Anyone compare sharpness and resolution between the Nex 5n and Nex 7 with Leica glass

[eleskin]

I own a Leica M8 and a NEX 5n for high ISO shooting only. I have noticed that the M8 seems to have better detail in the files, perhaps due to the different sensor and lack of AA filters. At any rate, I own Leica M glass, and I am interested in those of you who have used Leica M lenses, especially the Summicrons, on the NEX 7 . How is the resolution and sharpness when compared to the NEX 5n? I would assume it would be better.

 

[Disaster_Area]

It's a question a lot of us are wondering about, but I think Sony needs to get more cameras in hands before we'll get enough data to make a good guess. I'm still waiting on my Nex 7, but when I get one I'll be doing a write up for each of my CV lenses paired with it.

I thought about going the NEX5+viewfinder route due to availability and the suggestion that the Nex 5n had better corner sharpness with RF lenses... the ergonomics and external dials of the Nex 7 sold me on sticking it out and waiting. Even if it does end up having slightly poorer sharpness in the corners, I'm not a landscape photographer so the extreme corners aren't really a huge deal for me.

Plus, what picture has sharper corners, one from a NEX 7 or one you didn't take with the NEX 5 because you where too busy fiddling with menu's and touch controls 😉

 

[douglasf13]

I honestly don't know what is all that fiddly with the NEX-5N's controls, especially if you shoot manual lenses?? With all of the customizable buttons/banks, I honestly rarely dive into the menus. Aperture on the lens, Shutter on the back dial, and ISO on the big C button. That's about it. I think that if you're a jpeg shooter who uses all the tech things like face detection, HDR, etc., and you're using native Sony lenses without aperture rings, the NEX-7's extra two dials could be handy, but I think their value is over stated for manual lens users who shoot RAW with the 5N.

There are several reasons, both IQ wise and feature wise, that have led me to keeping the 5N and canceling my 7 preorder.

- The NEX-7 has been shown to have less corner detail and much more color shift with many rangefinder lenses, until you get to mid apertures, and that includes my most used lens, the ZM 35/2.

- The 5N's EVF, despite adding bulk that I'm not too thrilled about, has a nice tilt feature, as well as an on/off button, so you can easily toggle between EVF and LCD without diving into the menus (I find that auto-switching mode is a little slow.)

- The 5N's touchscreen is great for manual focus

- The 5N's auto ISO goes to 3200, rather than 1600

- The more conventional strap lugs of the 7 look nice, but the EVF eye sensor is constantly triggered by your body, so battery loss happens faster than it should (hopefully fixed in future firmware update.) The strap lugs of the 5N force the lens to point down, and this isn't an issue.

- Despite having a smaller body, adding a leather half-case to the 5N makes it similar in size to the 7 (the grip size is also similar with the case,) but with the added body protection...and nice looks IMO.

Don't get me wrong, I was one of the first to pre-order the 7, and it is a sexy looking camera, but a lot of the reviews comparing it to the 5N are doing so under the premise that native Sony lenses will be used, and the above reasons are a glimpse as to why things aren't as cut and dry as it seems for manual lens users. If the NEX-7 dealt with rangefinder lenses as well as the 5N, I'd likely give up the other reasons above and buy one, but that reason broke the camel's back, for me.

 

[uhoh7]

M8s..i see nice ones going for 2300. They are the best value for digital M glass performance at the moment.

The GXR is better than any nex and will be even better with the next mod. EVF is barbaric but works.

Per pixel the 5n is best--but of course you have more pixels in the 7. On the net you cannot tell the difference--prints you prolly could.

Both 5n and 7 are imperfect stage stops and for M users I think we will see a serious FF option non-leica within 18 months.

But I have to laugh at all the hoopla over the xpro, when it is near the price of an M8.

I agree that none of the APS-C camera can match the M8.

I'd put the money in a CV 35/1.2 perhaps before a n7--at least it will hold value. Should be very nice on the M8. 🙂

Basically it's a lens by lens, case by case story with both nexes, esp wides.

The tri elmar however is supposed to be great on the 7. I love the 28 summicron on my 5n 🙂

 

[flyalf]

... the ergonomics and external dials of the Nex 7 sold me on sticking it out and waiting. Even if it does end up having slightly poorer sharpness in the corners, I'm not a landscape photographer so the extreme corners aren't really a huge deal for me.

Plus, what picture has sharper corners, one from a NEX 7 or one you didn't take with the NEX 5 because you where too busy fiddling with menu's and touch controls 😉

Hi,

i can agree that the usability on NEX-5N is limited by so few "hard" controls. But thats were the use of manual M lenses shine 😀 as the performance is IMO greatly improved. By using "A" one can get away with only adjusting through mechanical manual focus and aperture ring on the lens. Works great.

 

[douglasf13]

M8s..i see nice ones going for 2300. They are the best value for digital M glass performance at the moment.

The GXR is better than any nex and will be even better with the next mod. EVF is barbaric but works.

Per pixel the 5n is best--but of course you have more pixels in the 7. On the net you cannot tell the difference--prints you prolly could.

Both 5n and 7 are imperfect stage stops and for M users I think we will see a serious FF option non-leica within 18 months.

But I have to laugh at all the hoopla over the xpro, when it is near the price of an M8.

I agree that none of the APS-C camera can match the M8.

I'd put the money in a CV 35/1.2 perhaps before a n7--at least it will hold value. Should be very nice on the M8. 🙂

Basically it's a lens by lens, case by case story with both nexes, esp wides.

The tri elmar however is supposed to be great on the 7. I love the 28 summicron on my 5n 🙂

Agreed, Charlie. That 35/1.2 looks great on both the 5N and 7, from what I've seen.

As for the M8, I'm not so sure. Although it is able to leverage its larger sensor size a bit, it is so far drastically behind in sensor tech compared to Sony's CMOS that the NEX cameras have better DR and noise performance at all ISOs. Of course, the M8 is AA filter-less, in which aliasing creates false detail that so many like the look of, but the newer NEX sensors should get there with some deconvolution sharpening. Of course, the M8 should have a little bit less DOF at equivalent focal lengths and f-stops, so it has a little advantage there.

 

[Lss]

As for the M8, I'm not so sure. Although it is able to leverage its larger sensor size a bit, it is so far drastically behind in sensor tech

In practice, the NEX-5N gives me a 1-stop advantage over the M8 (assuming all other things equal). I have found that advantage pretty meaningless. I am glad I have it, if I am in a position where I can start thinking about optimizing noise performance. In practice, I shoot the M8.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I actually find the 5n to have a massive advantage even over the M9 when it comes to low light. Three or four stops, easy. The M's are peerless in bright light, but...

 

[Lss]

3-4 stops? Are you factoring in image stabilization or something?

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Hmmm that's probably an exaggeration, come to think of it. I have trouble getting really good files indoors with the M9 above 1600, but can shoot at 6400 and 12800 in RAW with the Sony, without banding--so, 2 or 3 stops. I also like the tilt screen and focus peaking for stuff like events (I shoot a lot of readings and receptions at the school where I teach), which makes it a little more stealthy. And the crop lets me get a little further away from my human subjects with my favorite lenses. I can also use slower/sharper lenses on the NEX as a result--so, Summicron 50/2 at 2 instead of Canon 50/1.2 at 1.2.

Nothing compares to the detail in good M files, though, when there's enough light for them. And I never minded 10MP in the M8, which was always plenty for me.

 

[Lss]

I don't have an M9, so can't compare against it. And I understand the perceived sensor advantage of 5N depends somewhat on the look and other qualities anyone looks for in their files. This can easily amount to a one-stop difference, perhaps slightly more in extreme cases. Personally, I don't like going to 6400 on the 5N, same way I don't like 2500 on the M8 (which being rated conservatively corresponds to 3200). Both can work, and the noise reduction applied to Sony's RAW is pretty pleasant for many night scenes with bright lights. With more even light, yikes. Overall, the 5N's advantage looks to be about one stop in my use.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Fair enough...

 

[BMacW]

If you are comparing 100% crop M8 wins. But if you down sample everything to 10MP, it's hardly any difference.

LL had a comparison between M9 and Nex7 on resolution. You can get some ideas from there.