What methodology would you suggest...
My methodology would be pretty simple. I’d just take a lot of similar pictures with both cameras and make fairly big prints. That takes a lot of time and certainly isn’t going to meet muster with scientific methodology. But, oddly enough, it isn’t that different from some of Leica’s testing methods. They have incredible optical benches, e.t.c., for testing. But, at least a few years back, they used to also post prints on the cafeteria wall for everybody to check out.
I have not done any of this with a Nex 7, but it does seem an interesting camera whose small size and quiet, quick operation would interest folks with Leica and Leicaflex lenses but not M9 money.
The comparisons that I have run with the better cameras that I use have not been too flattering to Leica. Image quality directly related to the sensor is fine, but certainly not the best of the lot. Nor is this aspect of image quality the only factor in evaluating a camera.
Perhaps it’s the nature of the sensor surface rather than film, perhaps it’s looser standards, perhaps it’s my imagination or something particular to my equipment, but the rangefinder focusing accuracy of lenses out of the box has also been a problem and does not seem as good as it was for the M3’s through 6’s that were my film workhorses. In the film days I had all my M body rangefinders null-nulled by Norm Goldberg (Don’s father) and the cams on my lenses reground if necessary to match them. This may be even more necessary with the digital bodies.
And then there is the question of high ISO performance. I never used film Leicas for landscape work, that got done on bigger format cameras. The little Leicas were to go anywhere with very little and come back with pictures. When Kodak came out with P3200 and I no longer had to backstop myself with a few rolls of weird recording films, I was a very happy camper. These days, using a big DSLR just because it out performs a smaller camera at high ISO’s does not make me a happy camper.
I think you evaluate camera performance on a number of personal criteria, but I think the buzz on the Nex 7 from a number of photographers who used the early releases make it of interest to anyone wanting high technical quality from a small, unobtrusive camera. The fact that it can accept Leica and Leicaflex lenses make it particularly interesting to this forum. Dpreview,
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/12/14/sonynex7review gave it one of the best reviews it has ever given a camera. To automatically
dismiss it in favor of a digital Leica doesn’t make much sense if you are interested in pictures. It does make sense if you are only interested in owning Leicas.[/quote]
And this is where I disagree.:angel: I buy cameras and lenses because of what I want which means aesthetics, ergonomics, "feel", preference, whatever. To buy a camera that looks like a Sony blob, Nikon blob, Canon blob, etc. does not make sense to ME. I personally have found my "sweet spot", the M-mount Leica camera in either film or digital. No reason to change IMO.
To universally declare that one (meaning ME or anyone else with similar taste) would only buy a Leica because he wants ONLY a Leica is stereotype garbage. It becomes an absolute and I dismiss any discussion where someone defends absolutes.
Personally, I looked at the NEX 5 and now the 7 and find it distastefully designed and does nothing more than what I use now or what I plan on buying in the future. Simple. Everyone has their own tastes and that is the way it should be, so please, the real measure if you want one is what one
does with whatever camera/lenses he or she uses.:angel: I reckon I could spend the next 50 years with one camera and die a happy soul.
