"The Nex-7 is also going to be expensive because it has a customized sensor. Sony, I’m told, has struggled a bit with getting good corners because of the short registration distance. Sony originally planned for the NEX to be marketed at consumers and didn’t realize it would be a hit with enthusiast too.
To combat the short registration distance, they put in some micro offset lenses."
"The Nex-7 is also going to be expensive because it has a customized sensor. Sony, I�m told, has struggled a bit with getting good corners because of the short registration distance. Sony originally planned for the NEX to be marketed at consumers and didn�t realize it would be a hit with enthusiast too.
To combat the short registration distance, they put in some micro offset lenses."
It looks like Sony could be going after the "rich hobbyist" market with the NEX7. If the specs are indeed accurate (I still have my doubts), it will be an incredible small-form-factor camera, with the possibility to use it with incredible glass. Probably not a lot of fun for Leica....
So does the C3, but neither can do so for the lens (which is optically coded). The Rioch has a weird enough concept to be fun, but I'd never get one.
philber wrote:
It looks like Sony could be going after the "rich hobbyist" market with the NEX7. If the specs are indeed accurate (I still have my doubts), it will be an incredible small-form-factor camera, with the possibility to use it with incredible glass. Probably not a lot of fun for Leica....
How do you figure that Philippe? It's an ASP-C camera, making at as uninteresting as the NEX-C3 or any other crop camera for an FF user. Not to mention that it isn't a rangefinder and doesn't even have an optical viewfinder. I can't see this drawing any more M9 users than any of the other NEX systems do - i.e. none at all. At most it can serve as an affordable, and very imperfect backup solution - i.e what I'm expecting of the C3.
In theory, Leica might be happy about it as they may perhaps sell some lenses to NEX-7 users, although I seriously doubt it given the price level differences. How many people are willing to spend $4,000 on a lens for a $1,000 camera? I know there are cases of people doing exactly that, but they are a tiny minority within the tiny minority of manual focus glass users. I seriously doubt it is a market segment that either Sony or Leica care too much about...
Then again if the video function is good, there might be a market for those interested in using M-mount lenses for filming. I have my doubts there though as unfortunately the focusing tabs on many M lenses makes them incompatible with any type of follow focus.
The NEX-7 - if the specs are correct it looks like it could be a great camera. If the EVF is good enough and they make a bunch more E-mount lenses I suspect it will attract DSLR users that want something more compact.
Luka, NEX7 looks to be an extremely high-spec camera in a small form factor. Yes, it is an EVF rather than an OVF, but the highest-definition EVF yet. Yes it is a crop and not FF, but has more pixels than any FF camera out there. And you can fit it with any type of exotic ZM or Leica glass. So it has a very appealing spec sheet for some "rich hobbyists". Obviously not for all. Some will still go for ultimate IQ, or ultimate status, or whatever, and those will not go for the NEX. But I predict that some will be attracted to the Sony. And we know that a good part of the Leica "resurrection" of late is due to the "rich hobbyist" who couldn't always tell a rangefinder if it shook his hand (I saw one walk int the shop I go to yesterday and walk out with a 9P, and he would have bought the most expensvie glass if only it had been in stock (he was, as he said, "upgrading from a compact"). Some of them could find the Sony palatable, for all they know (or don't).
As to the NEX 7 being boring, I reserve judgement on that. I found the IQ of the NEX5 remarkable for the money, and even more for the size, and found it quite capable of producing appealing pictures, though clearly not in the M9+ Leica ASPH class. If the NEX 7 is a serious step ahead of the 5 in IQ, then it will produce very interesting pictures, and could convince people like me of devoting more time and money to the E-mount. FYI, I tried a M8, and could live with one alongside my 5DII. But I am holding off on buying it until I see what the NEX 7 can do.
Philippe, dumping 24 megapixels on a crop sensor isn't an argument for it being a high end camera, but against it. They've IMO already gone somewhat overboard with the 16 megapixels on the C3. It's the same megapixel mania that has led that you can get a 20+ megapixel small sensor P&S or mobile phone.
I definitely do not share your estimate that it's a high-spec camera. I think that it's feature wise a bit below a Canon 7D, perhaps like a 60D - with only the small form factor being the benefit (which of course is not unimportant). It may be said to be a high-spec EVIL camera, but in terms of functions and performance they are typically in the middle of the digital camera segment - between P&S cameras and DSLRs.
As for the Leica Leica resurrection: The part of the customer segment that have no clue of photography but buy it because of the brand is constant. They don't know the difference between an M8 and an M9 and the M8 was a financial fiasco while the M9 has now saved the company. The major difference between those two cameras are the size of the sensor. What made the M9 so popular, why I and a whole lot of other people got it was because it was a compact full frame camera. Without it Leica would have been dead now.
So to make anything that is remotely tempting for an M9 user, you'd have to have a full frame NEX. And for the people that only care about buying a certain brand won't care about the technical specifications anyway.
As for an M8 vs a NEX 7, it depends on what the 7 will be like but if it is as good as everybody expects it to be, then I'd maybe go for the NEX over the M8. The M8 is still just a cropper, it has IR issues and while 24 megapixels may be overkill, 10 megapixels is underwhelming. Having a proper rangefinder, the feel and build of the camera are all great but the NEX has the advantage of more modern technology. I don't know.
The only tangible IQ advantage that the M9 has over the current NEX cameras, as far as tests show and my eyes can see, is resolution/detail. If the NEX-7 manages to get closer to the M9 in detail, the only real advantage I'd see at that point is the angle of view and equivalent dof differences.
I'm not sure how representative the numbers are compared to the overall NEX customer base, but I sure do talk to a ton of M glass NEX users on various forums. That being said, the CV and ZM lenses will probably be the price sweetspot for most M glass/NEX users. I agree that most users probably won't go out and spend $4K on a lens for NEX.
What I meant is not that the NEX7 will be a true M9 alternative, but that it will highlight exactly what you don't get out of Leica, which is hardly excusable when you take the M9 price into consideration.
Also, I am not sure that the M9 sucess is due entirely to its FF sensor. It has achieved cult status as "the camera to be seen having", which the M8 never reached. Is that due to FF? Hardly IMHO, but, of course, I have no proof. My opinion is more that it is a "luxury/status" item rather than "only" a high-price specialist camera.
As to 24 Mp, I have my doubts too, except that I have heard this song of "oh no, not morepixels, it will ruin the IQ!" since my 40D with 10 Mp, and, so far, it hasn't happened in "serious cameras" (as opposed to compacts). So, who knows, Sony could well pull a rabbit out of its hat. But maybe not...
Thanks a lot for the test report. However, my impression was that only wide lenses with BIOGON design suffer on previous NEX cameras (color shift issues). I seem to recall from various forums that ZM wide lenses with Distagon design were doing fine on NEX3/5, and my NEX5/ZM25 never gives me problems. Only Contax G Biogons have universal color shift issues. I am curious to see how a G Biogon 28 and 21 perform on NEX-3C/NEX-5N/NEX7. If the issues are gone, the G21 will be a must-buy IMHO.
If Zeiss 24/1.8 autofocuses fast and accurate on NEX and delivers the typical zeiss quality, it might somewhat be a competitor to M9. Anyway, I am already on the wait list.
I'm curious with the rumors on the NEX-7 and the new Ricoh - how does one make a sensor with offset microlenses in towards the corners optimized to multiple focal lengths?
I can see how they would help with a 24mm equiv, but wouldn't that hurt performance on, say a 90mm equiv.?
Wyan, I am very surprised that you don't have colour shift with yor ZM 25. I tried one, and it was there for me, so I din't buy it even though it is a lens I really like.
As to a NEXC3, 5E or 7 with a Zeiss 24 f:1.8, it will be interesting to compare with a Fuji X-100 and Leica X-1...
Joseph Marney wrote:
I'm curious with the rumors on the NEX-7 and the new Ricoh - how does one make a sensor with offset microlenses in towards the corners optimized to multiple focal lengths?
I can see how they would help with a 24mm equiv, but wouldn't that hurt performance on, say a 90mm equiv.?
I'm curious about this as well. How does Leica make it work?
douglasf13 wrote:
The only tangible IQ advantage that the M9 has over the current NEX cameras, as far as tests show and my eyes can see, is resolution/detail. If the NEX-7 manages to get closer to the M9 in detail, the only real advantage I'd see at that point is the angle of view and equivalent dof differences.
I reserve my judgement until there's ACR support for the C3, but with IDC there's also an M9 advantage in colors, dynamic range and latitude. The last is the case as well when you use RPP for both cameras. Colors are just crap out of RPP for both. As for high ISO performance I'd give the M9 a slight edge there as well - which was a surprise. The M9 lags about a stop behind the 5DII, which isn't good for a FF camera, but it's a bit ahead of the 7D and it looks like the C3 as well. I had expected the C3 sensor to be far better in that respect, but I'll have to say that I'll wait for ACR support before making a final judgement.
On the other hand, Erwin Puts made a bunch of tests and determined that the M9 and the D3X were very close in resolution - that the difference was insignificant for all practical purposes. The D3X dynamic range and high ISO performance was much better though.
Those things may or may not be relevant. High IQ is addictive, but hardly necessary in all situations. Had there been a FF NEX, I'd be the first to buy one.
The really big problem is the crop factor. A crop sensor deals a serious blow to wide angles and fast lenses. First you can't get any great UWA lenses. The CV 12 is OK, but hardly spectacular on a cropper - definitely not in the same league as a ZM 18 on FF. Second the ability to use the narrow DOF of a fast lens (for a given framing) is lost. Finally, you lose the edges which often kills the character of a lens. Ever used a 21 Distagon on a cropper? It's mediocre at best. Not to mention lenses such as the 35/1.4 Distagon that completely lose their character when you don't include the vignetting and the special field curvature that produces those awesome sharpness-to-blur transitions. A lens that has been designed for FF 135 should be used on an FF 135 camera.
I got my 5DII after my 7D and I intended it as a backup camera primarily and as a way of using the same lens twice (getting different AOVs). The 7D is the better camera of the two and I expected it to be my main camera. Ultimately however it ended up collecting dust while the 5DII became the only camera I used. The reason for it was the sensor. Full frame just gives a completely different look and you get to use the lenses in a way that they were optimized for. There's simply no substitute for a larger sensor.
Leica depends on lens coding to do in-camera software fixing of color shift and denoir has shown that the NEX-3C has almost no color shift with adapted lenses. So it doesn't work the same way.
philber wrote:
Also, I am not sure that the M9 sucess is due entirely to its FF sensor. It has achieved cult status as "the camera to be seen having", which the M8 never reached. Is that due to FF? Hardly IMHO, but, of course, I have no proof. My opinion is more that it is a "luxury/status" item rather than "only" a high-price specialist camera.
What I do know is that the current boost is due to new users and not old ones. The only reason why people would shy away from the M8, a camera that had far higher expectations on it and that was far more advertised are technical attributes. I think the whole luxury/status thing is way overblown. Leica is partly to blame because of the various ridiculous special editions. There's a massive selection bias involved, so it's no universal proof, but if you ask the M9 owners in the Leica thread why they got the camera you will hear two words "FF" and "compact". At least among those that post on the regular photo forums, including the Leica one a vast majority got the M9 because it was the only compact full frame camera. Sure, on the Leica forums you'll find those that bought it as a status symbol, but they represent a small minority, far fewer than those that bought it because of form factor + FF and far fewer than the old Leica guard who bought it because they liked their old cameras. The old guard are by the way a minority - if it was not for the new users Leica would have been bankrupt by now (as stated by Kauffman, Leica CEO).
As to 24 Mp, I have my doubts too, except that I have heard this song of "oh no, not morepixels, it will ruin the IQ!" since my 40D with 10 Mp, and, so far, it hasn't happened in "serious cameras" (as opposed to compacts). So, who knows, Sony could well pull a rabbit out of its hat. But maybe not...
I've seen the per-pixel sharpness deteriorate from my 350D to my 7D. Overall resolving power of course increased a lot. The 7D would have probably had to be a 16 or 15 megapixel camera to keep the per-pixel quality of the 350D. Of course, the extra pixels don't hurt. In principle color accuracy should for instance improve.
denoir wrote:
I reserve my judgement until there's ACR support for the C3, but with IDC there's also an M9 advantage in colors, dynamic range and latitude. The last is the case as well when you use RPP for both cameras. Colors are just crap out of RPP for both. As for high ISO performance I'd give the M9 a slight edge there as well - which was a surprise. The M9 lags about a stop behind the 5DII, which isn't good for a FF camera, but it's a bit ahead of the 7D and it looks like the C3 as well. I had expected the C3 sensor to be far better in that respect, but I'll have to say that I'll wait for ACR support before making a final judgement.
On the other hand, Erwin Puts made a bunch of tests and determined that the M9 and the D3X were very close in resolution - that the difference was insignificant for all practical purposes. The D3X dynamic range and high ISO performance was much better though.
Those things may or may not be relevant. High IQ is addictive, but hardly necessary in all situations. Had there been a FF NEX, I'd be the first to buy one.
The really big problem is the crop factor. A crop sensor deals a serious blow to wide angles and fast lenses. First you can't get any great UWA lenses. The CV 12 is OK, but hardly spectacular on a cropper - definitely not in the same league as a ZM 18 on FF. Second the ability to use the narrow DOF of a fast lens (for a given framing) is lost. Finally, you lose the edges which often kills the character of a lens. Ever used a 21 Distagon on a cropper? It's mediocre at best. Not to mention lenses such as the 35/1.4 Distagon that completely lose their character when you don't include the vignetting and the special field curvature that produces those awesome sharpness-to-blur transitions. A lens that has been designed for FF 135 should be used on an FF 135 camera.
I got my 5DII after my 7D and I intended it as a backup camera primarily and as a way of using the same lens twice (getting different AOVs). The 7D is the better camera of the two and I expected it to be my main camera. Ultimately however it ended up collecting dust while the 5DII became the only camera I used. The reason for it was the sensor. Full frame just gives a completely different look and you get to use the lenses in a way that they were optimized for. There's simply no substitute for a larger sensor....Show more →
I think is what is tough the about perception vs. numbers and trying to mix user opinions. For example, color is one of the main reasons that I switched to using RPP. Iliah Borg does the color profiling, and it does the best job, IMO. But, are we talking accurate color vs. pleasing color? Technical tests, like DxO Mark, will show that the M9 lags behind current Sony aps-c CMOS, but, then again, I see users saying the opposite.
Ultimately, I'm betting the NEX-7 will at least be close in resolution, DR, color, etc to the M9 sensor, considering that I haven't seen much compelling evidence that the M9 sensor is vastly superior to current Sony aps-c CMOS sensors, but, as you mentioned, it's the crop factor thing that will give the M9 a big edge to many.
douglasf13 wrote:
Ultimately, I'm betting the NEX-7 will at least be close in resolution, DR, color, etc to the M9 sensor
I think - it would matter more, if people would use M lenses at apertures like f/5.6 or f/8.
But very frequently - they use them wide open. And that will not be reproduced by NEX or RICOH.
wyan wrote:
If Zeiss 24/1.8 autofocuses fast and accurate on NEX and delivers the typical zeiss quality, it might somewhat be a competitor to M9.
All it can bring is giving result compareable to Leica M Summarit 35mm.
That Zeiss can be compared to M lens 35mm at f/2.6.
So how it can be competitor? First, you won't get results as from f/1.4, f/2.
And these are apertures - for which people pay for.
Second, At f/2.6 - this Zeiss will be at its limit - wide open.
And Leica Summilux or Summicron would be already stopped down.
