M8 vs Sony Nex 7; What to expect

Dr Gaspar said:
Peak focusing + rokkor lenses = win.
Click to expand...

+1

I have a Novoflex MC/MD-NEX adapter just waiting for the NEX-7.

As for it having an AA filter, that's a shame I suppose, but with 24.3MP to play with, any downsampling should sharpen the heck out of them and still leave files adequate for fairly large prints :cool:
 
I will consider the NEX 7, since I would like to add video recording capability for some trips. It should also be a great camera for macro and tripod work. Handling and price (body, M adapter, possibly a good zoom lens) will determine the outcome. The M8 will remain my main camera.

(I had much the same view on X100 and decided to pass.)
 
Just to add my .02 € ...

I'm VERY anxious to see the NEX-7. Supposed 3 million dot EVF, full manual controls on the body, smaller size than M8, M lenses can be adapted, focusing using the focus peaking mode. 24 million pixels means pictures will come out as sharp as those of the M8 when sampled down. Only question: will colours be as nice?

If the NEX-7 proves to be a winner, I might actually switch to it, as I've been becoming more and more frustrated with handling the M8 lately. For my taste, it's still a tad too large and heavy. And I miss a lot of shots due to the rangefinder not telling me anything about the final image beforehand (i.e. will it be correctly framed? will it be over- or underexposed? etc.)

But if it turns out the NEX-7 has inferior image quality, then I'm going to stay with the M8 for sure.
 
The Nex 5 already takes better photos than an M8 or M9, and focuses more accurately.

No need to wait for the 7, the current is great, but if you want the ultimate, the 3c, and 5c (coming) use the D7000 sensor.

Plus, no SD card sensitivities ;)
 
semordnilap said:
I will probably get an NEX-7 if it comes out as predicted. The only drawbacks that I see (vs the M8) are the AA filter, the larger crop factor, and the lack of an optical RF, though really the EVF in the Sony A55 is excellent, and supposedly the NEX-7 will be even better. Great! Better high iso will be much appreciated, principally if there's none of the banding that tends to ruin the M8 at 1250.

Obviously they're different beasts, and I don't think I'll get rid of M8, in fact I'll probably use it just as much as I do now, but as a second camera with M lenses, the NEX-7 looks to be really good for me.
Click to expand...

A dumb question - why is an aa filter bad?
 
An Anti-Aliasing filter (AA) is not bad at all, but without you get a little sharper image. As well as moire patterns in certain situations, like photographing artificial-fiber clothing with a particular weave. Some of the early digicams had terrible moire issues.

When is this Nex 7 thing going to be announced and then shipped? At what price level will it be? Or is this all based on rumor sites and Photoshop mock-ups?
 
Assuming a calibrated rangefinder, an RF is easier and faster to focus (for me).

Peak focussing is a bit of a paradox for me. To get good peak rendering, you want to open the lens and get a shallow DOF. Yet, it is not accurate enough (IMO) for shallow DOF shooting unless you then stop down for the shot or use image magnification to check focus. As a frequent low light shooter, I see myself wanting a digital M someday for just this reason. It's a shame that the M's ISO is nowhere near the NEX, though.
 
I agree with the post below, in my opnion the M provides a unique way taking pictures. Focussing with the RF is easy and accurate, the M viewfinder is the brightest and biggest in the market and most important, it it an intuitive process. You focus while keeping your eyes to the world outside. On a Nex it is just not made for it: focus first using peak-focus and magnification with both its own problems (if you magnify it is like looking thru a (poor quality) binocular). And then after focussing you have to press some buttons again to go back to the original view (still nothing like a M viewfinder where you can see outside the framelines), and frame you shot as you want it, hoping that in the process nothing or nobody moves and your focus stays accurate, then stop down the lens? And take the picture. Sounds complicated to me.
I agree with previous posters that using legacy lenses on a Nex can make some amazing result (of course, you're using these wonderfull lenses) but it is just not feasible for common day shooting.

As for the iso and leica M: even on an m8 iso 1250/1600 is perfectly doable and prodcuces quality images with prints up to 13x19. Of course since leica does not have any processing inside the camera, you shoot raw and take fukl advantage of the LR3 noise processing. Sure there is some noise visible in the pictures but it looks great and all details in the picture are preserved.
So, compared with a Nex, we are talking about 1 stop advantage left for the Nex? Not too bad for a 5 year old sensor. In my opinion the whole high iso marketing is the next thing after the megapixel race. Good lenses that capture the available light are more important than cranking up the iso.




flip said:
Assuming a calibrated rangefinder, an RF is easier and faster to focus (for me).

Peak focussing is a bit of a paradox for me. To get good peak rendering, you want to open the lens and get a shallow DOF. Yet, it is not accurate enough (IMO) for shallow DOF shooting unless you then stop down for the shot or use image magnification to check focus. As a frequent low light shooter, I see myself wanting a digital M someday for just this reason. It's a shame that the M's ISO is nowhere near the NEX, though.
Click to expand...
 
Well it is great to see so many photographers pushing the boundaries of the possible with their cameras. Lots of 16x20 prints from images taken in the dark of night have we? Excellent. Why I remember when I was just a young pup and Kodak upped the ASA rating on Tri-X from 200 to 400, we all went straight to the bottom of the nearest coal mine and made images the like of which had never been seen before, headed straight home and made 16 x20 prints of all our friends and family and then sat down to a nice strong cup of tea. Those really were the days. Now, of course, you've got your ISO 7 billion and the ability to make prints three miles wide from a chip the size of a postage stamp, it is glory days indeed. In fact, I am right now going to "capture" (I think the young folks say) a single photon, make 600 foot, 8 quadrillon megabyte file of the image and digitally project it on the moon. That'll show 'em.
 
Benjamin Marks said:
Well it is great to see so many photographers pushing the boundaries of the possible with their cameras. Lots of 16x20 prints from images taken in the dark of night have we? Excellent. Why I remember when I was just a young pup and Kodak upped the ASA rating on Tri-X from 200 to 400, we all went straight to the bottom of the nearest coal mine and made images the like of which had never been seen before, headed straight home and made 16 x20 prints of all our friends and family and then sat down to a nice strong cup of tea. Those really were the days. Now, of course, you've got your ISO 7 billion and the ability to make prints three miles wide from a chip the size of a postage stamp, it is glory days indeed. In fact, I am right now going to "capture" (I think the young folks say) a single photon, make 600 foot, 8 quadrillon megabyte file of the image and digitally project it on the moon. That'll show 'em.
Click to expand...

Why, I do think he's being sarcastic.:rolleyes:
 
Joe AC said:
Sorry for my ignorance but...can someone explain to me how you would focus with an EVF. Is it done through the EVF or on the LCD?

Thanks
Joe
Click to expand...

Some cameras have a EVF built in - Panasonic G series. Some do not - Sony NEX. Some it is an accessory - Panasonic GF series (3 excluded), Olymus Pen (digital). You can focus with either EVF or LCD if the camera has a manual focus option.
 
Last edited:
So it's an A55 with better build quality and an E lens mount?

Sounds like it all hinges on whether Sony ever makes any decent lenses for it. By decent I mean not costing $1000 for a plastic Zeiss.

Note that an A55 costs about $750. What will make the Nex 7 worth $1200 other than suckers will pay it?

Don't get me wrong, the Nex cosmetics are a lot nicer than the consumer SLRs. But $450 for an Aluminum body shell is a bit steep.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom