porktaco
Well-known
sooooo, i'm road testing my nex7 this weekend at austin's postapocalyptic frat party / hipster spring break / ironic music-based advertising tornado. that's right, sxsw. where everyone is either waiting to get in somewhere or talking about getting in somewhere.
i'm really conflicted right now about my nex 7. i want to like it. i really want to like it. it's tiny. it's cool. it's black. but it's not an intuitively obvious rangefinder, and it has a poopload of buttons and controls. most of all, the EVF, which is for the most part pretty cool, isn't nearly as awesome in low/night light as a real window finder, like i have in my epson and leica cameras. it takes a moment to start up, so my pre-thinking starts a little earlier.
also, i had a lot of focus errors. a lot. focus peaking is not foolproof. perhaps i just need more pilot hours. i pretty much disdained the autofocus lens, which might not have been such a good idea. that said, when the camera focuses, with whatever lens, it's really sharp.
JPG IQ starts to suffer at 3200. it's good at 1600, but pixel-peeping at 3200 shows real artifacts. now, maybe it's a privilege to be able to shoot JPG at 3200 in the first place, but hey. shooting RAW, 3200 becomes viable.
also, i thought the controls would be a lot more customizeable. i can't quite get them configured how i'd like. also, they turn the wrong way (#spoiledbyleica).
ok, enough bitching.
on to the photos.
i shot mostly with a contax G 28/2.8. mostly because i wanted to give the G lens a test drive. it's a gorgeous little lens. the ergonomics with the nex leave something to be desired, but it's very possible to get nice photos with it. i originally thought i acquire a G 45 for the nex, but i held off until after test driving the camera.
starting out, at 1600. jpg.
this one looks fine at 1024 resolution, but i will say that at 100% you can see artifacts from the 3200 speed. jpg.
this one is at 3200 as well, and has relatively few artifacts. because i went RAW, and stayed RAW the rest of the night.
again, 3200. not bad.
now, back to 1600
i'm really conflicted right now about my nex 7. i want to like it. i really want to like it. it's tiny. it's cool. it's black. but it's not an intuitively obvious rangefinder, and it has a poopload of buttons and controls. most of all, the EVF, which is for the most part pretty cool, isn't nearly as awesome in low/night light as a real window finder, like i have in my epson and leica cameras. it takes a moment to start up, so my pre-thinking starts a little earlier.
also, i had a lot of focus errors. a lot. focus peaking is not foolproof. perhaps i just need more pilot hours. i pretty much disdained the autofocus lens, which might not have been such a good idea. that said, when the camera focuses, with whatever lens, it's really sharp.
JPG IQ starts to suffer at 3200. it's good at 1600, but pixel-peeping at 3200 shows real artifacts. now, maybe it's a privilege to be able to shoot JPG at 3200 in the first place, but hey. shooting RAW, 3200 becomes viable.
also, i thought the controls would be a lot more customizeable. i can't quite get them configured how i'd like. also, they turn the wrong way (#spoiledbyleica).
ok, enough bitching.
on to the photos.
i shot mostly with a contax G 28/2.8. mostly because i wanted to give the G lens a test drive. it's a gorgeous little lens. the ergonomics with the nex leave something to be desired, but it's very possible to get nice photos with it. i originally thought i acquire a G 45 for the nex, but i held off until after test driving the camera.
starting out, at 1600. jpg.
this one looks fine at 1024 resolution, but i will say that at 100% you can see artifacts from the 3200 speed. jpg.
this one is at 3200 as well, and has relatively few artifacts. because i went RAW, and stayed RAW the rest of the night.
again, 3200. not bad.
now, back to 1600
porktaco
Well-known
now, a switch to a prewar czj 50/1.5 (ltm modified). at 1600, wide open.
rendering is what you'd expect: a little softer stacked up next to the contax G but still really nice to my eyes and much thinner DoF wide open. the handling was much more familiar and the ergonomics qualitatively better. it's quite well matched with the sensor and the camera size.
this one i show only for bokehlicious purposes. cheating of course, since the image is way frontfocused in the first place.
nice rendering here, across the frame. also, it's a cool mustang. i must have stopped it down a little bit given the DoF.
then, back to the G. at 3200.
and back to 1600
rendering is what you'd expect: a little softer stacked up next to the contax G but still really nice to my eyes and much thinner DoF wide open. the handling was much more familiar and the ergonomics qualitatively better. it's quite well matched with the sensor and the camera size.
this one i show only for bokehlicious purposes. cheating of course, since the image is way frontfocused in the first place.
nice rendering here, across the frame. also, it's a cool mustang. i must have stopped it down a little bit given the DoF.
then, back to the G. at 3200.
and back to 1600
porktaco
Well-known
that was thursday. verdict - 28mm is a sweet little lens. the adapter focusing is ok but not great. you guys aren't seeing all the failures, but trust me there are a bunch. czj is very nice on this body. VF somewhat problematic in the dark, and the controls had to be locked down a bunch or i'd mess them up, which is kinda not the point for a camera with supposedly great controls.
also, i went exclusively RAW on saturday.
onto saturday. collapsible summicron 50 and the G 28 again.
this is the only one i liked with the summicron. iso 400.
then back to the G. this is why i hate ironic hipsters. uch. iso 400, close to wide open, as were most of what i shot. i don't think i got below 5.6 the whole weekend. lol me.
this was probably at 5.6, given DoF. fyi, everyone at sxsw is very interested in their phones, these two women perhaps to an extreme. poor fellas.
here's an example of a focus failing. it's close, but not nearly as sharp as some of the focus-assist photos. it's just soft enough to be irritating. focus peaking said it was all in focus. sigh.
also, the stupid G lens focuses the WRONG WAY. uch.
then, i went to a show and sat with friends. this put something of a damper on my photographic exploits, but i did what i could from where i was.
it's hard to see here, but the G lens is very nicely sharp at a 100% cutout on the nice lady's gauzy skirt. focus assist... which, by the way, kinda takes a while.
here's a 100%, and then a 100% of a woman's margarita from about ten or twelve feet away
meanwhile, large women keep children on leashes
the little G performs very well even when pointed into the light.
also, i went exclusively RAW on saturday.
onto saturday. collapsible summicron 50 and the G 28 again.
this is the only one i liked with the summicron. iso 400.
then back to the G. this is why i hate ironic hipsters. uch. iso 400, close to wide open, as were most of what i shot. i don't think i got below 5.6 the whole weekend. lol me.
this was probably at 5.6, given DoF. fyi, everyone at sxsw is very interested in their phones, these two women perhaps to an extreme. poor fellas.
here's an example of a focus failing. it's close, but not nearly as sharp as some of the focus-assist photos. it's just soft enough to be irritating. focus peaking said it was all in focus. sigh.
also, the stupid G lens focuses the WRONG WAY. uch.
then, i went to a show and sat with friends. this put something of a damper on my photographic exploits, but i did what i could from where i was.
it's hard to see here, but the G lens is very nicely sharp at a 100% cutout on the nice lady's gauzy skirt. focus assist... which, by the way, kinda takes a while.
here's a 100%, and then a 100% of a woman's margarita from about ten or twelve feet away
meanwhile, large women keep children on leashes
the little G performs very well even when pointed into the light.
porktaco
Well-known
i think this one had about a half second exposure... 1600 RAW
also long exposure, also 1600 RAW
ok, that's it. well, mostly. there are plenty more photos, but i'll stop now.
ending thoughts.
should have used M lenses more
should have brought the kit lens
should have shot 3200 RAW more
the VF is kind of wonky in the dark
the autoexposure is wonky in the dark (as is my epson; darkness pretty much requires manual exposure and lots of chimping, as far as i can tell).
i still kinda stink at focusing the contax lens. i'm better with the M lenses, but i had to use focus assist a lot. note... i had a panasonic G1 right after it came out. the MF assist was really simple. i think you could set it to kick in automatically, or at least to have one easy-to-find-and-use button to push. on the NEX, it's a flat little button in the middle of the camera. i had to hunt for it a lot.
right now, i'm thinking of returning the camera. it's a very nice little gizmo, but i'm not sure it's worth $1300 to me. i'm pretty sure i'd rather have an m9, but wouldn't we all. perhaps i'll start saving (or at least allocating, lol). i still have a couple of weeks so stay tuned for more.
also long exposure, also 1600 RAW
ok, that's it. well, mostly. there are plenty more photos, but i'll stop now.
ending thoughts.
should have used M lenses more
should have brought the kit lens
should have shot 3200 RAW more
the VF is kind of wonky in the dark
the autoexposure is wonky in the dark (as is my epson; darkness pretty much requires manual exposure and lots of chimping, as far as i can tell).
i still kinda stink at focusing the contax lens. i'm better with the M lenses, but i had to use focus assist a lot. note... i had a panasonic G1 right after it came out. the MF assist was really simple. i think you could set it to kick in automatically, or at least to have one easy-to-find-and-use button to push. on the NEX, it's a flat little button in the middle of the camera. i had to hunt for it a lot.
right now, i'm thinking of returning the camera. it's a very nice little gizmo, but i'm not sure it's worth $1300 to me. i'm pretty sure i'd rather have an m9, but wouldn't we all. perhaps i'll start saving (or at least allocating, lol). i still have a couple of weeks so stay tuned for more.
photografity
Established
Thanks for the feedback... I was considering the Nex-7..... The more I research & read, the less likely I will purchase this.
bwcolor
Veteran
I spent a good bit of time testing my M-Hex, Leica and Zeiss lenses on the NEX-7. Lots of great choices. I never tried my Contax 'G' given the focusing issues. I broke down and purchased the Zeiss 24mm and that made me realize that it is best to use a lens designed for the camera. Much faster focusing than my X100. Unfortunately, not a lot of great lenses in the E-Mount. The 50mm f/1.8 looks good and the end of the year standard zoom 'G' will probably be great. The upcoming 19 & 30mm Sigma lenses look promising. The more I use the camera, the happier I am with it. Working on the overheating video right now. I cancelled my X-Pro1 order and three lenses... so there you go..
Thanks for the photos... High ISO = Raw and downsize to 12 or 16 Mbyte. I also use Noise Ninja. Really great high ISO.. I'm guessing that the X-Pro1 will better the NEX-7 with regards to high ISO, but I also shoot video and the X-Pro1 video
... Anyway.. the Nex-7 is a fun camera and well built. Now it is Leica's turn.
Thanks for the photos.. I enjoyed the viewing..
Thanks for the photos... High ISO = Raw and downsize to 12 or 16 Mbyte. I also use Noise Ninja. Really great high ISO.. I'm guessing that the X-Pro1 will better the NEX-7 with regards to high ISO, but I also shoot video and the X-Pro1 video
... Anyway.. the Nex-7 is a fun camera and well built. Now it is Leica's turn.Thanks for the photos.. I enjoyed the viewing..
porktaco
Well-known
i kinda wish i had the 50/1.8 for use this week. i think you're correct in saying that the camera probably works best with native lenses. but i'm not breaking down for the zeiss 24, no matter how sexy the images. it's just too darned big, and really expensive. even the 50 looks big (though not expensive).
i'm taking out the kit zoom now...
i'm taking out the kit zoom now...
bwcolor
Veteran
That is why I didn't buy it.. the expense. I'll be selling a Nokton 50mm f/1.5 and Ultron 28mm f/2.0 to finance it. That said, the size balances really nicely with the camera. Certainly, no larger than the kit lens. I figured that the price goes up by $100 in a couple of weeks, so the resale value just went up.
porktaco
Well-known
hm. if i sell my contax lenses, that oughta pay for an ultron 28...
porktaco
Well-known
also, at least here in austin, i have a very hard time taking pictures in the middle of the day. the midday light is very strong (and kinda boring really) and six months a year, it plain sucks to be out before the end of the day. so, i shoot in low light. or at night, which i really like. which means that the kit's 5.6 aperture at 55mm is going to be a problem. so, i'm back to m-mount. also also, the g-mount lenses are really hard for me to get in and out of the adapter. maybe there's a trick, but i sure haven't figured it out yet. so, that sucks too. but boy it's sure a tiny little camera with a summicron 40. tiny and fast.
bwcolor
Veteran
I think that a lot of folks that use the 'G' adapters buy one for each lens.
porktaco
Well-known
wow. i guess that makes sense though.
regularchickens
Well-known
Fantastic work. I tried out one of these today, and I think it might be my DSLR replacement.
I've been skimming through the kerfluffles on other forums about color shifts on this camera with Biogons and so on. Did these images need any adjustment for that?
I've been skimming through the kerfluffles on other forums about color shifts on this camera with Biogons and so on. Did these images need any adjustment for that?
bwcolor
Veteran
Yup... if you can put up with the focusing, that 45mm is probably one of the best lenses around and the 90mm is tops. I've read good and bad regarding the 28mm on the NEX-7. It is probably at least as good as the Ultron, but not sure.
MIkhail
-
Every time I look at some pictures posted, I cannot help but wonder: why people discount skills in favor of letting camera do the work (and expecting it to do it prefectly).
Not to sound negatively... reviews like this are not valid in my eyes. They are, IMHO, based on the exppectation that camera will do everything for you, and you will be just happily snapping away. To make a good image, again IMHO of course, you have to work with light, not shooting randomly as these pictures presented here, Work with composition, preddict situation, and so forth...
Just my two cents, feel free to disregard
Not to sound negatively... reviews like this are not valid in my eyes. They are, IMHO, based on the exppectation that camera will do everything for you, and you will be just happily snapping away. To make a good image, again IMHO of course, you have to work with light, not shooting randomly as these pictures presented here, Work with composition, preddict situation, and so forth...
Just my two cents, feel free to disregard
paulfish4570
Veteran
i want to know what an ironic hipster is ...
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Pretty good flare control on the lenses . . .
paulfish4570
Veteran
and i am not being ironic ...
porktaco
Well-known
http://www.wolfgnards.com/index.php/2010/08/27/the-irony-of-the-ironic-hipsters-don-t-understand-irony
to me, it's people who are (deeply) uncomfortable in their own skin doing clownish stuff so that they can laugh at themselves before the world has a chance to laugh at them.
to me, it's people who are (deeply) uncomfortable in their own skin doing clownish stuff so that they can laugh at themselves before the world has a chance to laugh at them.
porktaco
Well-known
from the comments to the article linked...
Very true. A nice discussion of how hipsters leech meaning from culture appears here (http://newyork.timeout.com/articles/features/4840/why-the-hipster-must-die#ixzz0y7KY1t3k), but the meat of it is this:
"Under the guise of 'irony,' hipsterism fetishizes the authentic and regurgitates it with a winking inauthenticity . . . . As the hipster ambles from the thrift store to a $100 haircut at Freemans Sporting Club, [the aesthetics of fringe movements and ethnicities] are assimilated—cannibalized—into a repertoire of meaninglessness, from which the hipster can construct an identity in the manner of a collage, or a shuffled playlist on an iPod."
There's another good article over here, https://www.adbusters.org/magazine/79/hipster.html. This one makes note of my personal favorite hipster trend, where hipsters display their fierce Palestinian nationalism by sporting keffiyehs.
Very true. A nice discussion of how hipsters leech meaning from culture appears here (http://newyork.timeout.com/articles/features/4840/why-the-hipster-must-die#ixzz0y7KY1t3k), but the meat of it is this:
"Under the guise of 'irony,' hipsterism fetishizes the authentic and regurgitates it with a winking inauthenticity . . . . As the hipster ambles from the thrift store to a $100 haircut at Freemans Sporting Club, [the aesthetics of fringe movements and ethnicities] are assimilated—cannibalized—into a repertoire of meaninglessness, from which the hipster can construct an identity in the manner of a collage, or a shuffled playlist on an iPod."
There's another good article over here, https://www.adbusters.org/magazine/79/hipster.html. This one makes note of my personal favorite hipster trend, where hipsters display their fierce Palestinian nationalism by sporting keffiyehs.