I just did a feature compare and aside from megapixels and a couple of output options I could care less about I don't see a lot of difference in capabilities. The Nex 3 has a different lens mount which I'm not sure the significance of that.
What I DO see is a $400 camera vs a $1000 camera with an almost identical feature set. I'm looking for a camera to pack around on my bike that is capable of DSLR performance.
Can any Sony guys clue me in here?
Uh, you seriously need to redo your feature comparison. Aside from knowing some of the (very) significant differences between the two cameras, your impression that "the Nex 3 has a different lens mount" is a surefire sign that you didn't do your homework correctly.
I am not sure what you mean by "a different lens mount", as all NEX use the same E-mount.
Also, the 7 has a very different feature set, for example in terms of camera controls, with its Tri-Navi, or the fact that it incorporates a viewfinder, which the 3 does not, and a built-in flash, which on the 3 was an add-on.
In terms of IQ, the 3 was a very good camera in its day (I had the almost identical 5), but that day has come and gone. The C3 was significantly improved, the 5N better yet, and pretty much the equivalent of today's 5R and 6.
Compared to those, the 3 is a ISO 200 camera, whereas the 7 (and 5R and 6) is ISO 100. The 3 had a 14Mp sensor, Vs the 7's 24Mp. The 3 was very susceptible to colour shift and corner mush. The C3 and 5N much less so. The 7 also less so, though not as good as 5N/5R/6.
The 7 itself is no longer a new camera, and an improved 7N is expected any day, if SonyAlphaRumours is to be believed, with an improved viewfinder and an improved sensor.
So, in all, I find the two cameras very different indeed. And the 3 being an obsolete model, you should be able to pick it up used for much less sthan 400$.
Hope this helps
freaklikeme wrote:
I think maybe the op was comparing the 7 to the 3F or 3N. Same mount between the two, but the features are more comparable to the 7.
How so?
(I disagree, but I'm curious what brought you to this conclusion.)
(I disagree, but I'm curious what brought you to this conclusion.)
You don't feel the 3F or 3N are more comparable to the 7 than the original 3 or you don't feel the OP was speaking to the currently available 3 models versus the original 3?
Well, not really. The current 3 is a better camera, primarily because of the better sensor, but the feature set is still pretty much the same as the original, except for the on-board flash.
Which is why Sony now offer 4 concurrent NEX cameras, at 4 different price, feature and performance points.
freaklikeme wrote:
You don't feel the 3F or 3N are more comparable to the 7 than the original 3 or you don't feel the OP was speaking to the currently available 3 models versus the original 3?
Well, actually both. But I meant that none of the 3-series has ever been comparable to the 7 in intent and substantial capabilities, and just curious what you thought was comparable about them.
In real life shooting you won't spot any significant IQ difference that really matters between NEX7 and NEX3,save very slightly more fine details (and noise and poorer performance/colour shifting with some fine wide angles ).So if your major concern is just decent IQ,NEX3 will be good enough.
What I dislike about this camera is plasticky built and lack of remote release/electronic first curtain that confine it's usage with tele lenses.That is why I chose NEX5N instead.This is the best option for someone like me who don't care about EVF and don't need too many dials and controls on the body.I take NEX7 from time to time,but both of my NEX5Ns find much more use.
DtEW wrote:
Well, actually both. But I meant that none of the 3-series has ever been comparable to the 7 in intent and substantial capabilities, and just curious what you thought was comparable about them.
I didn't say they would stack up well. I just said they were more comparable, particularly if you're looking at the F3, as shown here. Size, weight, battery life, FPS, base ISO and max ISO. I'm not saying it's a punt between the two, just that the F3 or new 3N are going to get you closer to the experience of using a 7 than the original 3.
As to why I think that's what Jon's looking at... the price he mentioned is the price of an F3 and it's currently available new, unlike the original 3.
freaklikeme wrote:
As to why I think that's what Jon's looking at... the price he mentioned is the price of an F3 and it's currently available new, unlike the original 3.
Yes - sorry for the erroneous details. The real deal breaker is the lack of viewfinder. I just can't abide holding a camera at arms length to take a shot. I only tolerate LiveView on my 5DMkII for macro and the occasional landscape that I have tricky focus.
Thanks folks! Looks like the 7 is still my goal.
BubbaJon wrote:
Yes - sorry for the erroneous details. The real deal breaker is the lack of viewfinder. I just can't abide holding a camera at arms length to take a shot. I only tolerate LiveView on my 5DMkII for macro and the occasional landscape that I have tricky focus.
Thanks folks! Looks like the 7 is still my goal.
and poorer performance/colour shifting with some fine wide angles