New look at NEX-7 with Lux M 24mm

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...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)...

Would you have a link where i can see such acceptable results with M wides?

[Sp12]

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.

 

I googled it and you're right. I've basically entirely changed my opinion on Sony now.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Matus Kalisky]

Would you have a link where i can see such acceptable results with M wides?

 

1) Steve Huff: NEX-5N and NEX-7 with VC 15/4.5

- NEX-5N

- NEX-7

- The FULL article (though dedicated to GXR vs NEX-7)

 

2) And if you read with care (not the most pleasant thread to get through) than THIS post shows some photos taken with the Voigtlander 12/5.6 and while the NEX-5N tend to look a bit worse than those from GXR (this is just a user test) there are no additional problems showing in corners.

 

3) NEX-5 versus NEX-5N with 12/5.6 HERE

 

4) A few samples form flickr NEX-5N:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

... looks quite OK to me, however some users do report worse results ...

6,

 

NEX-7 is unfortunately much worse with wide lenses - I have read that its sensor does not have the micro-lensing.

 

Just remember - the corners with lenses this wide (12, 15) are not going to be really perfect, but the results from NEX-5N or GXR are more than usable with only little degradation in color. And there are of course things like CornerFIX, though I do not have any experience there.

 

Please note: I am not pushing the NEX-5N (I personally would prefer the GXR anyhow ), just sharing what I saw

[lct]

...NEX-7 is unfortunately much worse with wide lenses...

That's what i understood as well. Thanks for sharing.

[mmradman]

That's what i understood as well. Thanks for sharing.

 

Did you actually read review on Luminous Landscapes? It is not perfect but it works well with some wides without PP and some need bit of Cornerfix, same as some other well known rangefinders according to the review.

[Matus Kalisky]

Indeed - not all wide lenses produce the same corner issues - it depends on the design. The more retrofocus give wide angle lens the less issues it introduces. Leica M9 is in the same league there - it has microlenses, but that does not solve the whole issue (that is why some wide lenses work fine on M9 and some not and most need to be fixed in camera with software).

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Give me a Ricoh and the EVF of the Nex-7 please. Thanks for sharing again.

[mmradman]

Give me a Ricoh and the EVF of the Nex-7 please. Thanks for sharing again.

 

+1

 

Better still shoehorn GXR module in NEX-7 body, 24MP is way too many, mostly there for marketing effect.

[Matus Kalisky]

Give me a Ricoh and the EVF of the Nex-7 please. Thanks for sharing again.

 

Agreed

[Jaybob]

Give me a Ricoh and the EVF of the Nex-7 please.

 

I think the NEX-5n with the add on VF isn't a bad choice either. It's also a real item, something you can order online and get tomorrow. Dont forget your adapter!

 

For the size of the sensor, my opinion is that 16MP is a more than reasonable amount of data. The NEX5 files that I produce already are huge at 14MP, and the over 20MP count on the NEX 7 is everything that's wrong about digital in the first place.

 

Workable noise levels at 1600/3200. AND a setting for 100!

 

Focus Peaking is a pretty remarkable feature, not just wide open, but at apertures of 5.6 and 8 it can be very helpful as well. Think of it as a 3D representation of where your depth of field is and isnt. Say you have runners coming toward you with a 90mm lens attatched. They're going to be running near a tree. They're not there yet, so you prefocus on that tree. Your DOF chart on your lens says that you have a small amount past the tree and a small amount in front of the tree that will have "acceptable sharpness". With focus peaking turned on, you can aim the camera toward the foiliage next to the tree, and get an accurate visual representation of exactly how deep your DOF is, where it starts and where it ends, because it lights up in either white, red, or yellow.

 

This feature would be great with some of your very expensive and very narrow DOF lenses as well.

 

I turn mine off with the 35, when it's set on smaller apertures, above 5.6, I find it more distracting than helpful.

 

The VF is the deal breaker though. It feels much more natural with a manual focus lens.

 

Jay

Edited December 9, 2011 by Jaybob

[mmradman]

+1

 

Better still shoehorn GXR module in NEX-7 body, 24MP is way too many, mostly there for marketing effect.

 

Let me correct myself on this - Sony please take NEX-5N class sensor and and fit it into NEX-7 body. It is nice marketing gimmick to have APS-C sensor with 24MP but there are hardly many lenses that fully utilise such high quality sensor, most of them are not made by Sony.

 

You will really take photographic world by storm (who ever you may be) if you come up with full frame mirrorless system camera, not a problem for retrofocus wides.

[lct]

...Sony please take NEX-5N class sensor and and fit it into NEX-7 body...

+1

[Jaybob]

Sony please take NEX-5N class sensor and and fit it into NEX-7 body.

 

I'd probably buy that.

 

Since we've veered off into hypotheticals, how great would a Leica camera body be in that market segment? A CL Digital. Interchangable M mount, M8 sized 12.5MP CMOS sensor (or full frame, even), a decent EV with some of that focus assist, and a smaller sized body that was able to produce usuable files shot at 1600, 2000, 2500, and 3200?

 

I'd definately buy that.

 

Hell, I'd buy an M9.2 or an M10 if the files looked better above 640.

 

Jay

[algrove]

I'm new to this pixel argument and this thread has me confused.

 

For Sony or any other manufacturer's cameras which can take Leica M lenses:

 

-In layman's terms, why is 24 MP too much for M lenses?

 

-And further why is 16MP just about right?

 

-Why did Leica end up with 18MP for the M9, then?

[mmradman]

I'm new to this pixel argument and this thread has me confused.

 

For Sony or any other manufacturer's cameras which can take Leica M lenses:

 

-In layman's terms, why is 24 MP too much for M lenses?

 

-And further why is 16MP just about right?

 

-Why did Leica end up with 18MP for the M9, then?

 

It was never intention of Sony marketing department to provide digital solution for any other lens than its own. The fact that CSC (Compact System Cameras) or Mirrorless have very short registry distance or distance between sensor and mounting flange makes these cameras applicable with almost any lens. Here is the rub, CSC cameras are not optimised for any lens. Weather given combination works well or not depends very much on the lens design. Typically lenses made for SLR cameras will perform better on CSC than lenses designed for RF but there are exceptions in both camps.

 

Why is 24MP too much for M lens?

Perhaps it is not. M lenses due to their high quality are among best suited ones to exploit full potential of high density sensors.

 

16MP Sensor

As much as chip makers can squeeze more pixels into smaller area they are not necessarily creating better digital imager overall, only one with higher resolution at the expense of high ISO performance, but things do improve with time. For that reason Sony 16MP sensor as of today have more desirable features than 24MP sensor of the same size.

 

To understand mega pixels in relation to sensor size it is all fundamentally in surface area of the sensor. Full frame sensor is 24x36mm=864mm2 while APS-C is 16x24=384mm2. So APS-C sensor is less than half the area of FF. All is explained elsewhere in far more detail, here google is your friend.

 

Why Leica ended up with 18MP?

It is technology issue and technology develops with time. Short answer is at the time FF 18MP was selected for M9 it was the best senor money could buy and provide Leica with competitive product.

 

Hope above makes sense.

[algrove]

I forgot I was mixing apples and oranges by wanting to compare 24MP or 16MP on an APS versus an 18MP sensor on a FF camera. Many thanks for that reply.

[AlanG]

16MP Sensor

As much as chip makers can squeeze more pixels into smaller area they are not necessarily creating better digital imager overall, only one with higher resolution at the expense of high ISO performance, but things do improve with time. For that reason Sony 16MP sensor as of today have more desirable features than 24MP sensor of the same size.

 

 

That is a very debatable point. It depends on one's needs. Some applications put a premium on resolution over higher ISO. Why do you think MF digital cameras still sell?

[kdriceman]

All other things being equal, the 16MP sensor will likely deliver better high ISO results, but the 24MP sensor will allow for larger prints to be made. So, it does depend upon the objective of the photographer.

[lct]

Printing billboards? This race for pixel quantity has little to do with photography.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Sp12]

-In layman's terms, why is 24 MP too much for M lenses?

 

-And further why is 16MP just about right?

 

-Why did Leica end up with 18MP for the M9, then?

 

In order.

 

1. Many M lenses cannot perform well when scrutinized at 24MP APS-C densities.

 

2. Many people have limited usage for files or don't understand information theory, so they prefer reduced megapixel counts because they save space and allow for processing, and more would never be used by them.

 

3. Kodak made the sensor and Leica was able to source electronics to handle about that throughput for 2 FPS.

 

All other things being equal, the 16MP sensor will likely deliver better high ISO results, but the 24MP sensor will allow for larger prints to be made. So, it does depend upon the objective of the photographer.

 

Actually, if you look at the LL NEX-7 article the NEX-7 and 5n perform near identically when you downsize the 7's 24MP file to 16MP.