My main issue with Sony is that they don't make quality small primes for its small cameras. They are more focused on the consumer than on photographers (which is probably a smart move business wise).
Disaster_Area
Gadget Monger
I think that's something we tend to forget here... these companies are in the game to make money, not satisfy the wet dreams of us gear heads. For every user here that wants a mirrorless camera for their Leica glass... there's a hundreds or thousands of soccer moms asking "So how many times zoom do I get with this lens?"
Canon and Nikon both make most of their money in the amateur camera range... which allows them to spend R&D cash on stuff for the pros. Sony's only been in the camera game a very short time. Let them make some money off the soccer moms, get their camera division profitable and we'll start to see more pro equipment. They've been in the camera game a small fraction of the time the big boys have and they're already pumping out innovative, quality products.
douglasf13
Well-known
Actually, what Photozone is saying is that there are issues with the Nex-7, even with some native e-mount lenses, which is a big problem. Now, these issues may not be noticeable to many, and may just be an issue in the realm of lens testing, but it shouldn't be ignored.
vidgamer
Established
Wouldn't it make more sense to just return the one thought to be defective? Weird.
Well, people have been very excited about the Nex-7, and the short supply hasn't helped curb that. When someone comes in and says that it's flawed, I'm not surprised that some people would be taken aback.
Let me know when the perfect camera is available, OK? ;-) Oh, and it should be less than $500... no, wait, $400, and accept all of my lenses, and no CA, vignetting.....
(Full disclosure -- I've been happier with my kit lens since buying DxO which fixes up a lot issues like vignetting, CA [not so much], distortion....)
Exactly, we don't represent the mainstream consumer and their wants. We are just a bonus to Sony.
BobYIL
Well-known
True... Imagine all these members on over-50 forums here came together and wanted to order some fixed FL lenses to encourage Sony to design and manufacture... and through advance payment... Huh! I doubt if they would even mind.. Afterall how many of us here as total? Not even 40K...
Spyro
Well-known
well half the fun of having a mirrorless camera, or an RF for that matter, is being able to use non retrofocus fast wide angles... non retrofocus (symmetrical) wides are usually way smaller.
Paul_M
Newbie
Nice blog entry by Kirk Tuck.
Take a look before digesting all the test chart data...
http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2012/08/according-to-all-test-reports-my-fill.html
Take a look before digesting all the test chart data...
http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2012/08/according-to-all-test-reports-my-fill.html
Athos6
Tao Master
Thigs we know
Thigs we know
I just got a Nex-7 after much analysis.
Things we know.
1. The higher MP count will be harder on lenses and harder to MF even with the aids.
2. Some Lenses work better than others on the N7
3. Knowing that the camera would be a platform for legacy lenses they could have made it work better for those lenses, but didn't, live with it.
4. Most real world shots (at least the ones on my wall) have corners that are already out of focus by design. I don't shoot brick walls or test charts. I never open a jpg on the web and say "ohhh look how the pavement in the corner of that shot is razor sharp, and then crop the woman out of the picture and use it as my desktop.
5. The high MP lets me crop shots and still retain good detail, alleviating the problem in those cases.
6. Taking pictures is more fun than talking about it.
7. By gear that works for what you need. I needed a camera for 50mm and greater FOV....
So, is the N7 good for mesurbating? No. Good for taking pictures? Yes.
Athos
Thigs we know
I just got a Nex-7 after much analysis.
Things we know.
1. The higher MP count will be harder on lenses and harder to MF even with the aids.
2. Some Lenses work better than others on the N7
3. Knowing that the camera would be a platform for legacy lenses they could have made it work better for those lenses, but didn't, live with it.
4. Most real world shots (at least the ones on my wall) have corners that are already out of focus by design. I don't shoot brick walls or test charts. I never open a jpg on the web and say "ohhh look how the pavement in the corner of that shot is razor sharp, and then crop the woman out of the picture and use it as my desktop.
5. The high MP lets me crop shots and still retain good detail, alleviating the problem in those cases.
6. Taking pictures is more fun than talking about it.
7. By gear that works for what you need. I needed a camera for 50mm and greater FOV....
So, is the N7 good for mesurbating? No. Good for taking pictures? Yes.
Athos
behyer
Member
Kirk Tuck's review really states it as it is: We don't take pictures of test patterns. That said, I value Photozone's tests and have used their info to guide buying decisions, especially when purchasing lenses for my company's Canon DSLRs.
I've had my NEX-7 since March, and truth be told, I've yet to take a picture with the 18-55. I have the Sony Zeiss 24, a Zeiss Biogon 35/2, and a Leica 90/2 (pre-asph. model, still an awesome lens). I just bought a CV 15 but haven't used it much. Building the outfit with these lenses accomplished two goals: 1) Keep the system small and unobtrusive, and 2) Use only glass that will hold up to the 24MP resolution. And yes, I do utilize all of that resolution. Oh, and let's not forget the 1080p60 video being shot with these lenses.
I have no complaints. I just posted some photos (to the member gallery) that I shot recently in Charleston, SC, where I was having a late dinner with friends. You tell me if the camera is flawed.
If the camera doesn't test well, then it doesn't test well. It shoots damn fine images, and that's my criteria.
I've had my NEX-7 since March, and truth be told, I've yet to take a picture with the 18-55. I have the Sony Zeiss 24, a Zeiss Biogon 35/2, and a Leica 90/2 (pre-asph. model, still an awesome lens). I just bought a CV 15 but haven't used it much. Building the outfit with these lenses accomplished two goals: 1) Keep the system small and unobtrusive, and 2) Use only glass that will hold up to the 24MP resolution. And yes, I do utilize all of that resolution. Oh, and let's not forget the 1080p60 video being shot with these lenses.
I have no complaints. I just posted some photos (to the member gallery) that I shot recently in Charleston, SC, where I was having a late dinner with friends. You tell me if the camera is flawed.
If the camera doesn't test well, then it doesn't test well. It shoots damn fine images, and that's my criteria.
willie_901
Veteran
I like that photo because you resisted the temptation to pull up the really dark areas.
Jpeg
Newbie
Well, I have a NEX-7 and I did some lens testing. The main reason I bought this camera is because with a simple adapter I could use all my Leica R lenses on it, which includes a Simmilux 50mm. f/1.4, a Simmricon 50 mm. f/2 and a Vario Elamr 35-70 mm. lens. I then bought a Carl Zeiss 50mm. f/1.4 Planar T and a Carl Zeiss Distagan f/2.8 25mm lens.
I took street shots with these lenses at same times and locations. I then blew up the results on my 32" HD TV set. The Carl Zeiss lenses where distinctly more detailed and clear. Color from the Leica lenses were more subtle then the Zeiss lenses, but I think the Zeiss color was sharper and more natural. In other words, you could say, the Leica lenses were more 'dream-like'.
To top it off the Zeiss lenses are lighter and smaller and use smaller adapters. The only thing I like about the Leica lenses is their slide-out hoods.
The second best of the bunch was the Leica Simmricon 50mm. f/2. It beats the R Simmilux f/1.4. Incidently, Sony's own kit 18-55 mm. made a pretty proud showing as well, definitely nothing to complain about.
Anyway, I'm thinking about selling all my Leica gear, even the R 6.2 camera. I might keep the Simmricon f/2 lens but I don't understand why I should.
I took street shots with these lenses at same times and locations. I then blew up the results on my 32" HD TV set. The Carl Zeiss lenses where distinctly more detailed and clear. Color from the Leica lenses were more subtle then the Zeiss lenses, but I think the Zeiss color was sharper and more natural. In other words, you could say, the Leica lenses were more 'dream-like'.
To top it off the Zeiss lenses are lighter and smaller and use smaller adapters. The only thing I like about the Leica lenses is their slide-out hoods.
The second best of the bunch was the Leica Simmricon 50mm. f/2. It beats the R Simmilux f/1.4. Incidently, Sony's own kit 18-55 mm. made a pretty proud showing as well, definitely nothing to complain about.
Anyway, I'm thinking about selling all my Leica gear, even the R 6.2 camera. I might keep the Simmricon f/2 lens but I don't understand why I should.
