Nex-7 outresolves M9 w/ 50 ASPH

What a pointless thread. Can we please stop posting to this so it no longer occupies space on the front page?
 
randomm said:
What a pointless thread. Can we please stop posting to this so it no longer occupies space on the front page?
Click to expand...


Agreed. It's difficult. Like watching "it's difficult" vs. "its difficult"...something nagging at looking at all those faulty faults. Not to mention the yawning.
 
A vs B on the internet forums will always be around while the geeks live...... what matters is what images are taken by the guy behind the unit......and thinking logically not like a geek, the M9 is a FF camera, the Nex-7 is a very good expensive P&S....i did say very good :)
 
I wouldn't mind owning either an M9 or a NEX-7. Guess I'll just have to be satisfied using a M6 TTl and 1st ver. 35mm summicron, eyes and all.
 
I agree with some of the other posters here. It's great that there is another camera that takes great shots with M lenses. Test integrity aside, if the Nex7 beats the M9 it's not by much... Actually I actually think many cameras are hovering around the same area. The Nex 7, M9, X100, M8, X1, 5D MkII etc etc. I love my M9 but accept that other cameras are better for certain conditions. Horses for courses. If the M10 comes out with better ISO, more megapixels and a shinier new sensor I probably won't be getting it as not only can I not justify it in the current economic climate but don't think the improvements will make the upgrade neccessary. I know quite a few people still getting amazing photos from the RD1, M8 and 5D mk1.
 
I think the LL have posted a great article on the NEX-7, and IMO it makes sense to compare with M9, in particular since this is done with Leica glass.

The best is the grand entertainment of the posters in this and other forums that are mortally offended by the test. A funny thing that we dont see their tests published anywhere :p. Aaah, I get it, we dont need facts, that only confuses :bang:.

Keep information coming.
 
flyalf said:
The best is the grand entertainment of the posters in this and other forums that are mortally offended by the test. A funny thing that we dont see their tests published anywhere :p. Aaah, I get it, we dont need facts, that only confuses :bang:.
Click to expand...

Facts about sensors have nothing to do with photography... only sausage measuring competitions.
 
uhoh7 said:
Ha!

Now he's done another one, this time with 35 lux on n7 and 50 lux on m9
Click to expand...
Yes, well - the new test makes much more sense (ignoring the resampling he does later): you're comparing apples with apples now (nearly - fields of view not the same, the lenses are different, and the post-processing may vary).

But the test is meaningful enough to compare the sensors (which wasn't the case before - and why everyone was complaining): it can be seen that they both produce images with very similar detail and colour. Considering that the NEX-7 has an APS-sized sensor (about 40 per cent the size of the full-frame M9, with very high pixel density), that's pretty remarkable performance by the Sony.
 
Last edited:
uhoh7 said:
Now he's done another one, this time with 35 lux on n7 and 50 lux on m9

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nex_7_vs_m9_part_deux.shtml

interesting (laughs evilly)
Click to expand...
This is a much more relevant test for real-life photography than the first one. The first test was about resolution advantage, in particular in a case where you are focal length limited. While the test was not that interesting, the title "Resolution: NEX-7 Vs. Leica M9" was certainly pretty fair.

And the result: the cameras seem identical enough for most practical purposes to base the camera choice on other factors than resolution. Reichmann says Sony is better. I see some more noise in the Sony crop (even downscaled). Whatever, looks like a tie based on these crops.
 
So basically I think it's safe to assume that the nex-7 has either an extremely thin or nonexistent AA filter. Probably the latter.

Interesting.
 
Or it does have an AA filter and very sophisticated on-chip image sharpening routines. It's not commonly recognized on the forums, but a RAW file does not mean raw pixel output. It means raw sensor output, and many current CMOS sensors can do a lot of on-board signal processing.
 
35mmdelux said:
and the world is flat too!
Click to expand...

Yes! I've seen that printed somewhere. You can't argue with something that's printed, as anything that's printed has to be true. Gotta believe everything you read, and power-read anything that could explain it otherwise ;)
 
Not sure where the M9 owners complaining about their pet camera being rubbished are. Most of us are perfectly happy to acept there are other tools out there that are in many respects (and likely all measurable repsects!) better. The M9 isn't about 'image quality really, but about allowing me to use a digital rf and my zm lenses. The M9 doesn't focus as quick as a 1Ds3, it's resolution isn't any better and it doesn't work as well in low light as, well anything really, but it's a nice camera to use in everyday picture making.


The new test seems more sensible, though I've not read it all as I got irritated by the self defence and calling on anonymous 'industry figures' in para 2.

Interesting to see moire on both files - that really irritates me on occasion.

Mike
 
OK, read it now.

Yep, looks like the sony has a slight edge in resolution. Jolly good.

Still not convinced that downsampling is appropriate, thogh I understand his arguments, but it's not relevant here really.

Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom