Guest badbob Posted June 22, 2010 Share #41 Posted June 22, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I do not think its the size, coz i use the X1 and its roughly the same size. One possibility could be the AF itself, the other would be the heavy feel of the shutter which can exaggerate camera shake...of course there is a third, which is the trial set is defective. On the Panasonic G1, there is an option (set by default) to not allow the camera to record a photo until the image is in focus. If there were such an option on the Sony, you could quickly establish the problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 22, 2010 Posted June 22, 2010 Hi Guest badbob, Take a look here Sony NEX 5 vs Leica x1. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
h00ligan Posted June 23, 2010 Share #42 Posted June 23, 2010 On the Panasonic G1, there is an option (set by default) to not allow the camera to record a photo until the image is in focus. If there were such an option on the Sony, you could quickly establish the problem. To me the Sony is just not an option.. and I'm a newcomer relatively to the art. I look at that camera and it stinks of auto mode.. which will not equal a camera with good manual, or even user adjustable auto modes. Besides the blatant quality issues with the lens (which even I can spot) the ui on top makes it worthless. One could argue Zeiss lenses, but at that point, aren't we close to squaring up on price? I don't want a camera I have to test endlessly for focus issues (although prosumer dslr's offer this feature I'd probably just send it to the manufacturer for calibration). Again, just some thoughts from a newcomer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted July 2, 2010 Share #43 Posted July 2, 2010 I got to check out the NEX-3 w/ 16mm lens today. Honestly, it really isn't that bad at all. The menus aren't that horrible really. Manual, AP, and SP modes are easy to use and don't require menu diving. The 16mm lens and the body felt nice in my hand and do not feel cheap at all. AF is faster than the X1... more towards the GF1. I didn't make photos with it, so I can't comment on the IQ. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardM8 Posted July 2, 2010 Share #44 Posted July 2, 2010 Disney Studios designed the user interface.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted July 2, 2010 Share #45 Posted July 2, 2010 I think some of you are going to be shocked when DXO scores the X1. In my informal testing against the GXR A12 it just flat out has better IQ despite having a lens that does not measure up to the Ricoh. DXO ranked it above the M8 and it matched the M9 or exceeded it in some parameters. Not bad for a Disney Studio Design! Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/123107-sony-nex-5-vs-leica-x1/?do=findComment&comment=1368101'>More sharing options...
h00ligan Posted July 2, 2010 Share #46 Posted July 2, 2010 Photographs have repeatedly shown that dxo sensor scores deserve much less weight than many give. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted July 2, 2010 Share #47 Posted July 2, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Photographs have repeatedly shown that dxo sensor scores deserve much less weight than many give. DXO Acknowledges that there are other factors as indicated by their added section on including lenses and the software processing both in camera and afterwards play large rolls; however, the sensor is the eyes of the camera and while other things can equalize or mitigate a weaker sensor like glasses do for a person, ultimately one cannot achieve more that the limits set by the sensor. For example, a better sensor with a weaker lens may produce an inferior image to a camera with a weaker sensor but a superior lens; however, the one can be readily improved while the other is at its limits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
h00ligan Posted July 2, 2010 Share #48 Posted July 2, 2010 I understand the logistics - and I just went to dpreview to start going through shots taken by users there. Most of them are awful so far. There's a thread titled nex-3 at iso 6400, The first shot included inline was shot at iso 200, with the 16mm (linked below). I was SHOCKED to read someone say 'images look good' (I did go and look at the full res samples linked). They are really really bad to my eyes. Even for a random 'i went out and shot this to test the cam' they look bad. I get the 16mm is the weaker lens - and some of the other nex shots were substantially better than that thread would indicate but there are a few recurring themes I am seeing with the nex based on the early shots: Overexposure, lack of detail/sharpness, seeming focus issues (or the people just don't know how to take shots in focus), weird colour. I'd love to see some real world side by side comparisons, maybe the first batch of user photos over there are not a good batch on which to base any judgment, especially as it seems many are PAS upgraders and may be missing out on some of the ways to get better photos. The panoramic mode seems nice, I personally don't have much use for it. I did see your comparison post over there, which was definitely at the top of the samples shown - so maybe it really is all operator error. One thing seems clear though, my eyes are either bad / I'm ignorant - or there are a lot of new nex users over there that think what they shot represents quality while it doesn't. It's not even close to me, there are huge problems with the shots. Based on the shots I'm seeing I don't think it's even close to the gf1 or pen, which gets edged out by the x1 up to 800 and blown away beyond. Here's a link to samples provided over there http://dboyd.com/Nex3 Here's the shot I thought was awful that others said looked great. http://dboyd.com/Nex3/D90_DSC_2313raw.jpg I'm honestly open to hearing I'm wrong - do other members here think this shot looks good in any way? barjohn as a nex owner do you think this was all operator error? Maybe the ss was too low, the white balance was off, and they overexposed? It would take all three of those to me to make a shot that bad. Maybe they used auto? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I genuinely want to know what others are seeing in this camera that I don't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted July 2, 2010 Share #49 Posted July 2, 2010 Here's the shot I thought was awful that others said looked great - is it me?http://dboyd.com/Nex3/D90_DSC_2313raw.jpg No, it's not you. That's dreadful. I can post a link to a full sized GF-1 20mm image if you like <grin> Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
h00ligan Posted July 2, 2010 Share #50 Posted July 2, 2010 No, it's not you. That's dreadful. I can post a link to a full sized GF-1 20mm image if you like <grin> Have a look through the rest of the index - looking at the name indicates the compression..aside from the first i believe the originals are just filenames with no indicator....they don't get better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted July 2, 2010 Share #51 Posted July 2, 2010 Maybe you need to take a look at some of the shots taken in this thread by Terry. One other point, there aren't any good raw converters available yet for the NEX files. Fun with the NEX cameras.... - The GetDPI Photography Forums Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
h00ligan Posted July 2, 2010 Share #52 Posted July 2, 2010 I saw those at dpreview too - again, below iso800 I still think the pens and gf1 are sharper, let alone the x1. Those are a much better representation by someone who obviously knows what they are doing more than the images to which I linked. Perhaps the difference between the two kits is also that vast. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted July 2, 2010 Share #53 Posted July 2, 2010 Here is a quick screen capture of an ISO 1600 snap taken under poor lighting conditions 1/8 sec f4.5. The screen capture is from BibblePro 5. I am using a screen capture because for some reason exports change color from what I see on screen. At least this way you can critisize the camera, the photographer or both. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/123107-sony-nex-5-vs-leica-x1/?do=findComment&comment=1368175'>More sharing options...
h00ligan Posted July 2, 2010 Share #54 Posted July 2, 2010 I think maybe the screen capture is not the way to go, that looks very soft to me, which is probably due to the screen cap. Pretty lady! What software does sony ship with? Does it have issues exporting? Maybe camera blur in the above shot - or focus issue? Again probably just the fact it's a screen cap. Edit, it just dawned on me.. noise reduction causing the bur? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted July 2, 2010 Share #55 Posted July 2, 2010 Frankly, the software Sony ships for use on the Mac is terrible. LR 3 that I use doesn't yet have the ability to convert NEX files or a proper color profile. The BibblePro 5 I used is still a bit quirky but did better than LR 3 did on the JPGs. As to softness, consider there may be some camera shake at 1/8th sec hand held and ISO 1600 under very low light and the light behind the subject with virtually no frontal lighting (some off to one side). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
h00ligan Posted July 2, 2010 Share #56 Posted July 2, 2010 Yah, I figured when I saw the shutter speed. Was that shot raw? I appreciate your willingness to share your findings, I'm really not trying to cause issues - more curious as to what others are seeing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted July 2, 2010 Share #57 Posted July 2, 2010 I shot in RAW + JPG. This was a conversion from RAW. I also did a manipulation in LR of the JPG which I include here. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/123107-sony-nex-5-vs-leica-x1/?do=findComment&comment=1368259'>More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted July 2, 2010 Share #58 Posted July 2, 2010 John, it still looks soft - but that could be an AF problem. The skin tone looks better, but it's still not right IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
h00ligan Posted July 2, 2010 Share #59 Posted July 2, 2010 The raw def looks better after processing. Not enough to convince me yet Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted July 3, 2010 Share #60 Posted July 3, 2010 Here is a quick flower snap. JPG only in LR 3. ISO 200, 33mm f4.5 1/1700. Along with a 100% crop. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/123107-sony-nex-5-vs-leica-x1/?do=findComment&comment=1368289'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.