Your legacy glass will be fine with respect to speed. The loss of theoretical speed is not a "real" factor (in practical terms) any more than the idea that 1.5x crop factor sensors actually multiply focal lengths, or digital artifacts in out-of-camera jpegs are completely destructive to an image, or (insert general dissatisfaction here) . It only exists as a function of what is in the frame. The purported loss of a fraction of a stop (technical metric) will not show up in any way shape or form as an impediment to picture taking or a specific lens' value as a component in the image making process (aesthetic endeavour). If, on the other hand, you have preferences as to which lens you use for what subject, because of how it looks, great!
... But of all the things "deficient" in using "full-frame" lenses on 1.5x crop systems, the amount of light getting through the lens isn't one of them. But if you feel that it is, that is your right.
Again, sorry to have touched a nerve. Meanwhile, enjoy the NEX. It looks like a great little camera.
Metta,
OK points taken, armistice.
You are alot more experienced than I am. My professional stuff has been 100 weddings over the last 10 years--but video only. I have never been interested in DSLRs because they are too big for the mainstay of my still stuff, backcountry landscapes. I have been using a lumix super zoom for years, but the noise in the long shots has been just killing me.
you can get the idea of what I've been doing here
http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=524859&highlight=idaho+extreme
But the Nex is tiny and can come with me anywhere. Finnally I can get some real resoultion out there without a big pack.
The legacy glass is partly nostaligia, I bought a nikkormat and FTb NEW, but lost interest travelling because the locals did not like SLRs pointed at them. I took a clarinet instead, to 44 countries over about 7 years of heavy travel in the 80s. Should have bought a rangefinder.
But as you know, the nex takes any glass. S over the last 6 months I've hand picked about 14 lenses, besides the native emounts, partly because most are fast and will do good low-light video (i also have a VG10), but also for landscapes, candids and indoor work.
Here's the nex with my sigma 8-16mm at 8mm
also found FD 20 and 24 f/2, nikon 28 f/2, Canon and sony 35s, hexanon 40, various 50s, the two 55s above, a 90 bokina, 105 kiron macro, 135s nikon and soligar f/2 and a nikon 180 ais ED.
I figured they are basically money in the bank-- I can always sell them later.
Obviously I'll have to pick my weapons in the backcountry.
BUT as I study up and test, I see how nice a small FF would be with this glass. You say speed is not a factor, but I can slow my shutter with a wider lens and stay steady,
Darin Butler over at prophotohome describes it better than I can:
"Let's assume we have two cameras (a 1Ds and a 20D) each shooting the same scene with a 100mm lens. The 1Ds has a 24x36 mm sensor, and the 20D has a 15x22.5 mm sensor. Let's further assume (using round numbers) that the shutter speed in both cases is 1/100. Finally, assume that while the shutter is open, the photographer's hands twitch to the extent that the camera moves horizontally by an amount we'll call x.
It's easy to see that this movement x has a larger relative effect on the smaller sensor than the bigger one, because x/22.5 is bigger than x/36. In other words, while the shutter is open the field of view of the smaller sensor changes more (in percentage terms) than it does for the bigger sensor. This, of course, means you get a more pronounced blur and loss of sharpness.
What if we set the shutter for the 20D at 1/160? Assuming that the "twitch" moves the camera at the same speed (x per 1/100 second) as in the first example, it will now move a shorter distance due to the faster shutter speed - instead of moving x, it will move x/1.6. Thus, its relative movement now becomes x/(1.6)(22.5), which is the same as x/36 as with the 1Ds. This is why it is appropriate to use the "effective" focal length in the shutter speed rule of thumb"
Now he (and I) may be wrong--let me know if you agree or not.
and with a FF I can print larger and crop better--plus ISO is likely to get alot better, though nex is not bad. That's really all I'm saying.
For me an RF size FF that will take alot of glass would give me more flexiblity with any given lens. I think we will see one within a year. The lecia is nice, but way over my budget.
All the best--hitchhiked to Whitehorse from Skagway in 1979! Well took the old train at first..
