True, but my thought is that right now, there just aren't many lenses worth owning (from what I've seen). The kit was...a kit..the pancake was not good.
I'm really interested in small system cams, but where do we go from here? A new kit lens? A large enough prime that it negates the body size? A slow telephoto?
Why wouldn't one just spend less money on an x100 or a gxr and fill in the gap with a dslr...or, hit mft which has a pretty great lens lineup now...
Remember that the 16/2.8's performance might need to be revisited, preliminary reports from NEX-C3 users seem to indicate that a lot of the 16's issues were related to the general corner performance issues of the NEX-3/5 sensor with RF-style wides. The NEX-C3's offset microlenses seem to have resolved much of this issue.
Because you can use Leica M lenses with focus peaking with the best EVF right now and 24mpx with a tilting screen. On top of that it can use all my Alpha mount lenses with autofocus for even screw drive lenses.
I'm pretty sure now I'll be selling my X100 as soon as I get the shipment notification on my preorder for the Nex-7.
The Voigtlander pancake F1.4 lenses seem like winners.
Steve Spencer wrote:
... Also keep in mind that the NEX 7 even with the new Zeiss 24 f/1.8 will not weigh more, nor have more volume than a Panny GH2 with the 20 f/1.7 pancake.
Except with the Panny you have the option of buying a cheap GF3 that will also fit that excellent lens with almost identical IQ for when you need very small / light...
Over the years since the E-P1, really the first small mirrorless, there have been countless discussions about what has been compromised in such cameras. I am positively surprised to see the 7 accommodate so many of them.
As for the A77, this is what I'd design if I took the R9 and added tech to it. It's a very purposeful-looking camera. I photograph with my heart and eyes more than my brain, so the look and feel is as important as the specs.
YMMV
Vern Dewit wrote:
Except with the Panny you have the option of buying a cheap GF3 that will also fit that excellent lens with almost identical IQ for when you need very small / light...
No idea why they felt they needed to cram 24mp into this. High-ISO samples (I know, I know... pre-production firmware and whatnot) look like dogshit and diffraction is going to kill.
I suppose for mf fans there is a lot to be happy about. For me, usually with a small camera, I am not terribly interested in mf. Maybe the nex 7 could change my mind..but man it is expensive given the optical quality before you start adding lenses.
At ISO1600 the sample don't look as clean as the D7000 or K5 but I'm betting if you resize that 24mpx file into 16mpx, it'll look cleaner than either camera.
FlyPenFly wrote:
I've been contemplating selling my kitted out x100 as it might be redundant... But Sony doesnt seem to have a decent pancake yet... Although an adapted m lens or pancake voigtlander 40mm f2 might just work!
Kind of a tough call here - the NEX7 is going to go through a whole gauntlet of tests on both the new Zeiss lens, plus everybody's favorite legacy lenses. Will each one work amazingly? Who knows (though the thought that some of my M mount lenses may still outresolve that sensor is very interesting)? At least with the X100, you know that the camera already functions natively with the lens it comes with. Plus color and performance could be very different from the NEX7 - not necessarily worse, just different. What about size?
Also the cost comes into question here too. For the cost of the Zeiss lens alone, you can practically buy a whole X100 (assuming they were available).
There may be a world where I could own both of these cameras (but in that world, probably not the Zeiss lens).
Aug 24, 2011 at 10:06 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
mawz wrote:
Afraid not, the much larger 24mm means that the NEX-5N/24 package will be much larger than the GF3/20 package.
Most of the volume is in the camera. If you do the math the NEX-5N/24 package is about 10 percent bigger, but the NEX C3/24 package has very similar volume (the NEX C3 is 5mm thinner than the 5N so has a bit less volume) to the GF3/20 package (26041 cubic mm vs. 28272 cubic mm). Of course the NEX C3/24 would be a more awkward shape and it would still weigh a bit more than the GF3/20 package. Also if you compare the NEX C3/16 to the GF3/14 things get even closer, or the NEX C3/CV 35 f/1.4 to the GF3/25 f/1.4. Suffice it to say there is only a very small advantage for micro four thirds in size over these new NEX models and similar lenses.
mawz wrote:
Afraid not, the much larger 24mm means that the NEX-5N/24 package will be much larger than the GF3/20 package.
It will only be deeper.
I used to think that I would have a much larger kit going from the GF1/20 to the NEX3/18-55, which it was in absolute terms, but not in real life. The added size of the lens did not really change the way (or pocket) I carried it. The 24 1.8 does not look much bigger than the 18-55
I also wonder whether the 16E will perform better on the corner-corrected 7.
This pic from a French review site gives a good impression of the Zeiss size. It isn't all that bad, although I think I'm gonna stick with my Perar and other M lenses:
