Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: NEX-7 Rolling Review  (Read 50496 times)
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677



WWW
« Reply #160 on: December 16, 2011, 05:17:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Give a camera to a technician and he'll capture a chart.

Give a camera to a monkey and he'll capture a really rather striking and creative self portrait.

Logged

marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #161 on: December 16, 2011, 05:54:06 PM »
ReplyReply

All this techie stuff on methodology seems to be missing one factor -- that what you want measured isn't what Michael was measuring. What he was doing is very clear. Nothing wrong with what he did -- in fact, that's what most photographers would do if out walking around shooting in the street. It's just not a lab test. Get a  life.
John
Without all the LuLu "techie talk" I never would have gained the understanding of modern digital photography that I have or gained it as quickly or spent so much money on equipment Smiley peace
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1259


« Reply #162 on: December 16, 2011, 06:34:21 PM »
ReplyReply

John
Without all the LuLu "techie talk" I never would have gained the understanding of modern digital photography that I have or gained it as quickly or spent so much money on equipment Smiley peace
Marc

Sure. I read it myself. It's just that many of these guys are setting up straw men -- jumping on Michael for not doing what they wanted him to do, rather than for what he did. Or, saying that what he did isn't what he should have done, or some combination of the above. Suppose you're walking down the street with a 50mm lens on your camera, and you see a fat man with an umbrella jumping over a rain puddle. What do you do, run backwards or forwards, or change lenses, while the guy is in mid-air? You take the shot. This is what you get with a Leica, this is what you get with a NEX. Makes perfect sense to me.

I'm as happy to criticize Michael as the next guy, but there ain't nothin' here. Move along.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8900


« Reply #163 on: December 16, 2011, 07:32:24 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm a bit amazed at all the fuss this comparison from Michael has created.  I appreciate both sides of the argument. I can see that Michael's test in itself would not be particularly useful to those who are undecided whether or not to buy an M9 or NEX-7.

From my perspective, the situation of having just one lens, on which Michael has based his comparison, would rarely apply because I've long since been converted to the convenience of zooms.

As I see it, if one is concerned, perhaps even obsessed with subtle differences in image resolution, then utilising the entire area of the sensor, in whatever camera one is using, is something one would always strive to do.

However, if one is travelling light with an M9 and a Summilux 50mm prime, perhaps attempting to get shots in the manner of Henri Cartier-Bresson, the additional weight of an NEX-7 body is trivial. I'm amazed how light that camera body really is. It's the lenses which are the weight problem.

In such circumstances, one would definitely want to know to what degree one might be disadvantaged, resolution-wise,  when in any particular situation. If the lens when attached to the NEX-7 doesn't provide a suffient FOV for the composition, then that's reason enough to switch the lens to the M9.

If the lens is already attached to the M9 and one realises that a particular composition will need significant cropping, it would be good to know for purely paractical reasons just how significant an improvement in image resolution would be achieved by taking the trouble to change the lens over to the NEX-7, at the risk of perhaps losing the shot. Missing the shot completely has to be worse than getting the shot with slightly compromised resolution.

If I were to criticise Michael's test, which I'm reluctant to do because he's already received such a blasting, it would be for not going far enough with the test. The 8mp of the M9 after cropping is really only good for an 8"x12"print without interpolation, perhaps a bit larger depending on chosen ppi. For purely practical reasons, it would be good to know how both images compare at A2 print size, which of course involves interpolation of the M9 image and appropriate sharpening of both images.

I know this raises other matters of contention, upsampling algorithms and sharpening procedures, but that can't be avoided. The NEX-7 image at its native resolution is good for an A2 print. For purely practical reasons one would surely like to know how the cropped M9 image stacks up when both files are prepared for printing at A2 size.

A theoretical flow-on from Michael's test is the issue of the practical benefits of increased pixel count, in relation to lens quality. Full-frame sensor technology has a habit of catching up with the pixel densities that first appeared on cropped formats. The 21mp Canon 5D2 has almost exactly the same pixel pitch as the earlier 8mp 20D. If one crops the 5D2 sensor to the same FoV as one gets with the 20D, using the same lens from the same position, the resulting images are essentially equal in quality in all respects, with only very minor differences, according to DXOMark.

I wonder how long it will take for Sony, or Nikon or Canon to give us a 50-60mp full frame, 35mm format sensor.  Grin

Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #164 on: December 16, 2011, 08:35:52 PM »
ReplyReply


I wonder how long it will take for Sony, or Nikon or Canon to give us a 50-60mp full frame, 35mm format sensor.  Grin


Or how about a FF 120mp sensor that is binned to 30mp! no AA filter (the lens resolution becomes the filter) less artifacts etc
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7637


WWW
« Reply #165 on: December 16, 2011, 09:21:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Marc,

I started a new topic on that issue, as I feel that I kidnapped this thread to much, sorry for that!

The new thread is here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?board=4.0

Best regards
Erik
Or how about a FF 120mp sensor that is binned to 30mp! no AA filter (the lens resolution becomes the filter) less artifacts etc
Marc
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7637


WWW
« Reply #166 on: December 16, 2011, 09:22:47 PM »
ReplyReply

;-)

Give a camera to a technician and he'll capture a chart.

Give a camera to a monkey and he'll capture a really rather striking and creative self portrait.


Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8900


« Reply #167 on: December 16, 2011, 09:29:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Give a camera to a technician and he'll capture a chart.

Give a camera to a monkey and he'll capture a really rather striking and creative self portrait.


How did you manage to fit such a wide-angle lens through the bars?  Grin
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7637


WWW
« Reply #168 on: December 16, 2011, 10:04:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

From the background it's quite obvious that it was not taken with a wide angle, but monkeys have long arms ;-)

Best regards
Erik


How did you manage to fit such a wide-angle lens through the bars?  Grin
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8900


« Reply #169 on: December 17, 2011, 01:31:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

From the background it's quite obvious that it was not taken with a wide angle, but monkeys have long arms ;-)

Best regards
Erik



Don't be silly, Erik. It's clearly a wide-angle shot very close up.  Grin
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677



WWW
« Reply #170 on: December 17, 2011, 03:19:37 AM »
ReplyReply

How did you manage to fit such a wide-angle lens through the bars?  Grin

Careful, chaps, that's my mother you're talking about ;-)
Logged

OldRoy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433


WWW
« Reply #171 on: December 17, 2011, 07:26:22 AM »
ReplyReply

From the conclusions:
"Remove the bulky and expensive mirror and prism assembly, develop a new lens mount that allows for smaller and lighter lenses, and innovate in terms of features and interface. That's the formula... Nikon has recently jumped into the CSC fray with its new "1" system and "CX" lens format...... as a market leader in DSLRs they have turf to protect. But their decision to go with a quite small sensor does limit the "1" series' appeal for more advanced users..."

This is called wishing to retain the integrity of one's cake whilst eating it.

From what I've read so far there seems to be no shortage of "advanced users" to whom the Nikon 1 series does appeal, shallow DOF limitations, inevitably, excepted. I'd also like to point out that in relation to this detailed and informative review of the NEX 7 there exists a vanishingly small number of potential buyers for whom there is a realistic option of using hideously expensive Leica lenses.

Roy
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7637


WWW
« Reply #172 on: December 17, 2011, 07:36:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi!

There are three categories of Leica lens owners:

1) Those who want the best and can afford it

2) Those to happen Leica lenses lying around from the film times

3) Orphaned Leica R-seies users who lack body for their lenses

Then NEX-7 is probably a nice alternative to the M9, if you can live with the crop factor.

Best regards
Erik


I'd also like to point out that in relation to this detailed and informative review of the NEX 7 there exists a vanishingly small number of potential buyers for whom there is a realistic option of using hideously expensive Leica lenses.

Roy
Logged

AlanG
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 195



WWW
« Reply #173 on: December 17, 2011, 11:41:31 AM »
ReplyReply

There is another way to state the results from this test:

The photo using a 7.8MP APS-C sized cropped area from an M9 is almost as good as an 18MP down sampled un-cropped shot from a Nex 7 using this particular lens. So if you don't have a longer lens with you, using a Leica M9 and cropping may give you acceptable results.  

Of course if the Nex 7 image had not been down sampled, the resolution difference between the two cameras might be a little greater.  (But we can't confirm that from this test.)

At some point the M9 image was scaled up to match the 18MP size of the down sampled Nex 7 image. So I don't know why the Nex7 image was not simply left at 24MP and the M9 could have been scaled up to match it. This would have eliminated one variable and countless expressions of confusion and complaints.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2011, 11:54:10 AM by AlanG » Logged

Alan Goldstein
Goldsteinphoto website

I have a new fine art project. Please take a look:
Fine art site

Galleries of images at Photoshelter:
Galleries
nucleonb
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #174 on: December 17, 2011, 12:26:20 PM »
ReplyReply

The amount of "confusion" would be the same or even more because  no one confused by the test setup but they tailor the test to their need, requirements or curiosity  Smiley
M9 with its excellent lens is stunning!
Leo
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7637


WWW
« Reply #175 on: December 17, 2011, 03:53:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

The way I see it Michael has a lot of good stuff in the review. This one test is controversial, I see some issues and other authors see other issues, some authors feel the test is OK.

Lets concentrate on the good stuff instead of discussing the merits or lack thereof of a single test of many.

Best regards
Erik

There is another way to state the results from this test:

The photo using a 7.8MP APS-C sized cropped area from an M9 is almost as good as an 18MP down sampled un-cropped shot from a Nex 7 using this particular lens. So if you don't have a longer lens with you, using a Leica M9 and cropping may give you acceptable results.  

Of course if the Nex 7 image had not been down sampled, the resolution difference between the two cameras might be a little greater.  (But we can't confirm that from this test.)

At some point the M9 image was scaled up to match the 18MP size of the down sampled Nex 7 image. So I don't know why the Nex7 image was not simply left at 24MP and the M9 could have been scaled up to match it. This would have eliminated one variable and countless expressions of confusion and complaints.
Logged

AlanG
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 195



WWW
« Reply #176 on: December 18, 2011, 11:02:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

The way I see it Michael has a lot of good stuff in the review. This one test is controversial, I see some issues and other authors see other issues, some authors feel the test is OK.

Lets concentrate on the good stuff instead of discussing the merits or lack thereof of a single test of many.

Best regards
Erik


I also agree there is some good stuff in this review including the Nex7/M9 Summilux part which I'd like to see presented in a way that gives a bit more of an incontrovertible conclusion.  Since on-line articles are not carved in stone, I have a simple suggestion... It would be pretty easy for him to update the review for clarification. Especially considering that it is a rolling review. He could simply show 100% crops from each photo and also show a crop from the M9 scaled up to match the 100% crop of the Nex 7 (No down sizing of the Nex 7 photo.)

And instead of leaving some with the impression this is a comparison of the overall photographic qualities of the two cameras, he should clearly state that what is being shown is mostly the result of sensor pixel density and that the overall number of pixels in comparable photos from the two cameras will even this out.  One can conclude that there will be a resolution benefit if Leica ups the pixel count in future models.

It is a shame to go to this much work and leave some viewers with possibly "wrong" conclusions due to their own interpretation of what is going on.


Logged

Alan Goldstein
Goldsteinphoto website

I have a new fine art project. Please take a look:
Fine art site

Galleries of images at Photoshelter:
Galleries
nucleonb
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #177 on: December 18, 2011, 12:07:18 PM »
ReplyReply

I also agree........
. He could simply show 100% crops from each photo and also show a crop from the M9 scaled up to match the 100% crop of the Nex 7 (No down sizing of the Nex 7 photo.)


It is a shame to go to this much work and leave some viewers with possibly "wrong" conclusions due to their own interpretation of what is going on.

I think M9 may loose in scaling up comparison because scaling up soften the image and always require sharpening after. When scaling up new pixels created in looser manner that when image scaled down. I think that Michael comparison is valid.
You can run this test if you have two formats or as easy with your camera and a zoom lens:
Photograph a scenery then without changing position zoom in 1.5 times and photograph again. Then upscale the wider view, crop and compare with zoomed image. Now downscale the original zoomed image and compare with wider view. Should not take more that 20 minutes. :-)
The test should help all of us.

I have no doubt that Michael with his always question the results nature performed the test both ways, however decided to post only one comparison.

Leo
Logged
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1005


WWW
« Reply #178 on: December 18, 2011, 03:13:01 PM »
ReplyReply

From the several documentary pretty successful pictures I've seen published by Michael, I conclude it is real contender for the ultimate street camera including the M9. Or perhaps MR's little Sony is just turning into a Mex 7.  Wink
Eduardo
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7637


WWW
« Reply #179 on: December 18, 2011, 03:13:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

If you print the printer driver, or the printing application will upsize the image to 360, 480,or 720 PPI. If you print on a new Epson with finest detail you will hit the uspcale limit at 8.3" on a 24 MPix camera (8.3 * 720 is around 6000 pixels).

I have both APS-C and full frame, Sony Alpha 900 and Sony Alpha 55 (and before that Alpha 700). The Alpha 900 I normally use with the 24-70/2.8 ZA while on the Alpha 700/SLT I always use the 16-80/3.5-4.5. And yes I normally carry both lenses and bodies. I do this because the respective focal ranges are convenient. Would like to use a "normal" lens I would not be happy with a 50 mm on a Sony NEX, which effectively turns it into a "portrait lens".

So, my view is that modern printers can make use of all pixels even in moderate size prints, and that I would probably not use the same lens on APS-C and full frame. So for me shooting with a 35 mm lens on the NEX-7 and with a 50 mm lens on the NEX would be a natural comparison.

On the other hand, I have seen that the difference between files on the Sonya Alpha 900 and the Alpha 700 are large but sometimes hardly visible in A2 size prints. The way Michael chose to illustrate the differences may be more like what we would see in print than on screen.

Best regards
Erik


I think M9 may loose in scaling up comparison because scaling up soften the image and always require sharpening after. When scaling up new pixels created in looser manner that when image scaled down. I think that Michael comparison is valid.
You can run this test if you have two formats or as easy with your camera and a zoom lens:
Photograph a scenery then without changing position zoom in 1.5 times and photograph again. Then upscale the wider view, crop and compare with zoomed image. Now downscale the original zoomed image and compare with wider view. Should not take more that 20 minutes. :-)
The test should help all of us.

I have no doubt that Michael with his always question the results nature performed the test both ways, however decided to post only one comparison.

Leo
« Last Edit: December 18, 2011, 09:39:24 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad