Nex 7 Microlens Horror with Leica M lenses on Luminos Landscape

[eleskin]

The Nex 7 was evaluated with the new Leica 24mm f1.4 Summilux on Luminos Landscape and the results were horrendous. Really a disappointment for me. It seems the micro lenses on the NEX are not really designed to work well with certain Leica M mount lenses, and in particular, wide lenses.

For me then only one choice remains at the moment: The Ricoh GXR with M mount module seems much more attractive now after reading this review. It really is too bad. I wonder if Sony did this intentionally? Surly they knew what they were designing and what they could have done. Maybe they only wanted their lenses to be sold and not have Leica M mount users buying up cameras without buying their kit lenses etc,,,.

In a way, I have a sense of relief here. I really like the GXR module concept. The build quality seems better as well. Besides, if they upgrade the body, I can use the M module and get a second body cheap!

 

[loneranger]

I like my nex5n, which works great with a bunch of Leica lenses.

 

[semordnilap]

I'll wait for a production camera with final firmware, etc. before making any decision. If the nex 5n is working as well as some say, I expect the 7 won't be worse.

 

[Athos6]

I think the 24mp just shows us how much of a dog the Leica 24mm f1.4 Summilux is 🙂

JK

 

[Brian Puccio]

For those that are wondering which article the OP is talking about, here's a link:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony_nex_7_first_impressions.shtml

That being said, it looks to me like even on the center of the frame, where microlenses wouldn't held because the light isn't hitting the sensor at a sharp angle, the Leica lens is not sharp at all. It looks so bad to me it looks like they've either misfocused or the lens is just absolute garbage.

This in turn forces me to conclude that we'll have to wait for additional images to pass judgement.

 

[porktaco]

i don't know why the microlenses would be any different from those in the 5, from which we've seen plenty of nice photos with very wide lenses in forum members' photos.

 

[hteasley]

I wonder what M-mount adapter was used. I've heard of varying quality with different models.

 

[gavinlg]

This is why I always use lenses that are designed for the format. It's why the olympus kit zoom for m4/3 outperforms summicrons and biogons adapted to m4/3 cameras. It's why good lenses like the 24mm f1.4L and 50mm f1.2L aren't as good on a crop camera as they are on a full frame camera. Honestly though I'm not sure what the complaint is about because that 24mm zeiss lens looks quite good..

edit: Actually I just had a closer look at those center crops from the summilux - they're 100% severely out of focus. Whoever did that review made a large boo boo.

 

[Athos6]

This is why I always use lenses that are designed for the format. It's why the olympus kit zoom for m4/3 outperforms summicrons and biogons adapted to m4/3 cameras. It's why good lenses like the 24mm f1.4L and 50mm f1.2L aren't as good on a crop camera as they are on a full frame camera. Honestly though I'm not sure what the complaint is about because that 24mm zeiss lens looks quite good..

edit: Actually I just had a closer look at those center crops from the summilux - they're 100% severely out of focus. Whoever did that review made a large boo boo.

Thats what I think, there really is not reason for the center to look that bad

 

[bwcolor]

This is why I always use lenses that are designed for the format. It's why the olympus kit zoom for m4/3 outperforms summicrons and biogons adapted to m4/3 cameras. It's why good lenses like the 24mm f1.4L and 50mm f1.2L aren't as good on a crop camera as they are on a full frame camera. Honestly though I'm not sure what the complaint is about because that 24mm zeiss lens looks quite good..

edit: Actually I just had a closer look at those center crops from the summilux - they're 100% severely out of focus. Whoever did that review made a large boo boo.

This is obvious, but what is confusing is why he went ahead and published the results? Is this the equivalent of the politician liking press...good, or bad? Even that doesn''t make sense. Time will tell, but for now we have a solid yellow light on this one.

 

[raid]

This is why I always use lenses that are designed for the format. It's why the olympus kit zoom for m4/3 outperforms summicrons and biogons adapted to m4/3 cameras. It's why good lenses like the 24mm f1.4L and 50mm f1.2L aren't as good on a crop camera as they are on a full frame camera. Honestly though I'm not sure what the complaint is about because that 24mm zeiss lens looks quite good..

edit: Actually I just had a closer look at those center crops from the summilux - they're 100% severely out of focus. Whoever did that review made a large boo boo.

I borrowed the kit zoom for the EP-2, and I was surprised how well it performed on that camera. I have tried many legacy lenses on the EP-2, and the old Zeiss Planar SLR lenses have been doing the best so far.

Back to this thread's focus: if a "review" uses OOF images, then that "reviewer" should look for a new job maybe.

 

[reiki_]

Or change his current job title.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

everybody needs to chillax

 

[ampguy]

lol, ok, so who is going to break the bad news to Mr. Reichman that the 'lux does not autofocus on the Nex?? 😉

 

[f16sunshine]

huh... Could this lead one to believe Leica and Kodak really did put some special effort into the M8/9 sensor? So far I have seen no sample from a RF lens (wider than 50mm) shot on an m4/3, Nex, GXR ... whatever that is equal in IQ to the Retro-focus designed lens from each native lens format. Or even retro-focus lenses from another format (as Raid sees with his Planar).

 

[splitimageview]

"Update: I have been told by some people that the test below may be flawed, and that the 24mm Summulux was slightly defocused because it couldn't be that bad on-center. This is quite possible, since this wasn't performed under controlled studio conditions, and the lens may well have become accidentally defocused during handling. I intend to repeat this test as soon as I can put this combination of gear together again. I regret any confusion this may have caused."

 

[dct]

LOL. Ok. шит happens. But I'm really amused to see that even people with a well known website and some good reputation are not flawless. I become convinced that I shouldn't look so severe to my own amateur work...

 

[sevo]

huh... Could this lead one to believe Leica and Kodak really did put some special effort into the M8/9 sensor? So far I have seen no sample from a RF lens (wider than 50mm) shot on an m4/3, Nex, GXR ... whatever that is equal in IQ to the Retro-focus designed lens from each native lens format.

Well, the Contax mount CV 28/3.5 and Nikkor AI-S 28/2.8 perform equally well by f/5.6 on my Nex-C3. But the CV has obvious corner smear wide open, while the Nikkor has none. Can't compare with a native prime for now, the 30mm Macro and 24mm Zeiss aren't out yet at least hereabouts, but if these should perform better, it will be very subtly so, or in extreme conditions (close up or wide open) - there is not that much room for improvements left.

Things will be different with fast, short lenses, but these are difficult enough on CMOS sensors that even Nikon and Canon had do redo many of their SLR lenses to make them perform decently on DSLRs. As far as the Leica/Kodak special effort goes, well, maybe. But it is no accident that Leica uses a Kodak CCD sensor - even without special optimization these are more wide friendly than CMOS sensors.

 

[porktaco]