From EP1 To NEX-5

[angeloks]

Ok,

I've been owning an EP1 for less than 3 weeks now. I love the little camera, I like the results, but the crop factor is killing me. I'm loosing too much out of focus area on my 50mm f1.4 and my 12mm at 24mm is nowhere as cool as it used to be...

My idea now is to get the Sony NEX-5. The 1.5x crop factor seems more reasonable. 75mm and 18mm sounds more like it. Anyone else did the jump ? Any other things to consider ?

 

[shadowfox]

I personally don't see anything not to like based on the pictures you've shown above.

Plus if you're expecting a *dramatic* change in regards to shallow DOF from 4/3rds to APS, then you'd probably be disappointed because there's not that much difference. Focal-length-wise, you may argue the difference, but not DOF.

To see a perceptible difference in DOF, you'd have to jump to full-frame cameras.

I would strongly recommend getting the Panasonic 20/1.7 lens for your EP-1, or save to get the superb 9-18mm Zuiko.

 

[kevinparis]

Legacy wides - some will argue anything wider than a 35mm equivalent - dont really do well on smaller sensor mirrorless cameras. They don't have the microlenses that Leica had to build into the M8 in order to get decent results.

cant imagine the NEX being any better in this regard

 

[Bruin]

You're gonna see heavy light falloff and a slight color shift at the edges with you 12mm on NEX-5:
http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/544-voigtlander12f56nex

For RF lenses, 35mm is about as wide as you can go on the NEX without corner smearing or color shift issues at the edges. Symmetrical wide angle designs (Biogons, etc.) with deep rear elements don't fare so well. My 28/2 Ultron doesn't have any issues on my NEX-5, but I've heard the 28mm Biogon does.

 

[angeloks]

Thanks for your comments. There should be a difference in DoF, but I would agree that the main change will be in the effective focal length. From 24mm to 18mm, there is an important difference.

I heard that the corner smearing on the NEX5 was slightly better than on the EP1, even with the bigger sensor... Anyone experienced this ?

Also, I heard that the DR was better on the NEX, is that true ?

 

[douglasf13]

DR and noise handling in general is certainly better on the larger-sensored NEX. The NEX has a sensor that performs as well or better than just about any aps-c DSLR out there. As for smearing, it does seem that NEX handles the corners better than m4/3, despite the larger sensor, but it still has its own issues.

According to Vivek over on the getdpi forums, the m4/3 cameras have unusually thick sensor toppings (AA filter, microlenses, shaker, etc,) and this increases the demand of telecentricity at the sensor edges. So, despite the smaller sensor size of m4/3, it doesn't handle edges quite as well as NEX. That being said, there seem to be only a few lenses wider than 35mm that do fine on the NEX. Color shift seems to be more of an issue than smeared resolution.

 

[angeloks]

DR and noise handling in general is certainly better on the larger-sensored NEX. The NEX has a sensor that performs as well or better than just about any aps-c DSLR out there. As for smearing, it does seem that NEX handles the corners better than m4/3, despite the larger sensor, but it still has its own issues.

According to Vivek over on the getdpi forums, the m4/3 cameras have unusually thick sensor toppings (AA filter, microlenses, shaker, etc,) and this increases the demand of telecentricity at the sensor edges. So, despite the smaller sensor size of m4/3, it doesn't handle edges quite as well as NEX. That being said, there seem to be only a few lenses wider than 35mm that do fine on the NEX. Color shift seems to be more of an issue than smeared resolution.

Wow, that's an instructive reply. That's exactly what I was looking for ! Thanks a lot ! I guess the NEX has an overall better sensor, aside from the color shift with wide angles.

 

[kbg32]

Why don't you buy some lenses designed for MFT system? Crop factor won't matter then.

 

[angeloks]

Why don't you buy some lenses designed for MFT system? Crop factor won't matter then.

Ah, I forgot to mention, I'm mainly buying this camera to have a digital option with my Leica lenses. I'm not really planning to invest in u4/3 or NEX glass for now. Although, I must say that the 25mm f0.95 from Voigtlander is interesting !

 

[kbg32]

Ah, I forgot to mention, I'm mainly buying this camera to have a digital option with my Leica lenses. I'm not really planning to invest in u4/3 or NEX glass for now. Although, I must say that the 25mm f0.95 from Voigtlander is interesting !

Then you will be frustrated by the crop factor. The chip in the NEX is not that much bigger then MFT. The Pen nor the NEX is not a substitute for a M8 or M9 unfortunately. I was not happy with the results in adapting M lenses to MFT, but am very happy with the results I get with lenses designed for the MFT system.

 

[douglasf13]

There is certainly a noticeable difference between a 2.0 and 1.5 crop factor when it comes to equivalent focal lengths. DOF is also quite a bit different. If anything, the difference between the 1.3x M8 and 1.5x NEX-5 is relatively small.

 

[nightfly]

It seems like you are setting on doing this and the post to the forum is a formality to rationalize it to yourself, but I would say that the colors you are getting out the EP1 look really nice to me as does the overall quality. I wouldn't be so quick to cast this aside.

Seems like getting one of the m4/3 lenses for it might be a better use of the money you will likely lose in switching systems.

 

[Matus]

Concerning the DOF. The linear size of sensor (image) affect the effective DOF in a following way: every factor 2 (in linear size, that is factor 4 in area) makes up for 2 stops (for the final images of the same size of course). In other words 50 mm lens stopped to f/5.6 lens on FX has the same DOF as 25 mm lens stopped to f/2.8 on m4/3.

Now the conversion factor from FX to APS-C is 1.5 and from the APS-C to m4/3 1.33 so obviously the relative DOF difference between FX and APS-C is about 1 1/3 stop and between APS-C and m4/3 about 2/3 of a stop.

 

[saxshooter]

I just took the NEX-5 plunge. Saw a used one online at B&H with a 16mm lens. M adapters are on the way and looking forward to trying my Leica lenses on it.

I got the Epson RD-1 when it first came out (also 1.5x crop), then the M8 (1.3x crop which I recently sold), and currently having no digital option for my M lenses, this NEX-5 (back to 1.5x crop) seems like it would be interesting to play with.

This flickr SET also inspired me to check out the camera.

 

[uhligfd]

Just commenting on the "SET" mentioned in Saxshotter's post: another photographer who does not realize that a 3 by 2 aspect camera can be turned to vertical orientation.

So weird when this happens with every picture of the 181 pics all taken in the same landscape mode, regardless of subject matter. Very weird cut offs of heads and bodies with miles of stuff shown on the left and right .... A bit of lack of common sense, of composition awareness, ... So weird ... this guy on Flickr ...

 

[saxshooter]

well, I liked the pictures...

 

[Xherion]

I would like to second douglas' opinion on this.
I have NEX5 with M lenses (15, 35, 50mm), i can see edge color shift with my 15mm heliar, but not corner smearing. The color shift doesn't bother me so much.
Anything 35mm or longer has no color shift nor smearing.

Looking at sample pictures for EP1 vs NEX, NEX5's sensor is better in handling noise and has better DR.
The sensor is much better then my 2 yrs old sony apsc dslr.

DR and noise handling in general is certainly better on the larger-sensored NEX. The NEX has a sensor that performs as well or better than just about any aps-c DSLR out there. As for smearing, it does seem that NEX handles the corners better than m4/3, despite the larger sensor, but it still has its own issues.

According to Vivek over on the getdpi forums, the m4/3 cameras have unusually thick sensor toppings (AA filter, microlenses, shaker, etc,) and this increases the demand of telecentricity at the sensor edges. So, despite the smaller sensor size of m4/3, it doesn't handle edges quite as well as NEX. That being said, there seem to be only a few lenses wider than 35mm that do fine on the NEX. Color shift seems to be more of an issue than smeared resolution.

 

[flip]

I suspect that if wides are your bag, the best option is patience and an interim film scanner. That is what my bout with the R-D1 led me to conclude. It's not that I'm that much of a wides guy, but rather that I was frustrated that I could only get to 1.2 using the 35 cropped to 50. I think the nex system has utility for when you need digital, but primarily because the market for eventual resale may attract a wider audience than a digital RF(, but at a lower price).

 

[count_zero]

I would just take the plunge and get an M9 considering you already own Leica glass. m43 cameras are the poor mans solution only if you plan on saving with telephoto lenses. My EP-1 travel kit is the 14-42mm and 40-150mm Oly lenses. Can't beat the price, size and weight for equivalent focal lengths. If I want to be all artsy fartsy or need something for low light, I use my adapted Minolta 50mm f1.4. I also have a 135mm Minolta f2.8. Total kit was under $1k. The in body IS is a must have for manual focus lenses especially out beyond 100mm. I don't think the NEX series have in body IS. Keep in mind that Oly is supposedly releasing a 12mm f2.8, and Panny has announced a 14mm f2.5. The 20mm f1.7 is a bit of rip off considering its equivalent focal length, although I wouldn't mind owning it.

 

[douglasf13]

I just ordered a few more manual lenses for my NEX-5, and it is going to make for a very small package. Even the M9 looks large in comparison:

When traveling light with NEX-5
Sony 16/2.8
35/1.4 Nokton
50/1.4 Nokton
85/3.5 Lanthar

When traveling EXTREMELY light with NEX-5:
Sony 16/2.8
MS Optical Super Triplet Perar 3.5/35
50/2.5 Skopar


--