denoir wrote:
Guys, I think you are misinterpreting the tests.
Nope. I was just saying that I find highlight recovery on the Nex-3 pretty amazing, regardless of your comparison. If you find it bad, I suggest waiting for LR support and see if that changes things. Or try RPP as suggested from others. The Sony raw converter is known to be rather bad, so I really would like to see your results with a proper converter, again regardless of a comparison. I think it is more than obvious that the Leica is superior in every way.
Morfeus wrote:
Nope. I was just saying that I find highlight recovery on the Nex-3 pretty amazing, regardless of your comparison. If you find it bad, I suggest waiting for LR support and see if that changes things. Or try RPP as suggested from others. The Sony raw converter is known to be rather bad, so I really would like to see your results with a proper converter, again regardless of a comparison. I think it is more than obvious that the Leica is superior in every way.
Sorry Heinz, I should not have included your quote there, that was by mistake. My post was for those that thought the resolving power of the C3 ought to be higher.
Thank you Luka for the tests and general info re the Nex C3. Interesting and useful. ( I have been looking for a backup for my M9 that could also be used for close-ups)
Assuming that the colourcast with wideangle lenses is indeed gone (and seeing your results I have little reason to doubt it) this begs some questions.
Why is there no mention of this (rather remarkable feat) in Sonys promotional publications?
And why did they do it? Or put another way, is this an unintended or unexpected side-effect caused by other changes made to the sensor?
On another note, how is the resolution at the edges with lenses wider than 28mm? I have recently aquired a GH2 and even with this smaller sensor I see considerable loss of sharpness near the edges using third party lenses from 28mm (i.e. Elmarit-R 28/2,8 latest version) and the Zeiss ZM 18/4 etc.
If you have any shorter FL than 18mm, it would be very interesting to see the results.
I'll see if RPP supports the C3 and see if I can get something out of it.
Until then some more sample images, an earlier request:
joe88 wrote:
Luka, can you post some sample shots with the 28Cron and 35Lux when you have some time? Thanks!
I took a walk with the C3 + 35 Lux today to one of my favorite photo locations - a construction site. I must admit the C3 was fun to use. I've missed live view and how easy it is to get accurate compositions - unlike with the M9's highly approximate framelines.
I'll start with two high ISO shots, and the rest is just in chronological order:
photoArne wrote:
On another note, how is the resolution at the edges with lenses wider than 28mm? I have recently aquired a GH2 and even with this smaller sensor I see considerable loss of sharpness near the edges using third party lenses from 28mm (i.e. Elmarit-R 28/2,8 latest version) and the Zeiss ZM 18/4 etc.
If you have any shorter FL than 18mm, it would be very interesting to see the results.
I'm afraid that I don't have anything shorter than 18mm - it's quite wide on FF. I have not however seen any loss of definition in the corners when using it.
If the NEX-C3 is the baseline of the current iteration of NEX cameras, then I'm psyched for what the NEX-7 will provide. Happy to see wide angle RF lenses play well with it.
The texture in the wall and pipe photo is just fun to look at. Seems to be picking up a relatively great amount of detail.
Luka, great review and writeup. Excellent shots! This is the real test, I suppose actual shots. This is a fascinating read, as I am sure we are all poised to have in our kit, a NEX 3/5 C3 or hopefully the 7 soon. What I find really interesting is the comparison of the C3 versus the 7D even with the ZE 50/2. Once there is RAW support in ACR and C1 Pro, be great to rerun some of the files. I am finding there is an improvement in the NEX 5 RAW files development from C1 Pro as compared to ACR. I have not tried the Sony convertor yet though.
Luka, thanks for very interesting review!
Pls do make more sharpness comparisons - but on corresponding focals, not the same lens on FF and cropped sensor.
I used to have NEX-5.
When I attached Summilux 50mm - it was giving results as expected, without any issues.
When I attached Summilux 35mm - it was giving not so good results. Soft edges, much more purple fringing than on M9, even after closing it down. But it was not affecting all photos, as on many - edges were not important in terms of sharpness.
When I attached wider Zeiss (25mm) - edges were even softer, there was color shift...
DOF was always bigger, eg. NEX + 35mm at f/1.4 gives DOF like M9 + 50mm at f/2.
Colors were also not in M9 league. I decided to sell it and wait for NEX-7 as possible backup.
I was missing EVF and flash hot shoe.
Not so long, and also RICOH will show their body, but so far - NEX-7 seems to be much more better, but let's see.
denoir wrote:
If a more reasonable comparison is made the NEX-C3 performs quite well. Here's a 100% crop of it compared to the Canon 7D (50 Summilux ASPH on the C3 and Zeiss 50/2 Makro Planar on the 7D):
The pics with the 35Lux ASPH are quite impressive especially those on #2 & 3, I can definitely recognize the rendering of this lens. I'm not so impressed with the stopped down performance though, looks like its kind of fuzzy? Are you using the Leica or Canon sharpening script?
denoir wrote:
Yes, but can you tell what differences the sensor is responsible for and what can be attributed to the lens? I think that according to the MTF charts the 50 MP should have a bit higher micro contrast in the fine detail, but then again that's exactly what an AA filter kills.
I'm seeing higher edge contrast in the C3 shot, which would correspond to high micro contrast in the lower spatial frequencies 10-20 lp/mm, but again I'm not sure if it is the sensor or the lens. My guess would be the sensor. If somebody had shown me those crops and asked me which one was the Leica and which the Zeiss, without telling me that the cameras were different then I would have guessed wrong. ...Show more →
what i was noticing and attributing to the lens was that details in blue tones show more detail contrast with the C3/leica while details in reddish and cream portions seem more defined with the 7D/zeiss despite the C3/leica having higher per pixel sharpness. i suppose that could be due to CFA/processing though. you could always put both lenses on the NEX for a true comparison.
douglasf13 wrote:
That NR look is another product if IDC. You'll really need to wait until LR3 supports the C3 to make any real pixel-level comparisons...or you could try RPP.
Luka and Douglas, I don't know if were talking about the same converter here, but in IDC I always turn off NR and do it with noise ninja at a later stage. The default setting is auto, which means detail smearing at high iso. I find IDC + noise ninja to be much superior to ACR as the files look more organic and film like, while ACR results always look digital to my eyes, especially at the pixel level.
Hi, Edward. Yeah, I was talking in regards to using NR in IDC, which isn't great, and results are better when turning NR completely off. I don't find the output of IDC better than the 2010 version of ACR's processor, but that doesn't matter much to me either way, because RPP is better than all other converters I've tried, and I use that for anything of importance. RPP's floating point processing takes a little bit longer, but, compared to other converters, it's almost like a lens upgrade.
I do think ACR's Sony color profiles are not great.
Definitely, I wish they would make a (paying) windows version of RPP. My gripe with ACR is the stair stepping and the fine monochromatic noise veil that covers the entire image not only shadows, and reduces three dimensionality. The nuclear greenish yellows are also annoying. IDC has the best color profiles IMO but lower pixel sharpness and noise where it should be, in the shadows.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Definitely, I wish they would make a (paying) windows version of RPP. My gripe with ACR is the stair stepping and the fine monochromatic noise veil that covers the entire image not only shadows, and reduces three dimensionality. The nuclear greenish yellows are also annoying. IDC has the best color profiles IMO but lower pixel sharpness and noise where it should be, in the shadows.
Raw Therapee is working on a new floating point version for windows that you could check out.
douglasf13 wrote:
Hi, Edward. Yeah, I was talking in regards to using NR in IDC, which isn't great, and results are better when turning NR completely off. I don't find the output of IDC better than the 2010 version of ACR's processor, but that doesn't matter much to me either way, because RPP is better than all other converters I've tried, and I use that for anything of importance. RPP's floating point processing takes a little bit longer, but, compared to other converters, it's almost like a lens upgrade.
It depends on which camera you are using. RPP does great to counteract the effects of an AA filter. On the other hand if your camera is AA-less it actually does a worse job than ACR. RPP processed M9 files just look over sharpened to the extent that details are being destroyed.
However, for the NEX and the 7D it is indeed a serious improvement as I'll show in my next post.
