j4ake wrote:
Sony must just love everyone discussing how much they are looking forward to using Sony cameras without Sony lenses even before the cameras are publicly available, especially since (like inkjet printers are made to sell ink cartridges) interchangeable lens camera bodies are made to sell lenses.
While its true that many photography/camera gear enthusiasts of the likes on FM and RFF or other various forums may want to mount lots of alt lenses, I really doubt that the majority of the market that will go for the NEX 3 or 5 will care about mounting Leica lenses, or anything for that matter beyond the kit lenses.
Pretty typical honestly, but I guess working at a camera store keeps me in check with what the mass market really is like. I'm predicting the NEX line will be a better seller versus the µ4/3 offerings with aggressive pricing and the size. Honestly the controls look like they will be very simple which in many peoples minds (disclaimer: not necessarily you or me) is nice.
j4ake wrote:
DPreview has a set of sample images up. The 16mm lens looks like all distortion with a small center of possible clarity. The other lens looks no better than anything already on the market.
I agree that the lenses don't look like anything special, though I do think you're being a little hard on the 16. I don't think Sony was swinging for the fences with these two, either. I think they're the "get it to market" pair. There are some interesting points to the shots from a camera performance perspective. The first shot at ISO 3200 isn't bad, but it has a little softness that I'd say looks like in camera NR. The one at 12800 is bad, but not nearly as bad as I'd expect with a camera this size. I'd be interested to know if it was the photographer or the AF that picked the static wall instead of the woman in motion. I was most impressed with the video Not really taxing conditions on the camera, but it was sharp and vibrant.
Looks like a largely unproven but potentially kick-ass point and shoot replacement to me. And I'm sure getting high def video and quality snaps out of such an accommodating form factor will be hit with moms and dads who might've otherwise gravitated toward micros or small DSLRs.
By all reports Sony was intending to support AF with SSM & SAM lenses via the adapter but couldn't get it to work acceptably. It may arrive later via firmware though as the adapter apparently is wired for it. They did manage to include aperture actuation, which is the big issue for A mount lens support.
I suspect the port on the top supports an EVF feed and that we will see one at some point in the not-too-distant future. Most likely the delay here is Sony's unwillingness to source the display from Epson (Who make the display in the Oly EVF) rather than from an internal source.
an adapted lens would have the same register as its native system... that what the adapter does... the native register of 18mm for e-mount result in a very high incidence angle towards the edges of the sensor and thus might be giving you some of these supposed corner IQ problems. When you use and adapted lens you're in a way re-creating the system for which the lens was made (in terms of register and incidence angles on the sensor)... so as far as I can see, using adapted glass should be just fine on these guys especially with a 1.5x sensor (and with glass designed for standard SLRs)
EDIT:... umm, k, there was a post here just a minute ago asking this question
morpheus2891 wrote:
When you use and adapted lens you're in a way re-creating the system for which the lens was made (in terms of register and incidence angles on the sensor)... so as far as I can see, using adapted glass should be just fine on these guys especially with a 1.5x sensor (and with glass designed for standard SLRs)
You're also throwing away the advantage of the small system in the first place. My OM 50/1.8 with my M43->43->OM adapters mounted are about the same size as my old Canon 50/1.8, for example.
true.... and that's why I hope sony and zeiss put some native E-mount lenses together that can at least get close to ZM quality (dont mind if they charge similar prices)... that way you can maintain a compact system when you want then adapt larger glass if you require it at any time.... anyway, hopefully the announcement of the NEX7 will bring some nicer glass (and maybe eventually a FF NEX9 with a line of zeiss primes... yea, I know Im dreaming).
dpap1978 wrote:
there is a discussion over at dpreview arguing that the short registration distance is responsible for the high amounts of CA and soft corners.
not sure if that's true, but the OP seems convinced...
Registration distance is irrelevant to the issues in question. However non-retrofocus lenses do have telecentricity issues which can lead to both CA and soft corners. This is an ongoing problem with some wide-angle lenses when adapted to the m43 cameras, as well as on the M8 and M9 (although the offset microlenses on the Leica's significantly reduce this problem)
What I'm curious to see with a small body like this is modding this to an older film body.
Technically all you need to do is "just" to match the film plane, combine the shutter release and make sure the body is in A or M mode as you can take care of almost the rest with the lens. No need for aperture control or AF.
Biggest challenges I see is access for ISO controls and shutterspeed from the existing controls...
