M8 user: high hopes for NEX-7!

Have you used focus peaking?

On the M8 I can focus easily on a light reflecting on someone's eye (e.g.) - when I tried focus peaking (on the 5 not 5n admittedly) - it didn't live up to the hype, especially in low-light.

Not putting a downer on your excitement, just wondering how your experience differs from mine.
 
kully said:
Have you used focus peaking?

On the M8 I can focus easily on a light reflecting on someone's eye (e.g.) - when I tried focus peaking (on the 5 not 5n admittedly) - it didn't live up to the hype, especially in low-light.

Not putting a downer on your excitement, just wondering how your experience differs from mine.
Click to expand...

Focus peaking takes practice. Once you dial in the proper sharpness and contrast settings, and really nail down how the plain of focus is represented by the peaking color, I'd say it is as accurate as a rangefinder in a hurried situation. If you're not in a hurry, of course, focus magnification is the most accurate of all.
 
jsrockit said:
It's funny how many people slag the M8/M9 as being a digital camera designed from a film camera... when that is exactly why I like it.
Click to expand...

I'm in complete agreement here. I found that hoping a non-RF will replicate my M always lead to disappointment.

I'm sure the NEX-7 will be an awesome camera and while I was tempted to jump on one (I am w/o a digital camera right now) I decided to just stop looking for a digital RF alternative. I'll just get a digital M at some point.
 
hehe, it is always controversial to liken a nex to an RF, and obviously the n7 is more RF-like than the original non-evfs.

the ideal of n7 as digi RF is close but luckily sony does not see it or cannot be bothered.

Here's what i mean:

Since famous RFs like the contax zeiss IIs and IIIs have no framelines but just show a 50 frame edge to edge, the arguement that you also see outside the frame in an RF is really moot.

OK so the difference is two-fold:
1) It's an EVF i.e. you are looking at a little screen. Obviously this will never change, but it does have advantages. You see what the lens sees, or least a good rendering thereof.
2) How you focus. The split image in the RFs is a wonderful fast focus method.....which could be parroted far better by sony with existing hardware. Now we have either FP, which is ugly and I haven't learned it as well as douglas (i'll keep trying though), or the mag button. When you hit that focus gets easy, but way jumpy and you totally loose the overall frame. Not ideal.

Imagine a third mode on the sony EVF: an RF sized little square (basically a pic in pic) you can pull up which is either magnified, or has some character which allows quick precise focus.

I don't think this would be so hard to do. And it would put the n7 closer yet to the magical RF.
 
efix said:
Since I first read about the new focus peaking feature in the NEX-C3 and NEX-5N cameras, I was absolutely hooked by that idea and started wondering if this might actually be the 21st century re-interpretation of rangefinder photography -- a quick, easy and reliable way to manually focus a lens.
Click to expand...

I suggest you try it out before you go on rhapsodizing about it like that.
 
Kent said:
The focus peaking feature works well! You need to adjust it to the right settings for each scenario, though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well, it works better with longer lenses and fast lenses and wide open, and not so well with wideangles and slow lenses and lenses stopped down - just as you'd expect.

It's a decent focusing aid for some situations, but calling it "the 21st century re-interpretation of rangefinder photography" is indicative of (a) that the user hasn't tried it, at least not with a wideangle, and (b) that the user has read a lot of it online, but not those where people say how they went back to 7x magnification for focusing after trying it.
 
Kent said:
I know that some went back to the magnification, I prefer the peaking mode.
Click to expand...
Can you please share some information on the focal lengths and apertures you use, your usual subject distances, and the type of photography you do? At least I am very interested in hearing what people have found works and what doesn't.
 
If the NEX-7 is like this, I will stick to my M8

If the NEX-7 is like this, I will stick to my M8

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/10/15/just-for-fun-the-iphone-4s-vs-the-nex-7-and-fuji-x100/
Check out Steve Huff's pics from the NEX 7
It seems the X100 has much better files in terms of image quality than the NEX 7. I know what my M8 can and cannot do and from these samples, the X100 and my M8 files look much better. I can also say Fuji's next X series camera, if it can take M lenses, has a similar layout to the x100, and has a sensor like the X100, and is as large as APS H which is what the M8 is, it will be a no brainer for me to get one. As for the NEX 7, I will sit on the sidelines until I see more comprehensive tests with Leica M mount lenses.
 
eleskin said:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/10/15/just-for-fun-the-iphone-4s-vs-the-nex-7-and-fuji-x100/
Check out Steve Huff's pics from the NEX 7
It seems the X100 has much better files in terms of image quality than the NEX 7. I know what my M8 can and cannot do and from these samples, the X100 and my M8 files look much better. I can also say Fuji's next X series camera, if it can take M lenses, has a similar layout to the x100, and has a sensor like the X100, and is as large as APS H which is what the M8 is, it will be a no brainer for me to get one. As for the NEX 7, I will sit on the sidelines until I see more comprehensive tests with Leica M mount lenses.
Click to expand...

Have fun on the sidelines 🙂

"I have also been shooting the X100 more and have to say that in regards to OOC color with JPEGS, I prefer the X100. But I have yet to tweak any Sony RAW files so we shall see. Still, the NEX-7 has been doing no wrong (almost)."
from your link

I hope fuji does create a nex killer, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Reading about users experience with the x100, it seems that camera is well, not perfected.

I have seen some great shots from it of course, but one lens and AF ?
 
If I was into Leica for the image quality I'd be interested in the NEX-7. I don't really care that much about image quality (I shoot 35mm and scan with a flatbed) though. The rangefinder and optical viewfinder is the most important part of my Leica, and the latter is the sole reason why I became interested in the Fuji X100.

I'd much rather use a Bessa R with a lens with the optical qualities of CaNikon's cheapest primes than a NEX-7 with a Noctilux (that is unless I could sell them and buy something else).
 
I've been shooting with a NEX 5N. The peaking feature is brilliant for manual focus. In cases where it doesn't work (as described above), you can zoom in. I haven't shot with anything wider than an 18 and haven't shot any charts to test for critical focus, but so far I'd say it's the best implementation of manual focus confirmation I've used on a non-rangefinder digital camera.

I still prefer using an optical rangefinder for a number of reasons, but let's not kid ourselves: there are cases where an RF is troublesome for achieving focus (confusing background patterns, lack of discernible edges, a flared RF, etc.). No system is perfect and so much depends on the photographer's experience with and knowledge of their gear.

All this said, my only word of advice to those considering the NEX7 as a replacement or substitute for a M8 or M9 is that as exciting as the Sony camera looks, it isn't a rangefinder and if you really want the rangefinder experience you need, well, a rangefinder camera. There is more to shooting with a Leica than just using the amazing lenses.

Ultimately it's not about what's better, but what one prefers.
 
eleskin said:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/10/15/just-for-fun-the-iphone-4s-vs-the-nex-7-and-fuji-x100/
Check out Steve Huff's pics from the NEX 7
It seems the X100 has much better files in terms of image quality than the NEX 7. I know what my M8 can and cannot do and from these samples, the X100 and my M8 files look much better. I can also say Fuji's next X series camera, if it can take M lenses, has a similar layout to the x100, and has a sensor like the X100, and is as large as APS H which is what the M8 is, it will be a no brainer for me to get one. As for the NEX 7, I will sit on the sidelines until I see more comprehensive tests with Leica M mount lenses.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, the idea that you could assess Respective image quality of cameras via jpgs posted to the web is absurd.
 
rxmd said:
Yeah, well, it works better with longer lenses and fast lenses and wide open, and not so well with wideangles and slow lenses and lenses stopped down - just as you'd expect.

It's a decent focusing aid for some situations, but calling it "the 21st century re-interpretation of rangefinder photography" is indicative of (a) that the user hasn't tried it, at least not with a wideangle, and (b) that the user has read a lot of it online, but not those where people say how they went back to 7x magnification for focusing after trying it.
Click to expand...

I've used it with all types of lenses, and, after some practice and settings adjustments, I find it no less dependable than rangefinder focusing. Really, NEX manual focusing is the best of both worlds. Peaking is among the best manual focusing methods for quick or moving scenarios that I've tried, and focus magnification is even better for static situations.

I'd say any speed/accuracy advantage that a rangefinder focusing system has over peaking is negated by the need to focus then recompose. I think focus peaking and rangefinder focusing are pretty competitive with each other.
 
I returned my 5N. NEX 7 on order, but I'm not as excited as before. Most of my objections to the 5N should be resolved with the Tri-Nav and EVF, but I could not manage with RAW -> DNG -> Aperture to get skin tones looking non-plastic. I'm hoping that a better raw converter takes care of that issue.

Thumbs up on focus peaking. It isn't perfect, but my main issue with peaking was the lack of EVF when shooting in the sun.
 
Last edited:
rdeleskie said:
I've been shooting with a NEX 5N. The peaking feature is brilliant for manual focus. In cases where it doesn't work (as described above), you can zoom in. I haven't shot with anything wider than an 18 and haven't shot any charts to test for critical focus, but so far I'd say it's the best implementation of manual focus confirmation I've used on a non-rangefinder digital camera.

I still prefer using an optical rangefinder for a number of reasons, but let's not kid ourselves: there are cases where an RF is troublesome for achieving focus (confusing background patterns, lack of discernible edges, a flared RF, etc.). No system is perfect and so much depends on the photographer's experience with and knowledge of their gear.

All this said, my only word of advice to those considering the NEX7 as a replacement or substitute for a M8 or M9 is that as exciting as the Sony camera looks, it isn't a rangefinder and if you really want the rangefinder experience you need, well, a rangefinder camera. There is more to shooting with a Leica than just using the amazing lenses.

Ultimately it's not about what's better, but what one prefers.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I am using a R-D1 along with a Nex-3, the R-D1 wins in low light & in some cases more accurate with fast lenses wide open
 
bwcolor said:
I returned my 5N. NEX 7 on order, but I'm not as excited as before. Most of my objections to the 5N should be resolved with the Tri-Nav and EVF, but I could not manage with RAW -> DNG -> Aperture to get skin tones looking non-plastic. I'm hoping that a better raw converter takes care of that issue.

Thumbs up on focus peaking. It isn't perfect, but my main issue with peaking was the lack of EVF when shooting in the sun.
Click to expand...

If you can deal with the slow pace of its workflow, I can highly recommend Raw Photo Processor for Sony files. I import everything into Lightroom for cataloguing, but I export the conversations themselves out of LR3 and into RPP. Plus, the demoisacing is much better than just about anything out there. The amount of extra detail with no sharpening is almost like seemingly removing the AA filter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom