kanzlr
Hexaneur
this is much better with the GXR.
I had both, a 5N + EVF and the GXR and in the end kept the GXR.
With shallow DOF, the NEX peaking works well, but with wider DOF, with, say a 28mm lens at f4, everything shimmers yellow/red/whatever color you chose. With the GXR mode 2 assist, you do not have focus peaking, you have a high pass image. It does not show you where there is the highest contrast, but you can easily judge how sharp what parts of the image are. Works well for me even stopped down.
Magnification can also help with focus. But with the NEX it is either on or off, with the GXR it is disabled if you half-press the shutter, and enabled again when you release the shutter button (if you use magnification. which is easy, as you can program a button to toggle it).
ideal would be a GXR with its mode 2 + support for auto-aperture lenses
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
On the close focusing distance possibilities with M and other lenses:
Excuse me, but i don't think a certain lens' closest focusing limit is set by not having enough budget to make a helical longer.
Optics are optimized to a certain reduction ratio - camera optics to usually <<1, more like <0.1 while enlarger optics to 4-20 - therefore if a lens is having a close focus limit at e.g. 50cm and you use a trick (yes, a trick that also existed 50 yrs ago by means of macro rings) to decrease this to say 5cm, you do NOT get a macro lens. You get the same lens with - most probably - much worse optical performance than at 50cm.
So it's a compromise, i think, not a silver bullet.
Of course the quality might still be sufficient for many things and with a direct focusing mechanism (unlike the slr matte screen or the rf mechanism) you dont have a penalty of increased misfocusing chance so that might help somewhat.
Excuse me, but i don't think a certain lens' closest focusing limit is set by not having enough budget to make a helical longer.
Optics are optimized to a certain reduction ratio - camera optics to usually <<1, more like <0.1 while enlarger optics to 4-20 - therefore if a lens is having a close focus limit at e.g. 50cm and you use a trick (yes, a trick that also existed 50 yrs ago by means of macro rings) to decrease this to say 5cm, you do NOT get a macro lens. You get the same lens with - most probably - much worse optical performance than at 50cm.
So it's a compromise, i think, not a silver bullet.
Of course the quality might still be sufficient for many things and with a direct focusing mechanism (unlike the slr matte screen or the rf mechanism) you dont have a penalty of increased misfocusing chance so that might help somewhat.
With certain exceptions RF lenses are not optimized for close-focus, let alone macro, but to think that it is somehow a violation to focus closer than the lens was originally designed for, and 'perhaps' reduce optical performance, is truly a reach.
Disaster_Area
Gadget Monger
I don't think it was a matter of budget, I think it was a matter of the bodies the lenses where intended for. Rangefinders don't focus closer roughly a meter because of the amount of parallax error that comes with focusing that close. Since none of the bodies focus that close, why make lenses that can focus that close. Most of these lenses we're talking about where designed before putting them on a mirrorless digital body was even in our wildest dreams. And even the lenses recently are where still made with the intention of going on a film or digital camera using an actual rangefinder. Why make the focusing throw longer than you have to or let people accidentally focus closer than the limitations of their body will allow.
semordnilap
Well-known
I think it depends on the optical finder, really. An rf, finder is absolutely better. A good film slr finder, probably as well, and maybe even a full frame dslr finder; I don't have much experience with them. But compared with crop dslrs, with their terrible finders that are very difficult to manual focus with any precision, I do think that this sony evf is much better. Or at least more useful to me, especially combining peaking with magnification. And anyway this is an evolving technology... the finder in the A55 was good, this one is that much better... so I'm looking forward to the next iteration for sure.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
naah
not a violation of anything
just my view
sure i'd also check it out
what i m tryin to say is, don't put it as the holy grail of digital photography that your old lenses are suddenly macro enabled.
The helical options are for close-focus, not really 'macro.' Certainly it is a welcome option. Take a look at some of the web comparisons of RF lenses that normally only focus to .7m or even 1m to see what photographic possibilities open up when they can focus to 0.3m or so. It's just a variable extension tube, which have been used for years on many SLR lenses that are not optimized for close focus.
semordnilap
Well-known
I've been very happy with the hawk's adapter, and getting good results up close.
That's a really nice feature of the nex series, anyway: all the adapters and ways to play with the lenses. I brought my wife's grandfather's Konica Ar 57/1.2 back to life with a $20 adapter... It looks funny on the 5n but whatever...!
That's a really nice feature of the nex series, anyway: all the adapters and ways to play with the lenses. I brought my wife's grandfather's Konica Ar 57/1.2 back to life with a $20 adapter... It looks funny on the 5n but whatever...!
douglasf13
Well-known
this is much better with the GXR.
I had both, a 5N + EVF and the GXR and in the end kept the GXR.
With shallow DOF, the NEX peaking works well, but with wider DOF, with, say a 28mm lens at f4, everything shimmers yellow/red/whatever color you chose. With the GXR mode 2 assist, you do not have focus peaking, you have a high pass image. It does not show you where there is the highest contrast, but you can easily judge how sharp what parts of the image are. Works well for me even stopped down.
Magnification can also help with focus. But with the NEX it is either on or off, with the GXR it is disabled if you half-press the shutter, and enabled again when you release the shutter button (if you use magnification. which is easy, as you can program a button to toggle it).
ideal would be a GXR with its mode 2 + support for auto-aperture lenses
You can also disable peaking with the NEX by simply pressing down on the keypad, which brings up exposure comp at the right and cancels peaking. I honestly have no issues using peaking on the 5 and 5N, but I've had a lot of practice since last summer.
chrisso
Established
I have a NEX7, no Sony lenses, but using my 1980's M lenses with a Voigtlander adapter.
I must say it's a joy. Quality is fabulous, focusing is pretty easy.
Maybe those who question the rights or wrongs should give it a try, you may be surprised.
I must say it's a joy. Quality is fabulous, focusing is pretty easy.
Maybe those who question the rights or wrongs should give it a try, you may be surprised.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
oh yes, I know. But my finger is always on the shutter button anyways. The way the GXR magnification works, it is a dream for focus and recompose
The NEX implementation is nice, it is just that the GXR one is a bit more refined regarding its details
maitani
Well-known
forgot to mention that the GXR rocks too, absolutely in the same league as nex7 just without the finder, but i don't use the finder often anyway, both are game-changers
here some quick and dirty snaps from this morning
sorry for the flower shot
i don't have a pro account on flickr but the full sized ones at 6000 x 4000 pixels are jaw dropping in detail
all with some OM glass
http://www.flickr.com/photos/50263354@N03/tags/nex7/
I'll give the cron asph a try this weekend
here some quick and dirty snaps from this morning
sorry for the flower shot
i don't have a pro account on flickr but the full sized ones at 6000 x 4000 pixels are jaw dropping in detail
all with some OM glass
http://www.flickr.com/photos/50263354@N03/tags/nex7/
I'll give the cron asph a try this weekend