Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Sony NEX-7 review  (Read 20356 times)
urbanpicasso
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64



WWW
« Reply #40 on: October 17, 2011, 10:54:48 AM »
ReplyReply

"I have the new EA2 and am using it on a NEX-5n, and will be reporting on it here soon."

That's great to hear. I've been interested in whether the mirror or the possibility of a thicker AA filter has an effect, if any, on slight image  differences between sensors used on NEX vs Alpha APSC slrs. Most, 99%, of my work is static. I've been on the fence between the Nex 7 and the A77 as well as the LE-AE1 vs LE-AE2. I have a stable of Alpha lenses, to compliment my A900, that I was hoping to use while waiting for a full frame upgrade. Slow auto focus is not a big deal as I would often use the zoom live view/ peaking for critical focus.

david
Logged
Lonnie Utah
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 246


« Reply #41 on: October 17, 2011, 11:33:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Erik. Does the older adapter allow auto focus with Alpha & Minolta AF lenses as well (albeit maybe slower?)

The la-ea1 will only autofocus Alpha mount lenses that have a built in focus motor.  Here is the list of Alpha Lenses with SAM or SSM:
Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 24mm f/2 ZA SSM (36 mm - equivalent focal length on the NEX)
CZ Vario-Sonnar® T* 16-35 mm f2.8 Zoom SSM (24 - 52.5 mm)
CZ Vario-Sonnar® T* 24-70 mm f2.8 Zoom SSM (36 - 105 mm)
Sony Alpha 30mm f/2.8 Macro Lens SAM (45mm)
SA 35 mm f/1.8 SAM (52.5 mm)
SA 50 mm f/1.8 SAM (75 mm)
SA 85 mm f/2.8 SAM (127.5 mm)
SA 300 mm f/2.8 G SSM (450 mm)
SA DT 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 Zoom Lens SAM (27 - 82.5 mm)
SA 28-75 mm f/2.8 Zoom Lens SAM (42 - 112.5 mm)
SA 55-200 mm f/4-5.6 Zoom Lens SAM (82.5 - 300 mm)
SA 70-200mm f/2.8 G SSM (105 - 300 mm)
SA 70-300 mm f/4-5.6 G Zoom Lens SSM (105 - 450 mm)
SA 70-400 mm f/4-5.6 G Zoom Lens SSM (105 - 600 mm)

Certain Sigma lenses with HSM will also work, but the results have been sporadic.  My Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 works on my NEX-5 with the la-ea1. 

However, with the peaking feature, MF is so easy, it's almost faster to focus that way than to wait on the slower CD-AF...
Logged
Dave Gurtcheff
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473


« Reply #42 on: October 17, 2011, 12:54:57 PM »
ReplyReply

The EA1 allows autofocus using the NEX camera's contrast detection. It's slow with A mount lenses because they weren't designed for it.

The EA2 uses the complete phase detection autofocus system as found in the A65 and A77 cameras, and is very fast. SSM lenses are the fastest, SAM next, and older screww thread the slowest - though still now worse than on an Alpha camera.

I have the new EA2 and am using it on a NEX-5n, and will be reporting on it here soon.

Michael

Thank you Michael. Appreciate your input.
Dave
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4916



« Reply #43 on: October 17, 2011, 04:58:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Lonnie,

The EA2 even works with screw drive lenses like the 135mm f/1.8 Zeiss. Just the same as on an A77 and with the same speed.

Michael
Logged
Fritzer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 211


« Reply #44 on: October 18, 2011, 01:00:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Lonnie,

The EA2 even works with screw drive lenses like the 135mm f/1.8 Zeiss. Just the same as on an A77 and with the same speed.

Michael


I'm very much looking forward to read about your findings .
Logged
Lonnie Utah
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 246


« Reply #45 on: October 18, 2011, 01:32:56 PM »
ReplyReply

The EA2 even works with screw drive lenses like the 135mm f/1.8 Zeiss. Just the same as on an A77 and with the same speed.

I understand that, but that wasn't the question that was asked. 
Logged
bobtowery
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #46 on: October 23, 2011, 05:06:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Here is a substantial (shooting, not technical) review of the NEX-7, with Sony and Leica lenses:

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/10/23/the-sony-nex-7-digital-camera-review-by-steve-huff/

Enjoy (whilst we wait for Michael's review...) Bob.
Logged

adanac
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #47 on: November 03, 2011, 09:56:46 AM »
ReplyReply

With rumours of some limited availability of NEX-7's persisting, some of us holding pre-orders that might yet be filled must be wondering how Leica and other M glass holds up on the NEX-7.

Unfortunately, as seen in the limited sampling published by others, it looks like edge colour casts are likely back after having disappeared in the updated NEX-5N.

But what of edge detail? The first versions of the NEX-3 and NEX-5 showed detail smearing problems on the edges; that went away with the 5N and possibly also with the C3.

I could live with fixing magenta shift in shots done with wider angle rangefinder lenses as long as edge details are preserved and not mangled.

I'm hoping Michael has had an opportunity to revisit the NEX-7 with some Leica glass mounted so we can know what the real scoop is. If edge performance is compromised unlike with the 5N, I'd happily hand my pre-order spot over to someone intending to use native or adapted A mount glass only.

Mike
Logged
allegretto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 630


« Reply #48 on: November 04, 2011, 05:45:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Just received word that my NEX-7 will be shipped on 11/11/11 (how prophetic)

anyone have an earlier date?

already have the A77 and am very impressed with the "kit" 16-50 and the Z's. will be very pleased if the NEX gives the same degree of IQ. Comparing the A77 to the M9 shows only slightly better IQ at large crops. Even then minimal delta. As far as M-glass on NEX I cannot see why it would be optimal. The M's are for a totally different sensor geometry/design.

"Published MTF's"Huh? Learned a long time ago to not trust slick marketing sheets. real world can be far different in many devices with "published" specs. I tend to trust what I see.

if the NEX is as good as hoped for, may just sell the M and all the lenses. Buy an RRS tripod... Arca-Cube (possessed by a strange lust for this item) etc.
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4916



« Reply #49 on: November 04, 2011, 07:10:46 AM »
ReplyReply

As soon as I have a NEX-7 in my hands again (hopefully next week) I'll be doing some extensive testing with my Leica lenses.

Michael
Logged
adanac
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #50 on: November 04, 2011, 02:51:26 PM »
ReplyReply

allegretto - there's a lot of interest in M lenses on NEX from folks who have them (or adapted LTM lenses). There seems to be significant new interest in M lenses on NEX from those who are willing to buy new to fill perceived holes in Sony's lens line up, or who want a somewhat more compact package. That last point is debatable - I have some full frame Contax/Yashica glass which isn't any longer, despite the larger Contax-NEX adapter, than an adapted M lens in the same focal length. It is however a little wider. My reasons are simple: I have M glass but am no longer shooting film and am unwilling to purchase a M9. Cameras like the GXR or NEX-7 (or 5N) make a lot of sense for me, at least until an affordable M-capable full frame camera shows up on the market. Ricoh maybe? Perhaps in 2012 we'll see a maker bring out a full frame compact that can take adapted lenses and I'll get back the perspective the lens designers intended for my M glass.

Michael - I predict your site will see a massive influx of traffic once you post your findings. There is a lot of interest in this topic.
Logged
allegretto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 630


« Reply #51 on: November 04, 2011, 07:37:41 PM »
ReplyReply

allegretto - there's a lot of interest in M lenses on NEX from folks who have them (or adapted LTM lenses). There seems to be significant new interest in M lenses on NEX from those who are willing to buy new to fill perceived holes in Sony's lens line up, or who want a somewhat more compact package. That last point is debatable - I have some full frame Contax/Yashica glass which isn't any longer, despite the larger Contax-NEX adapter, than an adapted M lens in the same focal length. It is however a little wider. My reasons are simple: I have M glass but am no longer shooting film and am unwilling to purchase a M9. Cameras like the GXR or NEX-7 (or 5N) make a lot of sense for me, at least until an affordable M-capable full frame camera shows up on the market. Ricoh maybe? Perhaps in 2012 we'll see a maker bring out a full frame compact that can take adapted lenses and I'll get back the perspective the lens designers intended for my M glass.

Michael - I predict your site will see a massive influx of traffic once you post your findings. There is a lot of interest in this topic.

I get it. Sorry didn't mean to be pedantic. I have an M9 with 28/35 /50 all -crons and it would be cool if I could use them on the NEX when it comes. But actually I like the A77 vs. the M9 head to head (Z-zoom vs. M-lens) right now. Maybe the M's would help the A77 be clearer... but it really looks good now. Not the same color balance as the M9 (or any Leica) to be sure, but very sharp and comparable on that basis when focus is good with each. Neither can match the S2, that's another world. But with a system as the A77 and NEX and some good glass I'm wondering if I'll need the M-system, except as a different type of adventure....
Logged
adanac
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #52 on: November 04, 2011, 10:08:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Understood. I also agree that the combo of RF lenses and compact digitals may not (always) be optimal, but given the experience of many with the NEX-5N, there is some reason to be hopeful that the NEX-7/M lens combo is worthwhile which would be good news for existing M glass owners or those few who care to build new systems using them. If not, the 5N remains a refuge. One nice thing about the M glass is the potential for less vendor lock in. Hopefully NEX and Ricoh offerings won't be the end of choice going forward.
Logged
Tord S Eriksson
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #53 on: December 12, 2011, 06:57:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Erik...Thanks for your perspective on my ponderings. I located what seems to be an appropriate tripod collar, which is the very one designed to go on the Novoflex adapters I have been considering for use on the nex 7, for Nikon f and Canon fd. As Novoflex apparently offers collars only for nex adapters, this fact seems to echo your thoughts about the relevancy to the strength of the nex mount, of Sony's offering tripod mounts for both of their nex adapters to A-mount lenses. Of course, with any collar, there is always the issue of lens weight vs solidity of collar. If at any point extra strength is needed, a special plate could probably be contrived which utilizes an attachment point at the collar and at the camera, similar in principle to the one by Kirk that was used with the Nikon pn-11 spacer for the Nikon ais 300 4.5 edif. If all goes well in the next few months, I will post any results that come about.

My wife bought the E 18-200 for her 5N, and as the weight of that lens is quite big we were not happy with attaching it to a tripod via the tripod mount on the camera - feels rather wobbly, I'd say. But salvation was at hand, in the form of SRB-Griturn in the UK, which made a nice collar for the lens, that has a very rigid tripod mount. It is detachable and held in place by a single screw - better would three screws have been as the lens barrel is fairly soft, being a metal/plastic mix. But it is OK, as long as you don't tighten the screw too much!
Logged
falconeye
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #54 on: December 12, 2011, 08:15:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi. I've read the test articles and really enjoyed them. Thanks a lot!

I would like to make a minor remark though ...

You (correctly) saw the need to resample the higher resolution NEX7 images to do a pixel-peeping noise comparison to the NEX5N. You used Bicubic Sharper to downsample the images. This is not something one should do in this situation.

Let me explain why: The larger 5N pixels do a kind of binning collecting photons into 1 pixel which hit separate pixels with the 7. This is best replicated when using the bilinear method in Photoshop. Bicubic or Bicubic Sharper adds sharpening which adds noise. You end up with images which are too sharp and too noisy to be compared. Sharpening isn't actually needed for downsampled images if you can live with the sharpness of an ideal lens and ideal sensor. Anything beyond is actually sharper than a computer-generated image would be ... So. comparing at the level of ideal lenses and sensors is ok and then bilinear should be good enough too.

However, this is not enough. The original 5N image is the output of the demosaicing process and cannot be compared directly with a downsampled image. Its noise and contrast characteristics are different. It is better to downsample the images from both cameras, 7 and 5N, to a common target size (like 8MP or 4MP) and only then compare noise at the pixel level.
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4916



« Reply #55 on: December 12, 2011, 10:40:03 AM »
ReplyReply

I won't disagree with your theory, but my practice shows that appropriate resampling needs to be done with a measure of sharpening to be worthwhile. Straight Bicubic may be technically more accurate, but it makes images appear softer than they might be. Using Bicubic sharper usually leeds to a more appropriate look, but one has to watch out for artifacts.

For web display, which is what I do here, it's the best choice. If I was aiming for prints only then I would likely not choose it.

Michael
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad