d.topp wrote:
Diglloyd sad, that below f/5.6 he can see diffraction with the 24 Mpix Nikon D3x. For the NEX-7 we will need lenses, that perform best at f/5.6 and higher (hopefully my Leica lenses )
dierk
Same with the Sony a900 and great glass. Going past 5.6 can often show slight softening in the center but it's sometimes required to get sharp corners at F8 depending on the lens (I'm talking wide angle lenses here specifically). The situation is going to be at least a stop worse with the NEX 7.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I think, given the huge price differences, the NEX 7, combined with a really decent lens, is going to have a tough time justifying itself as a compact walk-about for folks who don't already own expensive rangefinder glass.
I would hold out on that call until we get NEX7 in our hands. Fact is, the specs look very impressive indeed, and I am struck by how many people on this forum have expressed interest or downright pre-ordered. I think that there is a huge, presently mostly untapped market, for a "high-quality compact camera". This is the market segment that the Fuji sells into, and, by all accounts, the launch seems to be going very well indeed. The Sony will be more ambitious than the Fuji in every respect (performance, price, flexibility, etc..). It remains to be seen whether Sony can deliver on this promise, and how the market sub-segments itself between the Fuji price level and the NEX7. But I don't think that the Sony will speak to many single-lens buyers. It is not a balanced set-up with the 18-55 kit zoom, so another lens should be the work-horse, such as the Zeiss prime or the forthcoming G zoom.
philber wrote:
I would hold out on that call until we get NEX7 in our hands. Fact is, the specs look very impressive indeed, and I am struck by how many people on this forum have expressed interest or downright pre-ordered. I think that there is a huge, presently mostly untapped market, for a "high-quality compact camera". This is the market segment that the Fuji sells into, and, by all accounts, the launch seems to be going very well indeed. The Sony will be more ambitious than the Fuji in every respect (performance, price, flexibility, etc..). It remains to be seen whether Sony can deliver on this promise, and how the market sub-segments itself between the Fuji price level and the NEX7. But I don't think that the Sony will speak to many single-lens buyers. It is not a balanced set-up with the 18-55 kit zoom, so another lens should be the work-horse, such as the Zeiss prime or the forthcoming G zoom. ...Show more →
Yep, we will have to see. I pre-ordered as well but at this point, I have no idea what lens I would use on it for a compact, fast walk-a-bout solution. The Zeiss 24 1.8 strikes me as too large and too expensive for what it is since I could pretty much buy the more compact Fuji X100 for the price of just that one lens alone!
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Which seems to be a case for NOT getting a 24MP APS sensor since your saying the images will look the same as the 16MP sensor at that size.
But, for those who want/ expect the APS 24MP sensor to give the same resolution as say the Sony a900/850, it's going to require glass which will give similar per pixel detail at 100% view as those cameras. Otherwise, what's the point.
I agree with that. If someone doesn't print large, actually to the limit of the sensor resolution, all these extra pixels are superfluous. But, well, if you want the most advanced body, and it only comes with a 24mp option, not much choice is left for you. However, you need those superduper lenses only if you plan to utilize the full sensor resolution. But if you plan to keep on printing the same usual sizes, the same usual lenses would do, as long as you don't obsess scrutinizing the pixels at 100% magnification. This is at least my philosophy
edwardkaraa wrote:
I agree with that. If someone doesn't print large, actually to the limit of the sensor resolution, all these extra pixels are superfluous. But, well, if you want the most advanced body, and it only comes with a 24mp option, not much choice is left for you. However, you need those superduper lenses only if you plan to utilize the full sensor resolution. But if you plan to keep on printing the same usual sizes, the same usual lenses would do, as long as you don't obsess scrutinizing the pixels at 100% magnification. This is at least my philosophy
Agreed. My dilemma in considering the NEX-7 is that I do use every single pixel from my a900 for a lot of what I do so I could only justify the cost if it could indeed offer me the same final IQ. Otherwise, I'll just keep the a900 and add a cheaper compact mirrorless camera.
sebboh wrote:
the contax 45/2 is noticeably shorter than than the pentax 43/1.9 with adapter (though the difference isn't huge) and narrower to boot. i also think the contax is probably a noticeably better lens in most regards, except flare suppression, though i'm basing this purely of shots i've seen and from the pentax and reviews (i only own the contax). the contax 45/2 is a very difficult lens to beat, but the on adapter focus ring takes some getting used to. other than a strong rendering style preference, that would be the only reason i could could see somebody choosing the pentax or 50 cron for that matter over the contax. i definitely agree about the pentax 77/1.8 though, great size, performance, and for me a better focal length than the contax 90/2.8 or olympus 85/2 that i have now....Show more →
I own both 43 and 77 and I have to tell you 43 is absolutely excellent.
I even prefer it to 77, although both are really great. It's very sharp,
but most of all it has a great, great look, wonderful bokeh, colors and contrast.
By quite a few tests by those who actually tested those lenses (not very
popular outside of Pentax world), 31, 43 and 77 Limited were called
the best SLR lenses ever made.
I like Zeiss rendering and those are the only lenses which I have seen
coming close to that look without having a Zeiss logo.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Yep, we will have to see. I pre-ordered as well but at this point, I have no idea what lens I would use on it for a compact, fast walk-a-bout solution. The Zeiss 24 1.8 strikes me as too large and too expensive for what it is since I could pretty much buy the more compact Fuji X100 for the price of just that one lens alone!
Someone at DPR has tested his ZM 25 on the Nex c3, and the corners don't show any smearing nor color shifts, and they do look perfect from f/4 and not too bad WO.
This could be a better option with the Nex 7 than the new Zeiss, because it still can be used on an M9, or on an eventual FF Nex, and MF is no problem with the focus peaking feature.
edwardkaraa wrote:
This could be a better option with the Nex 7 than the new Zeiss, because it still can be used on an M9, or on an eventual FF Nex, and MF is no problem with the focus peaking feature.
Yes, I have considered this option but it's still going to be slower in use than a native, AF solution for those times when I don't have time to stop and focus and the two are still 2K plus as a single lens solution.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Which seems to be a case for NOT getting a 24MP APS sensor since your saying the images will look the same as the 16MP sensor at that size.
But, for those who want/ expect the APS 24MP sensor to give the same resolution as say the Sony a900/850, it's going to require glass which will give similar per pixel detail at 100% view as those cameras. Otherwise, what's the point.
True, although you will still have a resolution advantage at apertures wider than f5.6. I shoot a lot in the f2.8-f5.6 range, so it should be good for me.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Yes, I have considered this option but it's still going to be slower in use than a native, AF solution for those times when I don't have time to stop and focus and the two are still 2K plus as a single lens solution.
I kind of look at it this way, in terms of size.
If you're primarily a 35mm equiv. shooter, and size is an issue, the fixed lens X1 and X100 may make more sense, because the necessary size of such a lens can be reduced by placing many of the lens elements inside the actual camera body, as well as designing a lens that sits nearly right on top of the sensor. If Fuji does make an interchangeable system in the style of the X100, you can bet the 35mm equiv. lens will be much larger.
If you're primarily a 50mm equiv. shooter, the NEX cameras make a lot of sense, because there are quite a few 35mm lenses out there that are small, and some are relatively cheap. Plus, it'll be easier to design a small, native AF lens at that focal length later on down the road...although it'll probably be a Sigma.
snowboarder wrote:
I own both 43 and 77 and I have to tell you 43 is absolutely excellent.
I even prefer it to 77, although both are really great. It's very sharp,
but most of all it has a great, great look, wonderful bokeh, colors and contrast.
By quite a few tests by those who actually tested those lenses (not very
popular outside of Pentax world), 31, 43 and 77 Limited were called
the best SLR lenses ever made.
I like Zeiss rendering and those are the only lenses which I have seen
coming close to that look without having a Zeiss logo.
indeed i've heard many wonderful things about the pentax 43mm and seen many wonderful shots, just nothing that suggests it's better than the contax g 45/2 except in flare suppression. for my personal taste though, i actually don't care that much for what i've seen of the 43's bokeh and prefer the good old smc 50/1.4 in that respect despite the 50mm being an inferior lens in many aspects. that combined with the fact that i already own the contax 45 and a pen f 42/1.2 has kept me from being tempted by the pentax 43. i should add that bokeh is obviously personal taste here, i'm sure many other's besides you would disagree with me about the pentax 43's bokeh. i also actually also don't care much for the 'zeiss look' except for one or two types of shooting, but realize i'm in a minority there on this forum.
douglasf13 wrote:
I kind of look at it this way, in terms of size.
If you're primarily a 35mm equiv. shooter, and size is an issue, the fixed lens X1 and X100 may make more sense, because the necessary size of such a lens can be reduced by placing many of the lens elements inside the actual camera body, as well as designing a lens that sits nearly right on top of the sensor. If Fuji does make an interchangeable system in the style of the X100, you can bet the 35mm equiv. lens will be much larger.
If you're primarily a 50mm equiv. shooter, the NEX cameras make a lot of sense, because there are quite a few 35mm lenses out there that are small, and some are relatively cheap. Plus, it'll be easier to design a small, native AF lens at that focal length later on down the road...although it'll probably be a Sigma.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Does anyone have any ideas about the Voigtlander 40mm F1.4? Might be an interesting comparison to the well regarded Contax G 40mm F2.
from all the comparisons i've seen, both the cv 35/1.4 and 40/1.4 are good lenses but have many more aberrations than the contax. they are both smaller and faster though.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I don't think it's silly at all.
Yes, I was trying to fend off the inevitable "it doesn't make sense to compare those two cameras" comments. For me it does, because I am considering my compact kit strategy, and don't yet know what I want. I am leaning towards an E-P3 with 20/1.7, with the possibility of adding a 24/1.8 and 45/2.8 later.
Your assuming that shooting photos is somehow more enjoyable than talking about camera gear for everyone, just because it is for you.
When its a hot, humid, summer day without a cloud in the sky, nothing interesting around to shoot, and very bad light, I'd much rather sit in the a/c and talk shop.
I own about 40 different camera's and as 80% are old antiques I collect, I've never even shot one image with them but I still find them quite enjoyable.
Love and enjoyment of photography does not have to mean, nor be measured with how many photos one takes.
Visuals wrote:
Blah blah blah blah......
Imagine how many more photos we would have taken instead of all this talk!
millsart wrote:
Your assuming that shooting photos is somehow more enjoyable than talking about camera gear for everyone, just because it is for you.
When its a hot, humid, summer day without a cloud in the sky, nothing interesting around to shoot, and very bad light, I'd much rather sit in the a/c and talk shop.
I own about 40 different camera's and as 80% are old antiques I collect, I've never even shot one image with them but I still find them quite enjoyable.
Love and enjoyment of photography does not have to mean, nor be measured with how many photos one takes.
i'd rather be shooting! if i'm at the computer posting on FM it means i can't be out shooting for some reason. so i haven't wasted anytime where i could be shooting talking about this, just time i could have been productive in some other way...
sebboh wrote:
indeed i've heard many wonderful things about the pentax 43mm and seen many wonderful shots, just nothing that suggests it's better than the contax g 45/2 except in flare suppression. for my personal taste though, i actually don't care that much for what i've seen of the 43's bokeh and prefer the good old smc 50/1.4 in that respect despite the 50mm being an inferior lens in many aspects. that combined with the fact that i already own the contax 45 and a pen f 42/1.2 has kept me from being tempted by the pentax 43. i should add that bokeh is obviously personal taste here, i'm sure many other's besides you would disagree with me about the pentax 43's bokeh. i also actually also don't care much for the 'zeiss look' except for one or two types of shooting, but realize i'm in a minority there on this forum....Show more →
My main issue with the 45/2, is the focus-by-adapter-solution, which for me works out ok sometimes, not so ok other times. I'm getting a 35/1.2 some day soon, will compare the two.
ulrikft2 wrote:
My main issue with the 45/2, is the focus-by-adapter-solution, which for me works out ok sometimes, not so ok other times. I'm getting a 35/1.2 some day soon, will compare the two.
sweet! did you ever get a better adapter for the 45?
)