Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Small camera - Fuji or Nex  (Read 3692 times)
johnbirch
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


WWW
« on: September 21, 2013, 12:08:27 PM »
ReplyReply

I currently shoot landscapes with my D800E and PC-E lenses.  I love the camera and the results I get.  I would like to get a smaller camera to compliment my big camera, but something I can easily take on the snowmobile, car, etc.  I would like to get a small camera that most closely matches the D800E.  What I mean by that is I prefer the best resolution, dynamic range, live view manual focusing.  I don't care so much for high ISO, AF performance, long lenses, or zoom lenses.  I understand that no small camera will match the D800, but would like to do the best.  I have a 24" printer, and print large photos quite a bit.  I also end up shooting most of my photos at 21mm or 24mm.

From my research, I am favouring the Fuji XE-1 with a 14mm and 35mm lens, or the Nex-7 with the 24mm and the Touit 32mm lens.  I don't see myself expanding more lenses than that.

What are peoples experience with the level of detail difference between the Nex and the Fuji?  Do you actually see an improvement with the higher resolution of the Nex?  Also, how is manual focusing via live view on both?  How does the dynamic range of the two compare?

Also, are there any good lenses for the Nex that are the equivalent 24mm length?

Thanks in advance for any advice.

Jeff
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 705


« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2013, 04:18:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Wait a month for the NEX full-frame camera.

Use it with Leica M-mount lenses for small size (via an adapter), or you can even mount your SLR lenses onto it with an adapter.
Logged
capital
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133


« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2013, 10:00:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff,

Based on your needs for light, compact, carry with you wide angle with no real need to change lenses then I think you might be better off considering the Nikon Coolpix A or Ricoh GR, both of which are ultra-compact bodies with fixed, wide angle (28mm equiv. FOV) lenses. The Ricoh GR even has an optical adapter to get down to about 20mm. Moreover, both cameras eschew the optical low pass filter for greater pixel level detail.


« Last Edit: September 21, 2013, 10:03:35 PM by capital » Logged
stever
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1072


« Reply #3 on: September 21, 2013, 10:08:42 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm waiting for the NEX ff, but expect it will be somewhat longer than a month before it's available with adapters, testing, and lens compatibility guidance.  at 24mm, it's not clear which Leica lenses will work edge-edge.  however, the (large) Zeiss 21 and 25 should be outstanding (and work with your 800E - as should your PCE with adapter).  

if you can't wait, I think the NEX 7 is still the better bet with e-mount compatibility to the NEX ff, better resolution, and none of the processing artifact issues of the Fuji.  There is also the possibility of the metabones speed booster.
 
I also recommend a subscription to Lloyd Chambers' (diglloyd.com) mirrorless - he's tested the Touit lenses and several other lenses via adapter on the NEX 7
Logged
stever
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1072


« Reply #4 on: September 21, 2013, 10:14:00 PM »
ReplyReply

you will also find Lloyd's reviews of the Ricoh and Sigma Merrills informative
Logged
Paul2660
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1965


WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2013, 12:36:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I have worked the Nex-7 for about 18 months, the Fuji X-E1 for about 3 months.

Nex-7

I like the layout of the camera controls and the LCD, (both resolution and ability to tilt).  Sony's EVF is excellent and their implementation of focus peaking is very well done.  I mainly shot raw on the NEx-7 and found that mine was about a iso 100 to iso 400 camera, as much higher and the amount of noise becomes pretty harsh.  In a push maybe iso 800.  You can get an excellent read on the noise from the Nex-7 on the dpreview comparison pages.  The actual implementation of menus for control of various features to me is confusing still.

AF with the emount glass very good, AF with the Sony A adapter (the LA-EA2) is also very good.  I tried several of the dedicated e mount lenses, but only stayed with the 18-200.  My main carry lens on the NEx-7 was the Sony 16-80mm with the LA-EA2.  Not a small package, but one I found I liked. 

I never found a wide that held good resolution to the far corners of the sensor, including the Sony 10-18mm.  The Sony 10-18 showed strong magenta cast in the corners on my camera @ 10mm (15mm) and since I wanted it mainly for the wide side I returned it.  No wide lens I used on the Nex-7 ever seemed to hold to the corners for details and sharpness, the Zeiss/Sony 16-80 was the best I could find and even it had trouble at 16mm (24mm equivalent).  As the sensor is 24mm, I often found myself cropping it down to the same as a 20mp sensor due to corner softness/detail smearing in the corners on wides.  I never tried the newer Zeiss 12mm. 

Excellent video platform, very easy to use, I never upgraded the firmware to allow the video button to be taken off line and it does get in the way many times. 

I only used LR for raw conversion and liked the files, but many times over the noise above iso 400 caused problems. 

The coming 24mm FF may be the answer as this chip has always been a cleaner all round chip, however noise tests I have seen from the RX1 did not impress me.

The Fuji has been a welcome addition.  I am still constantly impressed with just what the X-E1 can deliver. 

Lenses, I have the kit 18-55, and the 55-200 and have briefly used the 14mm and 60mm macro.  All of these lenses showed excellent resolution, especially the kit 18-55.  This lens at 18mm holds very good all the way to the corners.   The 14mm also was impressive to the corners. 

AF, many complain about it.  With latest firmware, I find the AF OK, it does have problems in low light and is not the best for action or continual low light shooting.  Manual AF is easy now since peaking as been added.  The X-E1's LCD is just OK, but the EVP excellent.  If you don't mind using the EVP for shooting, the Fuji is a great solution. 

Noise, much better, easily the cleanest camera in this class I have shot.  Noise in the iso 200 to 800 is pretty non existent and you can take the camera to around 3200 before things really get out of hand.  The lack of iso 100 when shooting is raw is a problem for me at times.   Fuji's enhanced DR shooting does seems to help also even though you are at iso 400 and 800. 

Raw conversion, I was concerned about this after reading so many bad posts.  Actually I was pleasantly surprised as LR 5 and Capture One both seem to work fine on the files.  The only area where I sometimes can run into problems are finer green details, mainly pine needles.  I don't see the over processed look so many people complain about.  Fuji's own raw conversion software IMO is a total waste of time and it might have benefited to work closer with Adobe and Phase One to allow them to tweak their software for this camera. 

I miss the LCD of the Sony, as IMO it was best of breed and so far have kept my Nex 7 only for video work.  I realize I have scaled back in overall output resolution but 16mp can often get the job done as well as 20mp.  The Fuji is easy to setup for a stitching setup also. 

I have not tried video on the Fuji, but it doesn't seem to be one of it's strong points from reading other reviews.

Night photography, the Fuji wins hands down.  I never found a good intervoltmeter for the Sony, and it doesn't handle night shooting very well due to noise issues.  The Fuji works well right along with my Nikon and Canon solutions and there are several intervoltmeters that work with the Fuji so you can setup for stacking. 

The best solution is try them both if you can, as both cameras offer some excellent feature/function solutions.

Paul Caldwell


 
Logged

Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
Photography > http://photosofarkansas.com
Blog> http://paulcaldwellphotography.com
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 705


« Reply #6 on: September 22, 2013, 03:01:45 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm waiting for the NEX ff, but expect it will be somewhat longer than a month before it's available with adapters, testing, and lens compatibility guidance.  at 24mm, it's not clear which Leica lenses will work edge-edge.  however, the (large) Zeiss 21 and 25 should be outstanding (and work with your 800E - as should your PCE with adapter).  

if you can't wait, I think the NEX 7 is still the better bet with e-mount compatibility to the NEX ff, better resolution, and none of the processing artifact issues of the Fuji.  There is also the possibility of the metabones speed booster.
 
I also recommend a subscription to Lloyd Chambers' (diglloyd.com) mirrorless - he's tested the Touit lenses and several other lenses via adapter on the NEX 7

All the adapters are available now - it's the same E-mount as currently exists. All the current Leica lenses are designed for full frame, so they should work just fine on the NEX, which has a shorter flange distance than the Leica M mount.
Logged
Paulo Bizarro
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1687


WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2013, 09:51:58 PM »
ReplyReply

I have never used sony Nex, so I can not offer advice there. I do use the fuji XE1 with 14 and 35mm lenses, and the quality is very good. The 14mm lens is easily one of the best wide angle lenses made today, and the 35mm lens is excellent. Later this year the 56 f1.2 lens will be released, looking forward to it to finish my kit.

In daily use, the system is small, light, robust, and works well. I am currently in Muscat, Oman, for business trip, and brought the XE1 and 35mm lens with me. Yesterday I went out to do some geocaching at the end of the day, ending up in the souk area. Inside the souk, the lighting is poor, but even then the AF worked without problems.
Logged

Eric Brody
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 117


WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 25, 2013, 11:11:24 AM »
ReplyReply

I have the D800E and for fine detail, with close or far, it is unsurpassed this side of $20,000+ with medium format digital backs. However, I also have the Fuji X E-1 and have made some lovely highly detailed images up to 13x20 with it. I absolutely love the 14, it is sharp corner to corner and with it and the resolution of the sensor, it is excellent. The 60 macro, while slow to focus (it is after all a macro with a wide focus range) is also magical. I have a friend who is a superb photographer. Five years ago he shot nothing but 8x10, then went to a D3x, then a D800E. He now uses the X E-1 exclusively, sold his D800E, is happy, and is making superb images. I'd consider renting, or borrowing a Fuji. It can be a bit quirky and is not a sports or action camera, but for subjects, such as those I usually shoot when I hike and travel, it's wonderful. While I'm not prepared to give up my D800E, I could doubtless live a long and happy photographic life with my Fuji.
Logged
JV
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 690


« Reply #9 on: September 25, 2013, 08:33:37 PM »
ReplyReply

I have a friend who is a superb photographer. Five years ago he shot nothing but 8x10, then went to a D3x, then a D800E. He now uses the X E-1 exclusively, sold his D800E, is happy, and is making superb images.

Hi Eric,

Is the X-E1 work of your friend visible online?

Thanks, Joris.
Logged
mdijb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 395


WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 25, 2013, 09:54:17 PM »
ReplyReply

I have just returned from a 3 week road trip shooting with The nex 7 , a Canon 6D and all three Sigma DP Merrils.  I have been dissapointed with image quality from the 6D in comparison to the NEX7, and the depth of field limitation with the full frame chip.  My impression are supported by the analyses done by DXO which show these two to be almost equal but to my eye I like the Nex 7 results the best.  As a result I am seriously considering selling the Canon and investing in better glass for the SOny, namely the Sigma Prime lenses which are are rated very highly and and are priced right- the reviews and analyses of these lenses have been excellent.  I am considering getting away from zooms and going back to primes as a result

If you really want the best--consider the Sigma DP Merrills.  I have been using these for several months and gave them a real workout this trip and have been highly impressed with the results and simply blown away on some images.  The sites that analyze these camera suggest these are as good as the d800 and while I do not own one to compare, the quality to my eye has been astounding.  You have to be willing to accept the limitation of using them and the the crappy Sigma software but the combination of small size and resulting image quality have made these cameras my first choice if conditions permit.

You owe it to yourself to check out these SIgma cameras. cameras before you make any purchase.  ALso check out the Sigma prime lenses for the NEX7--I am doing that now

MDIJB

Logged

mdiimaging.com
speedyk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #11 on: October 01, 2013, 06:30:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Maybe the Panasonic GX-7 and the (IIRC) 8-14 lens would be an option.
Logged
Michael N. Meyer
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 02, 2013, 10:59:21 AM »
ReplyReply

I've got an X-Pro1 and a Sony Nex-7. If I had to choose between them, I would go with the X-Pro1 without a second thought.

As I'm sure I've said in previous posts, the Nex-7 files feel weird to me. They never feel natural. The camera also is noisy above ISO 400; really, I don't like to go above 200. And the menu systems are a mess. I thought the multiple command dials with all of their potential for customization would be a welcome feature, but it is just a source of confusion. I'd hoped it'd be a nice complement to my a850, but it has been a disappointment in that regard.

The X-Pro1 (and by extension the X-E1, which I skipped because I wanted the hybrid finder) puts out very nice files up through at least 1600 ISO. I find 3200 to be a little rough, but it's 3200. The menu systems aren't perfect, but fairly clear. The control layout is direct and straightforward, and the camera feels good in the hand. AF isn't amazing, but it works. I was shooting an event in a very dark venue last week and the AF had some issues, but no worse than the a850 I was also using. The two lenses I have, the 35 and the 18-55, both perform very well.
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad