodman strap on unneeded. There is still a proprietary port on the top of it, but now flash shoe can be adapted onto it, something I would get for use with a FreeXwire transmitter. 24MP is pretty impressive as well, but I'm more interested in the addition of the ISO 100. The E-Mount lenses? I'm not convinced. I don't have facts to back this up and I am only basing it on the medium range slow zoom that came with my NEX, but my impression is that performance isn't there yet, and I think they're all too frickin large and clumsy to handle when attached to that body. The Alpha lenses for their DSLR line are impressive (I looked at the 85 1.4 and the 24 2 Zeiss/Sonys that had me thinking), and adaptable to the NEX with autofocus, but they're EVEN BIGGER than the E-mounts.

The NEX-7 body is also only $1200, but unavailable.
The M9-P body is $7995, and also pretty much unavailable.
The NEX-5n body is $599, 16.1MP with an add on viewfinder (that adds $350 to the price)
First generation NEX-5's can be had for $500 with an autofocus lens.
The M to E mount adapter should cost from $100 to $300. Any adapter that you buy for 30 dollars on ebay is probably a piece of trash. (I use a Fotodiox Pro which cost me $90+ shipping)

Those Sony's also shoot pretty high quality video, if you're into that.

Sorry for rambling.
Jay

Edited by Jaybob, 07 December 2011 - 13:45.

  • rickp13, microview, mmradman and 2 others said thank you
M3, M6, adapted NEX-6
Voigtlander 35 1.4 SC, Summicron 50 (rigid), Elmarit 90, Hektor 13.5 cm (along with many Nikon bodies and Nikkor lenses)

Washington DC Wedding Photographers

#13 mmradman

mmradman

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 1,291 posts
  • City / Ort:UK

Posted 07 December 2011 - 15:00

Which lenses have been used to do this curious comparo?


Lenses are irrelevant for DxO sensor testing. My understanding is that DxO scores sensors for High ISO Performance, Dynamic Range and Colour Depth and assigns own DxO score which is currently only public available "objective" measure for most popular camera models.

Some parameters are no brainer; if one DSLR has better ISO score than the other it usually shows in lower noise high ISO pictures. Without fail newer and bigger sensors score higher - bit of physics bit of Moor's Law. From the memory highest DxO scoring camera is medium format beast from PhaseOne but it's form factor is million miles away from M9.

So lets get one thing clear - score of the sensor is not the overall score of the camera.


DxO also carries out scoring of lenses paired with certain sensors but this score table is more controversial. DxO is software developer and as part of its development work measures key parameters of the sensor. DxO dabbled into lens testing as they apply lens corrections into their software so this made them "lens experts" but DxO is not lens testing house.

Edited by mmradman, 07 December 2011 - 15:02.

  • lct likes this
Regards,

Mladen

#14 jaapv

jaapv

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 38,691 posts
  • LocationBehind a Red Dot

Posted 07 December 2011 - 15:08

Lenses are irrelevant for DxO sensor testing. My understanding is that DxO scores sensors for High ISO Performance, Dynamic Range and Colour Depth and assigns own DxO score which is currently only public available "objective" measure for most popular camera models.

Some parameters are no brainer; if one DSLR has better ISO score than the other it usually shows in lower noise high ISO pictures. Without fail newer and bigger sensors score higher - bit of physics bit of Moor's Law. From the memory highest DxO scoring camera is medium format beast from PhaseOne but it's form factor is million miles away from M9.

So lets get one thing clear - score of the sensor is not the overall score of the camera.

DxO also carries out scoring of lenses paired with certain sensors but this score table is more controversial. DxO is software developer and as part of its development work measures key parameters of the sensor. DxO dabbled into lens testing as they apply lens corrections into their software so this made them "lens experts" but DxO is not lens testing house.


Let's get something else clear - DxO does NOT measure sensor output - they measure camera output including any pre-cooking the camera electronics do before the writing of the raw file.
This disqualifies them from any claim of comparability as far as sensor output goes.
  • lct likes this
Jaap

WWW.JAAPVPHOTOGRAPHY.EU

Posts in blue bold font are made as a moderator

Leica user since 1976

#15 mmradman

mmradman

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 1,291 posts
  • City / Ort:UK

Posted 07 December 2011 - 15:14

Jaap, good point, it perhaps worth clarifying that sensor never works in isolation, it is packaged with supporting electronics. For instance same Sony sensor performs differently in different cameras by for instance Sony, Pentax & Nikon.

I think sensor is shorthand for sensor & electronics, analogy would be comparing same film with different developers.

Edit - One more point, this being NEX-7 discussion, same sensor gives different output with Sony's A77 and NEX-7. Different form factor and probably same supporting electronic circuit but extra mirror in the light path of A77.

Edited by mmradman, 07 December 2011 - 15:20.
Edit line added

Regards,

Mladen

#16 jaapv

jaapv

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 38,691 posts
  • LocationBehind a Red Dot

Posted 07 December 2011 - 15:19

Yes - but it leads to people claiming "Nikon has a better sensor than Canon, see DxO." Highly disputable, as Nikon has firmware that is more high-ISO processing oriented than Canon at the present time.
"Leica performs worse than both Canon and Nikon according to DxO." Again unfounded, Leica has minimal in-camera processing compared to C&N. etc,etc....

I would have no problem with their results if they claimed objective measuring of camera output. Right now it is downright misleading. But very pretty graphs...

Edited by jaapv, 07 December 2011 - 15:21.

Jaap

WWW.JAAPVPHOTOGRAPHY.EU

Posts in blue bold font are made as a moderator

Leica user since 1976

#17 mmradman

mmradman

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 1,291 posts
  • City / Ort:UK

Posted 07 December 2011 - 15:25

Ace in Leica's sleeve is its optics, Canon & Nikon shooters who use R lenses would agree.

I have no interest in Sony NEX system other than to get digital solution for my R (& M) collection.
Regards,

Mladen

#18 AlanG

AlanG

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 5,712 posts

Posted 08 December 2011 - 00:03

Sony is absolute rubbish and that review is clearly biased. There's no way we should be comparing that toy lens/camera with a Leica.


I think you are being sarcastic but if not, consider that the Sony cameras are descendants from Minolta which made some cameras and lenses that carried the Leica name.

#19 AlanG

AlanG

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 5,712 posts

Posted 08 December 2011 - 00:14

This is the reason that Stefan Daniels gives. (I have no knowledge about how much light this filter actually absorbs nor do I have an opinion.)

Exclusive: Leica Interview – October 2011 • MegaPixel

Q: If you look at the DXOMARK results of the M9 you can see that the ISO marks are considerably lower than other full frame cameras. Do you see this as one of the major things you would like to improve in the next M version?

A: The reason why this is lower lies in the special circumstances of the M-System. It is quite complicated, but I will try to make it short: M-lenses hit the sensor in a flat angle, therefore they are the most compact on the market and older lenses are compatible with M8 and M9. This flat angle will not allow us to use interference IR cut coating on the sensor cover glass, as this would cause uncontrollable color fringes. Instead of, we use an absorption filter, which is not sensible to different light angles, but does filter much more of the visible light as interference filters, and therefore the signal from the sensor needs to be amplified much more which results in a lower light sensitivity. Of course, having a higher sensitivity of the sensor is an issue and we put a significant amount of effort in improving this.

#20 Matus Kalisky

Matus Kalisky

    Benutzer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 47 posts
  • City / Ort:Germany

Posted 08 December 2011 - 00:36

I do not really get all the bad blood about this particular review. Some time ago there were samples taken with NEX -7 and 24 Summilux which looked really bad, but now we see much different results - the Summilux performs better than the Zeiss 24/1.8 (as one would naively expect - it is $5000 versus $1000). Those who expected "better" corners with the Summilux should realize that NEX-7 (contrary to Nex-5n) does not have microlenses on the sensor and therefore with some wide rangefinder lenses does not perform optimally (though mostly acceptably) - I have seen a few shots taken with Voigtlander 15/4.5 that showed this (over at DPreview somehwere, but also Steve Huff had that impression). But that is all about it, really.

Also - before knocking down people for showing whatever lens performing 'worse than expected" on the Nex-7 relative to M9 - one should realize that Nex-& really taxes the lenses performance wise - 24 Mpix on APS-C would mean about 54 Mpix on full frame - that is a long way from 18 Mpix. In other words - that is hell of pixel peeping. If Leica would put that kind of resolution in M10 I guess many Leica lenses would suddenly not be sharp up to the corners.
  • Sp12 likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic