maitani
Well-known
i have to admit i had written this camera off, big announcement last fall, then not available anywhere, floods supply problems etc.
now it hits some local stores in small quantities, tested it, and bought it, price was ok too, so got my hand on one, been shooting the whole weekend.
being thru many digital cameras I'll have to admit this camera definitely is a game changer, i was toying with the idea of a fuji x pro, or ricoh gxr too, happy i went the nex route, next week i'll do some tests with my m glass. to see what the sensor is really capable of.
tri navi need some getting used to like any camera, but rocks one you're there. nice build, nice viewfinder, great video, af is instant, the kit lens better than expected. 1.5 crop i can live with adapter glass, where the 2x crop on the pens killed all the fun for me. focus peaking is great too
output is stunning, colours, dr, resolution are out of this world, and rival fullframe files. all in a smaller and lighter package than my old e-p1... this kind of quality was only available i medium format 3-4 years ago.
can't wait to stick some of the better om glass and m glass on this body. with the adapters i can use this as digital-back for all my old lenses.
now it hits some local stores in small quantities, tested it, and bought it, price was ok too, so got my hand on one, been shooting the whole weekend.
being thru many digital cameras I'll have to admit this camera definitely is a game changer, i was toying with the idea of a fuji x pro, or ricoh gxr too, happy i went the nex route, next week i'll do some tests with my m glass. to see what the sensor is really capable of.
tri navi need some getting used to like any camera, but rocks one you're there. nice build, nice viewfinder, great video, af is instant, the kit lens better than expected. 1.5 crop i can live with adapter glass, where the 2x crop on the pens killed all the fun for me. focus peaking is great too
output is stunning, colours, dr, resolution are out of this world, and rival fullframe files. all in a smaller and lighter package than my old e-p1... this kind of quality was only available i medium format 3-4 years ago.
can't wait to stick some of the better om glass and m glass on this body. with the adapters i can use this as digital-back for all my old lenses.
ray*j*gun
Veteran
Do the adapters for M lenses work well.....?
floyd
Member
I had the chance to try the NEX7 at a local dealer last week, with so many new and each in there own way superb cameras being launched at more or less the same time I'm undecided about which to go for. I didn't think the Sony lenses were quite as bad as some on the web have made out, but the couple of Voigtlander lenses I took along really showed what the sensor is capable of if you are able to manual focus.
Floyd
Floyd
The Hawk is great
kshapero
South Florida Man
Yes if you don't mind the lack of an optical viewfinder with split image focusing. The lack of it I found to a deal killer. Focus peaking is not the "real" experience. Others may differ. Still it is a fine camera.
ray*j*gun
Veteran
Thanks....I guess I was afraid of that.
Adanac
Well-known
I do miss a real optical viewfinder and rangefinder focus system, but only at times. Losing RF focusing in the end wasn't a deal killer for me. What is a deal killer for me is that no contemporary currently produced digital rangefinder camera exists other than the M9 and I will not pay M9 prices for what ultimately is a disposable item - a digital camera body.
There are some benefits to an electronic viewfinder camera. With through the lens focus and a Hawk adapter on the NEX, you can radically cut the minimum focus distance of every single M lens you own. My Zeiss 25mm - normally a 0.5 meter minimum focus distance - on a NEX with the Hawk adapter extended fully can focus on a subject a mere three or four finger widths away from the front of the lens (about 0.06m roughly). The Hawk adapter being variable it is much more useful than a 10mm Leica close focus extension (own that too).
I ended up preferring the GXR with its native M mount module over the NEX, trading in some NEX advantages in the process, but all my lenses work beautifully on the GXR. Bill Pierce has a thread here he asks the rhetorical question about rangefinder "alternatives" - turns out he is also using a GXR with M glass. It isn't a rangefinder, but it is an alternative.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116640
The Sony NEX and Ricoh GXR are fine cameras in their own right that allow one to take advantage of their rangefinder glass, and still experience at least some aspects of the "rangefinder experiences". They are crop cameras, yes, but with a range of M lenses, just as useful as on full frame film. I've not shot one frame of film since making this leap last year, and I've maintained a darkroom since the early 80's.
Overall shooting a NEX or GXR with M glass is a different experience to be sure, but it isn't like landing on Mars either - the shooting experience is similar in some respects. For some of us we'll never know if it'll work for you until you try it.
Cost of entry? About $1200 either way you slice it.
Maybe the Fujifilm X-Pro 1 will end up being the closest thing to a rangefinder. Some even call it one (Michael Reichmann's latest review) but it isn't a rangefinder. You cannot focus a RF lens while looking through the optical viewfinder window. There is no optical or electronic focus assist that allows for that. You can, perhaps - it remains to be seen in fact - focus a manual focus lens using the XP1's EVF and then toggle back to the optical viewfinder for composition and exposure timing purposes, but that isn't very rangefinder like, switching views back and forth for every shot. Still it may be close enough for some. From what I've seen we need to see more reviews of M glass in action on this body before being able to pronounce on whether its a suitable platform for rangefinder glass. From what I've seen so far, it doesn't look like the sensor implementation is going to work as well with rangefinder wide angle lenses as was first hoped. In that regard the M8, M9 and Ricoh GXR would appear to remain in leadership positions. The XP1 might best the Sony NEX cameras in this aspect of performance though. X-Pro 1 cost of entry: $1600 + adapter (from Fujifilm or third parties)
There are some benefits to an electronic viewfinder camera. With through the lens focus and a Hawk adapter on the NEX, you can radically cut the minimum focus distance of every single M lens you own. My Zeiss 25mm - normally a 0.5 meter minimum focus distance - on a NEX with the Hawk adapter extended fully can focus on a subject a mere three or four finger widths away from the front of the lens (about 0.06m roughly). The Hawk adapter being variable it is much more useful than a 10mm Leica close focus extension (own that too).
I ended up preferring the GXR with its native M mount module over the NEX, trading in some NEX advantages in the process, but all my lenses work beautifully on the GXR. Bill Pierce has a thread here he asks the rhetorical question about rangefinder "alternatives" - turns out he is also using a GXR with M glass. It isn't a rangefinder, but it is an alternative.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116640
The Sony NEX and Ricoh GXR are fine cameras in their own right that allow one to take advantage of their rangefinder glass, and still experience at least some aspects of the "rangefinder experiences". They are crop cameras, yes, but with a range of M lenses, just as useful as on full frame film. I've not shot one frame of film since making this leap last year, and I've maintained a darkroom since the early 80's.
Overall shooting a NEX or GXR with M glass is a different experience to be sure, but it isn't like landing on Mars either - the shooting experience is similar in some respects. For some of us we'll never know if it'll work for you until you try it.
Cost of entry? About $1200 either way you slice it.
Maybe the Fujifilm X-Pro 1 will end up being the closest thing to a rangefinder. Some even call it one (Michael Reichmann's latest review) but it isn't a rangefinder. You cannot focus a RF lens while looking through the optical viewfinder window. There is no optical or electronic focus assist that allows for that. You can, perhaps - it remains to be seen in fact - focus a manual focus lens using the XP1's EVF and then toggle back to the optical viewfinder for composition and exposure timing purposes, but that isn't very rangefinder like, switching views back and forth for every shot. Still it may be close enough for some. From what I've seen we need to see more reviews of M glass in action on this body before being able to pronounce on whether its a suitable platform for rangefinder glass. From what I've seen so far, it doesn't look like the sensor implementation is going to work as well with rangefinder wide angle lenses as was first hoped. In that regard the M8, M9 and Ricoh GXR would appear to remain in leadership positions. The XP1 might best the Sony NEX cameras in this aspect of performance though. X-Pro 1 cost of entry: $1600 + adapter (from Fujifilm or third parties)
raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
maitani: can you post some your lovely pictures ? thanks!
kshapero
South Florida Man
I agree, not saying it doesn't have its place, but I think these mirrorless cameras are best used with autofocus lenses.
douglasf13
Well-known
I completely disagree. Between focus peaking and focus magnification, I find a NEX EVF to be as good or better than any rangefinder or SLR at manual focusing. I bought NEX cameras specifically for manually focusing lenses.
bwcolor
Veteran
I've used both NEX-7 and 5N with manual lenses and find focus peaking to work great when I have a good bit of depth of field, but with fast lenses and wide open, I much prefer a well calibrated rangefinder with the proper viewfinder magnification. Bright day... focus peaking is preferred. I don't need my area of best focus to rest in a particular area of the viewfinder and then re-compose. Peaking works in any area within the viewfinder.. that is.. if there is enough contrast.
Joe S
Member
I find the focusing with manual lenses to be excellent but where the Nex shines is in composition with longer rangefinder lenses. Inaccurate framelines on the 90mm and guess framing with the 135mm are gratefully a thing of the past for me.
porktaco
Well-known
^ agreed. oddly, i'm doing a lot less at >50mm than i ever have.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Game changer? Depends on the game you're playing...
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Built in EVFs mean a lot to many folks.
semordnilap
Well-known
I have the 5n and the evf, which is the same as the evf in the 7. The evf is really, really, good. As in, you should go out of your way to see it, as it is clearly the future of things, and they will only get better. Once Sony's level of evf technology is more widely available, I hope to see some interesting ideas playing with it, hopefully with better aids for manual focusing. Peaking + magnification sadly isn't as quick as rf focusing for me, but it is very precise and great for focusing narrow dof shots when you have time to set it up right. On the fly it's a bit more hit and miss.
Anyway, the first FF mirrorless from this new generation (technically the m9 is a mirrorless, no?) will be the real game changer.
Anyway, the first FF mirrorless from this new generation (technically the m9 is a mirrorless, no?) will be the real game changer.
flyalf
Well-known
I agree with you on most, but have to add that Im actually a bit disappointed with the EVF for N5 given all the hype. Coming from a RF or an 20 old SLR the finder is ok, but not good enough for accurate MF (as you state).
Also for night photography the finder/screen is close to useless. A simple optical finder is much, much, much, much better.
flyalf
Well-known
Totally agree. The problem is that the camera indicates a too large DoF, i.e. that objects outside the focus plane are indicated as in focus by the peaking.
A 20 year old SLR is IMO much more accurate and quicker for MF, and any RF also better for 90mm or shorter.
maitani
Well-known
I believe with the given image quality at lower isos, and at that pixel count, (which handles iso 1600 without a problem, Even slightly higher is no problem…) files rival former medium format quality at base iso with a good lens
I hope for leica that they will match this sensor at latest with the M10
Speed is amazing, no lag whatsoever, the tilt display is great, so is the resolution of the display, even the shutter sound is not to hate.
Video quality is amazing, moderately high bit rate, Good enough for pro work when working with a manual lens.
I get D3 like image quality, but with the extreme pixel count, 6000 x 4000 px. Print as big as you like.
Really usable viewfinder without odd clip on finder or false-hump design. it’s just inside the small body upper left (faux rangefinder style, but not bad) if you want to use it, it’s there, if you don’t, don’t.
Focus peaking works great for me
Extremely light body, but still well built (did I mention that it’s light? I barely notice when I carry it)
For me this is an ‘Affordable-priced-one-for-all digiback’ in mini-size. What’s not to like.
Yes the ‘stock’ lenschoice is pretty limited at the moment, who cares, I don’t care for AF either neither do I care for the systems lenses.
but for legacy glass this thing is a dream, I’ll keep the kitlens for some holiday snaps and occasional video. (constant AF in video is nice sometimes)
But using mainly manual glass as the 15mm M-Voigtlander (makes a nice and super sharp 22.5 mm super wide) which I can use for serious work too, Tons of cropping headroom, DR is very good, I feel on par with fullframe, no problem with shadows and highlights, even better in raw. (much better than any m43 I ve had)
It won’t replace my FF Nikon for the jobs (mainly for battery power, OVF and taker quality and files of the Nikon are still fantastic, but there’s also much more to carry), but it will be an excellent second body, and
The 15 VC which I use on my bessa, will avoid getting any wider on the Nikon System that I first wanted.
So for all the above points, for me this camera is definitely a game changer, and take that from an Olympus and Nikon fanboy, it has some of the ‘Minolta spirit’ in it.
Of course this camera is not a rangefinder replacement, nor was it made to be one, it’s a mirrorless compact camera, imo nothing beats a true rangefinder like M8/M9, but for the price, this small universal digital back is of ‘insane’ price/performance value, and might force you to ‘undust’ your old lens collection and put it to proper use.
I agree though, tha a FF Nex 9 would stir the market up even more.
I hope for leica that they will match this sensor at latest with the M10
Speed is amazing, no lag whatsoever, the tilt display is great, so is the resolution of the display, even the shutter sound is not to hate.
Video quality is amazing, moderately high bit rate, Good enough for pro work when working with a manual lens.
I get D3 like image quality, but with the extreme pixel count, 6000 x 4000 px. Print as big as you like.
Really usable viewfinder without odd clip on finder or false-hump design. it’s just inside the small body upper left (faux rangefinder style, but not bad) if you want to use it, it’s there, if you don’t, don’t.
Focus peaking works great for me
Extremely light body, but still well built (did I mention that it’s light? I barely notice when I carry it)
For me this is an ‘Affordable-priced-one-for-all digiback’ in mini-size. What’s not to like.
Yes the ‘stock’ lenschoice is pretty limited at the moment, who cares, I don’t care for AF either neither do I care for the systems lenses.
but for legacy glass this thing is a dream, I’ll keep the kitlens for some holiday snaps and occasional video. (constant AF in video is nice sometimes)
But using mainly manual glass as the 15mm M-Voigtlander (makes a nice and super sharp 22.5 mm super wide) which I can use for serious work too, Tons of cropping headroom, DR is very good, I feel on par with fullframe, no problem with shadows and highlights, even better in raw. (much better than any m43 I ve had)
It won’t replace my FF Nikon for the jobs (mainly for battery power, OVF and taker quality and files of the Nikon are still fantastic, but there’s also much more to carry), but it will be an excellent second body, and
The 15 VC which I use on my bessa, will avoid getting any wider on the Nikon System that I first wanted.
So for all the above points, for me this camera is definitely a game changer, and take that from an Olympus and Nikon fanboy, it has some of the ‘Minolta spirit’ in it.
Of course this camera is not a rangefinder replacement, nor was it made to be one, it’s a mirrorless compact camera, imo nothing beats a true rangefinder like M8/M9, but for the price, this small universal digital back is of ‘insane’ price/performance value, and might force you to ‘undust’ your old lens collection and put it to proper use.
I agree though, tha a FF Nex 9 would stir the market up even more.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I have both M9 and GXR, and an Oly E-1, and 20+ year old SLR (Nikon F) as well as another M (M4-2). Each has its place in my kit, each viewfinder type has its plusses and minuses.
Unlike some others, I don't consider a digital body as a "disposable" item. The E-1 is nearly a decade old now (manufactured in October 2003) and still produces superb, rich, beautiful photographs. Yeah, there are higher rez bodies, and faster bodies, and bodies with more features, etc etc, around. Despite that, it remains just as useful a camera as any other fine camera.
Olympus E-1 + Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D-AF
For me, the different viewfinder types each have their objective advantages and disadvantages in use. But more importantly, they infer different ways of seeing and working as they allow you to see the subject in differing ways. That's the important part of the difference in viewfinder type.
Using an electronic TTL viewfinder differs from using an optical TTL viewfinder or a rangefinder. All three take some learning and practice to obtain the best results. I find them equally easy to learn and use, and have no problems focusing the GXR either with the LCD or the EVF. There are some circumstances when the optical reflex viewfinder is the most effective, others when the optical rangefinder is just right, and others where the electronic TTL does things that neither of the other two do particularly well. Thank the gods for the ability to choose!
I didn't go with a NEX 7 not because of its viewfinder, but because it is not as well optimized for the lenses I have/want to use (Leica and Cosina/Voigtländer RF lenses). The GXR produces better results more easily with these lenses, the M9 too. I use mostly Nikkors with the SLRs, both Nikon F and Olympus E-1, and the advantage to the GXR is that it's just as nice to use with those lenses too. (Although the strength of the optical SLR is when using long telephotos hand-held ... it just provide a more useable view in those circumstances. That's why my SLR lens kit starts at normal and goes to 400+ mm, where my RF lens kit starts at ultra-wide and goes to a modest tele.)
That said, the NEX 7 is a delightful camera. If I were up for buying some more new lenses, I'd get one and a couple of the Zeiss lenses that Sony is offering for it and for their SLRs. For me, on that format, a 20-21mm, a 35-45mm, and a 70-90 mm lens kit is just about perfect ... all I need.
Unlike some others, I don't consider a digital body as a "disposable" item. The E-1 is nearly a decade old now (manufactured in October 2003) and still produces superb, rich, beautiful photographs. Yeah, there are higher rez bodies, and faster bodies, and bodies with more features, etc etc, around. Despite that, it remains just as useful a camera as any other fine camera.
Olympus E-1 + Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D-AF
For me, the different viewfinder types each have their objective advantages and disadvantages in use. But more importantly, they infer different ways of seeing and working as they allow you to see the subject in differing ways. That's the important part of the difference in viewfinder type.
Using an electronic TTL viewfinder differs from using an optical TTL viewfinder or a rangefinder. All three take some learning and practice to obtain the best results. I find them equally easy to learn and use, and have no problems focusing the GXR either with the LCD or the EVF. There are some circumstances when the optical reflex viewfinder is the most effective, others when the optical rangefinder is just right, and others where the electronic TTL does things that neither of the other two do particularly well. Thank the gods for the ability to choose!
I didn't go with a NEX 7 not because of its viewfinder, but because it is not as well optimized for the lenses I have/want to use (Leica and Cosina/Voigtländer RF lenses). The GXR produces better results more easily with these lenses, the M9 too. I use mostly Nikkors with the SLRs, both Nikon F and Olympus E-1, and the advantage to the GXR is that it's just as nice to use with those lenses too. (Although the strength of the optical SLR is when using long telephotos hand-held ... it just provide a more useable view in those circumstances. That's why my SLR lens kit starts at normal and goes to 400+ mm, where my RF lens kit starts at ultra-wide and goes to a modest tele.)
That said, the NEX 7 is a delightful camera. If I were up for buying some more new lenses, I'd get one and a couple of the Zeiss lenses that Sony is offering for it and for their SLRs. For me, on that format, a 20-21mm, a 35-45mm, and a 70-90 mm lens kit is just about perfect ... all I need.