Nex-7 a bridge too far....

[douglasf13]

I do not own a SONY camera and I don't think I will ever own one. I think there are two completely different issues here.

If the NEX 7 does not handle M lenses well... so what? The camera was not designed or intended to be used with M optics. This is not SONY's fault. Anyone who bought a NEX 7 knew SONY made no promises whatsoever the sensor would deliver quality images with M lenses. If the NEX 5 does work well with M lenses, that is just a happy accident. Digital sesnors are not film. They are often designed to work with a specific optical formula.

If the NEX 7 underperforms with lenses SONY intended to be used with the E-mount, then this is a significant problem.

+1. If the issue only extended to M lenses, then warning those buying the camera for M lenses would be the goal. However, if the problem extends to e-mount and a-mount lenses, Sony will have to address it.

p.s. Granted, Sony does openly promote the use of rangefinder lenses on their Nex cameras. They even have Nex cameras on display at all the trade shows with M lenses attached.

 

[Bugleone]

This is more or less nonsense,.....Photozone has has NOT backed up any of these criticisms with actual samples it's just a thumbs down slur for some reason.

The only samples that I can find on either of those links if a centre/corner comparison of NEX 5n and NEX 7 using Biogon 35mm f2,...the 'findings' despite being described as "definately something going on" are entirely normal showing the optimum quality at two/three stops closed for both cameras and with NEX7 distinctly superior in resolution.

There are too many of these 'tests' on the web and anybody can just shoot a few frames and then rubbish either lenses or camera without any real expertise and people will nod knowingly like they really see proiblems,...the fact is that many people don't really have the experience to actually know what they thinik they are 'seeing'.

Also, the vast majority of these 'tests' are often inappropriate for the class of cameras being 'tested'........and the lens/sensor combination often mismatched, quite apart form a common dislike for true 'real world' test parameters.

 

[Disaster_Area]

+1 I think we all wanted the NEX 7 to be the Holy Grail camera we've all been waiting for, it's not perfect and many people are getting overly critical. The samples I've seen with CV wides (which are hard to find, considering how "awful" people are say it is, you'd think there'd be terrible examples everywhere) range from "ok, a little blurry at the edges" to "hardly noticible or objectionable". The few samples I've been able to find from the 15mm Heliar have looked quite good. I think it's another case of over pixel peeping.

I'm getting my NEX 7 tomorrow and will be doing a quite intensive work up with all my CV wides. I'm not going to worry about whether the corners are a bit soft or not, only whether the camera can produce nice photos. If it can do that, I'll keep it.

 

[douglasf13]

This is more or less nonsense,.....Photozone has has NOT backed up any of these criticisms with actual samples it's just a thumbs down slur for some reason.

The only samples that I can find on either of those links if a centre/corner comparison of NEX 5n and NEX 7 using Biogon 35mm f2,...the 'findings' despite being described as "definately something going on" are entirely normal showing the optimum quality at two/three stops closed for both cameras and with NEX7 distinctly superior in resolution.

There are too many of these 'tests' on the web and anybody can just shoot a few frames and then rubbish either lenses or camera without any real expertise and people will nod knowingly like they really see proiblems,...the fact is that many people don't really have the experience to actually know what they thinik they are 'seeing'.

Also, the vast majority of these 'tests' are often inappropriate for the class of cameras being 'tested'........and the lens/sensor combination often mismatched, quite apart form a common dislike for true 'real world' test parameters.

So are you saying that Photozone has no expertise in testing lenses??? Klaus hasn't posted any tests yet, because he can't get consistent results with the camera and various SONY lenses, and that is the big deal here. We're not talking rangefinder lenses or old SLR lenses. We're talking a-mount and e-mount lenses.

p.s. the optimum aperture of the ZM 35/2 is f4, and the 5N should not be better at the edges than the 7 at this aperture, which is part of the problem.

 

[Bugleone]

.....No, 'Klaus' has NOT posted any tests,.....but that has not stopped him from making criticisms, which has already cast a shadow over his integrity in my book.....

And, the Biogon 'test' is unproven,......the NEX 7 show greater centre resolution (not unexpectedly) but equally the resolution of the lens is under stress from the greater pixel density,..when the two sensors are compared in large prints side by side the difference may (or not) be less noticeable,...that does NOT imply a 'problem' with the NEX 7 sensor.....

 

[Disaster_Area]

agreed... there seems to be plenty of shots from the NEX that look good, but I'm having a hard time finding shots of it looking as bad as everyone says.

I keep seeing statements like "The NEX 7 is utterly useless with anything wider than a 35mm RF lens" but there's never any pictures to go with that statement. And the few times I have seen images, they didn't look all that bad.

 

[NazgulKing]

.....No, 'Klaus' has NOT posted any tests,.....but that has not stopped him from making criticisms, which has already cast a shadow over his integrity in my book.....

And, the Biogon 'test' is unproven,......the NEX 7 show greater centre resolution (not unexpectedly) but equally the resolution of the lens is under stress from the greater pixel density,..when the two sensors are compared in large prints side by side the difference may (or not) be less noticeable,...that does NOT imply a 'problem' with the NEX 7 sensor.....

What would be the point of posting tests that he himself could not agree with the result? Man, the man goes and buy a SECOND NEX-7 just to be absolutely sure that he is wrong and here we have people jumping and down like the man committed some grand heresy.

 

[douglasf13]

.....No, 'Klaus' has NOT posted any tests,.....but that has not stopped him from making criticisms, which has already cast a shadow over his integrity in my book.....

And, the Biogon 'test' is unproven,......the NEX 7 show greater centre resolution (not unexpectedly) but equally the resolution of the lens is under stress from the greater pixel density,..when the two sensors are compared in large prints side by side the difference may (or not) be less noticeable,...that does NOT imply a 'problem' with the NEX 7 sensor.....

What exactly is unproven about the ZM 35/2 test? That test clearly shows that the 35/2 on the 7 doesn't compete with the 5N at the edges until around f5.6...and he UPSIZED the 5N crops to match the 7 crops. The 7 also shows more color shift, but that's easily fixed.

At this point, there are so many tests on numerous forums and review sites out there showing a similar phenomenon that it's hard to argue the issue with rangefinder lenses on the NEX-7. The Nex-7's performance with e-mount and a-mount lenses is the more compelling question, and, while I agree that we can't base everything off of unproven statements from Photozone, it is compelling, and, if forced to wager, I'd bet that Photozone isn't mistaken.

 

[douglasf13]

agreed... there seems to be plenty of shots from the NEX that look good, but I'm having a hard time finding shots of it looking as bad as everyone says.

I keep seeing statements like "The NEX 7 is utterly useless with anything wider than a 35mm RF lens" but there's never any pictures to go with that statement. And the few times I have seen images, they didn't look all that bad.

Hi. There's certainly a difference between "not all that bad" and great. We all know that someone can make exceptional images with a pinhole camera, but that isn't the point here. There are a ton of 5N users, including myself, that have cancelled 7 preorders, because, if anything, the IQ of the NEX-7 should be a nice step up. It would seem silly to me, after buying a ZM 35/2 in order to yield better corner performance than my CV 35/1.4, to buy the NEX-7 and have the edge quality go backwards. Heck, I've been looking at the GXR lately, because the edges are even better than the 5N. One of the few advantages of using 135 glass on an aps-c sensor is that we should have the advantage of lenses being sharp across the frame.

Granted, the NEX-7 does have much better center resolution than the 5N, so maybe having better center resolution and worse corner resolution is an acceptable trade off for some.

Of course, it all depends on how big you normally print. At my usual 13x19 size, these issues are noticeable.

 

[Bugleone]

Douglas,...you're getting 'too close' to this and not looking at the overall picture (pun intended!)....It's NOT true to say that the 'NEX 5n is bette at the edges'....the corner shots show that the NEX 7 has greater 'sharpness' by f5.6 and, even if the f2 corners are inferior, we might just be seeing the performance curve of the Biogon under greater strain from the extra 18 million pixels,.....it's almost certainly missleading to interpret these corner phenomena (the 'change over' in sharpness) as a sensor fault in the NEX 7....

....The fact is that the two sensors are different and probablay behave very differently but you can't claim the NEX 7 is inferior when it is sharper at f5.6...that's not reasonable!

 

[douglasf13]

Douglas,...you're getting 'too close' to this and not looking at the overall picture (pun intended!)....It's NOT true to say that the 'NEX 5n is bette at the edges'....the corner shots show that the NEX 7 has greater 'sharpness' by f5.6 and, even if the f2 corners are inferior, we might just be seeing the performance curve of the Biogon under greater strain from the extra 18 million pixels,.....it's almost certainly missleading to interpret these corner phenomena (the 'change over' in sharpness) as a sensor fault in the NEX 7....

....The fact is that the two sensors are different and probablay behave very differently but you can't claim the NEX 7 is inferior when it is sharper at f5.6...that's not reasonable!

That would make sense if the NEX-7 and 5n's edges were compared at native resolution, but that ZM 35/2 test compares them at like size. There is obvious detail smearing with the 7, most likely due to increased astigmatism from the 7's particular AA/micro lens setup dealing with certain lenses. Even slight changes in the distance of the AA filter from the sensor can affect things dramatically.

I don't claim the NEX-7 is an inferior sensor, overall. I'm claiming that, with some lenses, the NEX-7 has edge issues, and it usually seems to be taken care of by f5.6 or so. Heck, to some, the increased resolution in the center at wider apertures may be worth the trade off of worse corner performance, which is fine by me. I'd personally prefer the 24mp sensor with both solid center AND edge performance. As it stands now, I prefer more evenness across the frame with my lenses and the 5N, especially considering that much of the center resolution advantage of the 7 is attained only by using a tripod.

 

[Disaster_Area]

I think the biggest problem is many people are expecting the image quality of the NEX 7 to be vastly superior to the NEX 5n because of the price tag, instead of treating them as just two different beasts with similar image quality. Just because the NEX 7 is more money, doesn't mean Sony dumped that money into image quality.

Nex 7 Body = $1200
Nex 5n + viewfinder = $600 + $400 = $1000

So for $200, Sony has given the NEX 7 a better viewfinder, integrated in the body at a much nicer position, which isn't in danger of getting snagged and ripped off, quite a few more MP, a full metal chassis, a real flash shoe, a built in flash, a better grip, and some really nice manual control dials. So lets assume the Nex 5n has slightly better image quality under some conditions (corner sharpness and color cast on wide open wides) while the NEX 7 has the advantage in others (center sharpness and stopped down wides). I'd say that's a pretty good list of improvements for $200.

It's fair to call the 5 a step up from the 3, but I think the 7 must be viewed as just a different type of camera in the same mount. In the end I think both the 5n and the 7 are great cameras, it's all a matter of what you intend to use them for.

 

[douglasf13]

I think the biggest problem is many people are expecting the image quality of the NEX 7 to be vastly superior to the NEX 5n because of the price tag, instead of treating them as just two different beasts with similar image quality. Just because the NEX 7 is more money, doesn't mean Sony dumped that money into image quality.

Nex 7 Body = $1200
Nex 5n + viewfinder = $600 + $400 = $1000

So for $200, Sony has given the NEX 7 a better viewfinder, integrated in the body at a much nicer position, which isn't in danger of getting snagged and ripped off, quite a few more MP, a full metal chassis, a real flash shoe, a built in flash, a better grip, and some really nice manual control dials. So lets assume the Nex 5n has slightly better image quality under some conditions (corner sharpness and color cast on wide open wides) while the NEX 7 has the advantage in others (center sharpness and stopped down wides). I'd say that's a pretty good list of improvements for $200.

It's fair to call the 5 a step up from the 3, but I think the 7 must be viewed as just a different type of camera in the same mount. In the end I think both the 5n and the 7 are great cameras, it's all a matter of what you intend to use them for.

Yeah, it's become quite a nebulous decision for us rangefinder lens users. I agree that you do get a few more things with the NEX-7 (a digital level, too,) but extra control wheels are of limited use for manual lens users, and the 5N has the advantage of a touch screen (for manual focus,) a tilt EVF that has a really convenient on/off button, and strap lugs that point the camera down, so that the eye-sensor doesn't constantly defeat the camera sleep mode by being triggered by your body. That being said, if it wasn't for the sensor situation, I'd surely buy a NEX-7.

Anyway, sorry to get off topic.

 

[edodo]

When someone is giving up cause he's had enough will you ask him an unbiased review of the object of his disgust? Trust only yourself! Even a glorious review is more likely to be written by a paid writer or a fanboy or the firm... Just my two cents..

 

[willie_901]

I had no idea SONY was promoting the NEX7 as a M lens platform. That does change things a bit.

I think Fuji is about to find itself with the same problem once it releases the Fuji M adapter. There's always a chance the XP1 will do well with M optics, but the M owners have high standards. There's absolutely nothing wrong with high standards, but I have to wonder if SONY and Fuji really understand this.

 

[bwcolor]

I think we just have a very very picky camera here, which, when everything is right can really deliver.

Latest is that the zm18 is good....after cornerfix 🙂

Yes, I agree.

I like my NEX-7, but I've discovered that I wasn't using the best sharpening settings, that I needed to use faster shutter speeds and be more selective as to aperture in order to get a great pixel picking experience. 24MPix is pretty demanding.. My Biogons are not ideal, some of my other lenses are great for less demanding applications, but are not for pixel peeping.

I rarely need files larger than those produced by my X100, so when I think of the NEX-7 "image noise", I think that downsizing pretty much takes care of this issue.

 

[douglasf13]

I had no idea SONY was promoting the NEX7 as a M lens platform. That does change things a bit.

I think Fuji is about to find itself with the same problem once it releases the Fuji M adapter. There's always a chance the XP1 will do well with M optics, but the M owners have high standards. There's absolutely nothing wrong with high standards, but I have to wonder if SONY and Fuji really understand this.

Like the M9 and GXR, the X-Pro1 doesn't have an AA filter, and that goes a long way in solving the issue. It is likely going to perform better than all Nex cameras with M lenses.

 

[uhoh7]

This is more or less nonsense,.....Photozone has has NOT backed up any of these criticisms with actual samples it's just a thumbs down slur for some reason..

A slur would be something he knew to be untrue, no?

he went to the trouble of getting a second body at least.

People have opinions.

1000 slurs never stopped me from enjoying my nex-5 back when it was widely laughed at.

But something is weird about that sensor.....look at the 50lux 1.4 edges at LL.

They terrible untill near F/8

Why?

 

[Paul T.]

I had no idea SONY was promoting the NEX7 as a M lens platform. That does change things a bit.

I think Fuji is about to find itself with the same problem once it releases the Fuji M adapter. There's always a chance the XP1 will do well with M optics, but the M owners have high standards. There's absolutely nothing wrong with high standards, but I have to wonder if SONY and Fuji really understand this.

I doubt there's ever a truer word spoken.

I actually think Fuji are making a mistake by pushing the M lens angle; they would be much better talking about it as a cool extra, rather than as an integral part of the package, which they've effectively done by announcing the M adapter from the start.

Because there will definitely be some problems with some lenses. And then a bunch of M lens owners will get on their high horses and get all angry over a system that is really a compromise.

 

[BobYIL]

Sony did not design the NEX series specifically for use with the existing rangefinder lenses, especially with the ones wider than 35mm; the plan was based on selling their own lenses. With the wide angles of retrofocus designs such issues do not exist. We are not even sure about how the sensor on the 5N "layered" with something functioning somewhat like offset microlenses; we only know that it still is being inferior to the sensor on the M8 in that regard.

Probably the next versions of their 24MP mirrorless sensors would come with improved solutions as the cost of the offset microlenses should not be much issue for Sony who most definitely are following these harsh criticism since the introduction of the Nex-7. They accomplished a splendid job, waiting only for a final "retouche"... Who knows, the 2012 Photokina may see a Nex-7N...