Nex-7 outresolves M9 w/ 50 ASPH

[semilog]

Now how would all of this look if Sony made a full frame version of the Nex 7? Price, I would say $2500. The M9 would get a beating for sure!!!

Won't happen. The whole point is that sensors and cameras are shrinking, except for the higher end of the pro market. 4/3 and APS-C are, for most applications, the sweet spots.

It's bizarre that so many folks on a forum dominated by the legacy of Oscar Barnack and his miniature-format cameras don't understand this.

The 35mm legacy "FF" format is an increasingly specialized niche market. So you will see a FF camera with a sensor having the capabilities of the NEX7, but it will be called the D4x and it will not sell for $2500.

 

[Moriturii]

Isn't pretty widely accepted that Luminous whatever is a bit of a joke nowadays? It's as valid of a source for information as Ken Rockwell.

 

[shadowfox]

Who really cares? Honestly, all of these cameras are pretty damn good these days.

Exactly.

I can see some starry-eyed manual-focus-on-digital folks would be impressed, but I don't see how this can sway any M9 users to switch.

If Nex-7 can outresolve a 8x10 Velvia, now that would be impressive 🙂

 

[richardhkirkando]

Its a much newer sensor, this shouldn't be surprising.

 

[Jamie123]

People always think Leica is competing with consumer models, but I really don't think that is the case. Leica is a luxury brand that will do well regardless of if Sony makes a full frame mirrorless or not. Unless SONY rebadges the M9 and sells it at half the price, none of this stuff cuts into Leica prices. Most people who want a mechanical digital rangefinder and make do with a mirrorless were never serious about buying a M9 in the first place I would imagine.

Exactly. The M9 didn't have the highest res sensor even when it came out so why would the Nex7 make any difference? Besides, I would assume Leica makes more money selling lenses than M9 bodies. If more people start using Leica lenses this will certainly benefit them. Not that Nex 7 buyers are likely to buy new Leica lenses but it will help keep the prices high on the used market which in turn makes new gear look more attractive.

 

[sojournerphoto]

And the Sony images are being downsampled, so of course they'll appear to have better resolution - a wholly expected result, as the quote at the end of the test makes clear: 24 MP will kill 18 MP.

...

No it's worse than that. 24Mp downsized to 18Mp will kill 8Mp

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1768555&postcount=4


Oh and the comment about new beating old is completely missing the point. This test isn't about that at all!


Just ignore it and move along now.

 

[NickTrop]

Criticize the mighty Leica brand at the peril of your credibility - accuracy of said criticism be damned! Luminous Landscapes said another camera's sensor out-resolves the M9? They, therefore, are no longer credible.


As Spock would say, "Facinating."

 

[sojournerphoto]

Criticize the mighty Leica brand at the peril of your credibility - accuracy of said criticism be damned! Luminous Landscapes said another camera's sensor out-resolves the M9? They, therefore, are no longer credible.


As Spock would say, "Facinating."

Nick, nothing to do with the Leica brand in my case. The test is flawed and will show the Leica at a disadvantage. It would also show a Canon or Nikon or Sony full frame dslr at a disadvantage.

Easy pickings for MR to get his followers to gang up on Leica Fan Boys, rather than deal with objective criticism of his methodology.

Mike (a happy ZM user)

 

[luuca]

I think nex7 could become the perfect backup camera for my M9.

oh wait, I don't need a backup camera...

 

[bensyverson]

No it's worse than that. 24Mp downsized to 18Mp will kill 8Mp

You're completely misunderstanding his methodology.

He's taking the same area from the M9 that is covered by the Nex, and comparing that. That is sound. Then he's downsampling the Nex (NOT the M9) image to match the pixel dimensions of the M9. That is also sound.

Of course, the M9 has been cropped, and has a greater FOV. It's still a valid test, because he was trying to see if the Nex will resolve more detail than the M9 for the same lens. The obvious answer is "of course it will," but at the expense of FOV.

His methodology is 100% sound, as long as you don't jump to conclusions about what he was trying to show.

 

[emraphoto]

Won't happen. The whole point is that sensors and cameras are shrinking, except for the higher end of the pro market. 4/3 and APS-C are, for most applications, the sweet spots.

It's bizarre that so many folks on a forum dominated by the legacy of Oscar Barnack and his miniature-format cameras don't understand this.

The 35mm legacy "FF" format is an increasingly specialized niche market. So you will see a FF camera with a sensor having the capabilities of the NEX7, but it will be called the D4x and it will not sell for $2500.

what is also interesting is how the 'pro' market is used to justify huge cameras and javelins for lenses.

sports illustrated? yeah. daily wire? yeah

beyond that i have seen d-lux 5s, loads of fuji x100s, a gaggle of 5d's with a 35 or 50 L, a smattering if point and shoots and a lot of medium format film cameras these days.

 

[sojournerphoto]

You're completely misunderstanding his methodology.

He's taking the same area from the M9 that is covered by the Nex, and comparing that. That is sound. only if you only have one lens to share between bodies Then he's downsampling the Nex (NOT the M9) image to match the pixel dimensions of the M9 yes, but the full frame pixel dimensions, not the crop. That is also sound. no it's not, it's misleading. The downsampling makes it sound like he's trying to be fair, but actually it's just wrong. If you want to compare resolution you shouldn't ever downsample as that disadvantages the higher resolution source - see MRs 1Ds vs 6x7 article

Of course, the M9 has been cropped, and has a greater FOV. It's still a valid test, because he was trying to see if the Nex will resolve more detail than the M9 for the same lens. The obvious answer is "of course it will," but at the expense of FOV.

His methodology is 100% sound, as long as you don't jump to conclusions about what he was trying to show.

I don't think I am misunderstanding. To do the test you suggest wouldn't require downsampling at all. That would test whether the cropped M9 frame could resolve as much as the Nex full frame. Of course it can't! The test you suggest has no sensible use in everyday photography I think.

He sells it as a comparison of the resolution of the cameras and it just isn't. The Nex may resolve more - apparently the 24Mp Nikon did, so why not the Nex? However, to check that you need to do a test that matches field of view. (Actually separating resolution from sampling artifacts can be tough on the M9 in any case). You could try the 50 on the Nex and put a 75 on the M9. That would be close in FOV terms.

Anyway, hope the post doesn't sound too direct🙂 I'm not really defending Leica, just find that sort of drivel from MR a bit irritating - he has a big audience and I suspect people respect him and spend money based in his advice. Also, given his much vaunted history, he should know better.

Best

Mike

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Dunno about the test methodology. But, bottom line: why is it a bad thing if there is a high quality camera to use with your M-glass?

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Edit: I think we are "there" in terms of image quality. I am still blown away by what the 4 year-old sensor in my D3 will resolve. And I find that the M9 is a pleasure to use. What a great time to be a photographer.

 

[uhoh7]

Criticize the mighty Leica brand at the peril of your credibility - accuracy of said criticism be damned! Luminous Landscapes said another camera's sensor out-resolves the M9? They, therefore, are no longer credible.


As Spock would say, "Facinating."

The reviewer has also been described as a leica fan---biased---in the past. I'm not sure he was trying for one result or another. The M9 seems to have the better corners to f/5.6, though I'm not quite clear if we are seeing the FF there or not.

For the record, I'm not saying anyone should sell their M9 or that the sony is as good or a better camera.

I would love to have an M9 myself and I do have an M6, though most of my shooting now is with a nex-5n and RF glass.

Nevertheless, like it or not, this is a milestone in digital camera evolution. Apologies to the apoplectic 🙂

The extreme reactions are spectacular.

 

[sig]

I like this paragraph:

I like conducting these test, but I hate publishing them. I'm a photographer, not a technician. This means that I can occasionally be a bit cavalier with my methodology, but on the other hand results must always jibe with my subjective analysis of real world images, or else I go back and retest. The reason that I hate publishing them is because no matter how I do them there is always someone on other forums (interestingly though – never here, where I can reply) who claims that I'm either biased or stupid because I forgot to take into account the torque on the framistat or Madonna's menstrual cycle

 

[Turtle]

The test result is to be expected. Of course a 24 MP sensor will beat a cropped section of a larger 18MP sensor. Seems an exercise in the obvious really.

 

[RichC]

Dunno about the test methodology. But, bottom line: why is it a bad thing if there is a high quality camera to use with your M-glass?

It's not - it's a good thing... more choice, decent camera that doesn't compete with Leica but complements the M9, etc....

Some contibutors here don't seem to grasp the problem...

What everyone's complaining about is the test's validity: it has no credibility whatsoever. Flawed doesn't even cover it - scientifically, his test fails UTTERLY. It's not a technical quibble but a huge gaping chasm in logic. What Luminous Landscape has written is utter drivel...

Imagine two books, one with more words than the other, both in the same type size - so one of course has more pages than the other. Now, reduce the type size in the longer book until it can be printed with the same number of pages as the shorter book... Luminous Landscape is saying that they're flabbergasted that the number of words in the new book is still higher than the shorter book! Derrr! (Think of the words in our imaginary books as akin to sensor resolution - i.e. words = resolved detail.)

My analogy is far from exact (no need to pick holes - I can see them!), but it serves its purpose in showing how ridiculous Luminous Landscape's comparison is. :bang:

 

[semilog]

One of the less-touted features of the M9 is its evident ability to destroy rational thought. Go take some pictures and enjoy your cameras, folks.

 

[cosmonaut]

Well I am sure the M10 will smoke the Nex7. Look how long it took Sony to get this close? Sooner or later there will be no benefit in owning a Full Frame camera. But just bragging rights.