"Fast prime, decent high ISO performance and then 3-4 extra stops of handholding ability due to IBIS ?"
so you're saying that - give the same lens were used - you could shoot at ISO100 on your PEN in the same conditions that i would be shooting at ISO800 or 1600 on a D7000/D700/etc?
abam wrote: "Fast prime, decent high ISO performance and then 3-4 extra stops of handholding ability due to IBIS ?"
so you're saying that - give the same lens were used - you could shoot at ISO100 on your PEN in the same conditions that i would be shooting at ISO800 or 1600 on a D7000/D700/etc?
if yes, i find that to be very interesting.
yes, assuming nothing is moving to fast for the lower shutter speed. unfortunately the noise on an olympus camera is slightly worse at iso 800 than your D7000 at iso 1600 and your D700 at iso 3200 so things even out a bit. i really don't understand why the big two can't put IBIS in their cameras, it's not like lens versus body image stabilization is mutually exclusive and for shorter focal lengths i'd much rather have IBIS.
abam wrote: "Fast prime, decent high ISO performance and then 3-4 extra stops of handholding ability due to IBIS ?"
so you're saying that - give the same lens were used - you could shoot at ISO100 on your PEN in the same conditions that i would be shooting at ISO800 or 1600 on a D7000/D700/etc?
if yes, i find that to be very interesting.
Well its a base ISO of 200, but yes, assuming there wasn't a limitation of needing a certain shutter speed.
However, the PEN's aren't unique when it comes to IBIS, as Pentax has it in their DSLR's as well, and they of course have a better sensor than m4/3 so then you've got the ability to use higher ISO as well as IBIS with any lens which is even cooler still.
But of course then your back into a whole different form factor and class of camera, which was the whole reason for going to m4/3, NEX etc in the first place.
Its a useful feature to have none the less. I used to think it was only needed for long teles but really being able to stabilize any lens, legacy or native, really does come in pretty handy at times.
Really cool for things like taking some cityscapes at night and not needing to break out a tripod or use ultra high ISO's because you can shoot handheld at 1/8, 1/4th a second etc with a 12mm f2.0 lens.
Increases the fun of photography which is always a good thing
sebboh wrote:
yes, assuming nothing is moving to fast for the lower shutter speed. unfortunately the noise on an olympus camera is slightly worse at iso 800 than your D7000 at iso 1600 and your D700 at iso 3200 so things even out a bit. i really don't understand why the big two can't put IBIS in their cameras, it's not like lens versus body image stabilization is mutually exclusive and for shorter focal lengths i'd much rather have IBIS.
Although I really like IBIS, I think I have a pretty good idea why Sony didn't include it in NEX: overheating and cost. Since Sony started fresh with NEX, I'd guess they decided to go the lens IS route because of video and heat issues. Even the new A77 apparently shuts of mechanical SSS for video and defaults to digital SSS.
Of course, none of this means I'm happy with Sony's decision. Shooting with IBIS on the A900 was pretty awesome. That being said, the electronic shutter on the NEX-7 should allow pretty slow hand holding speeds.
douglasf13 wrote:
Of course, none of this means I'm happy with Sony's decision. Shooting with IBIS on the A900 was pretty awesome. That being said, the electronic shutter on the NEX-7 should allow pretty slow hand holding speeds.
loud though the NEX shutter is, i really don't feel much shake from it, certainly not compared to a FF slr with a mirror. the bigger problem for handholding with the NEX is when you can't brace it against your body.
as someone who owned a GF1 and was disappointed by its high-ISO noise characteristics, i find that really encouraging. i'm pretty familiar with the ins and outs of canikon's lens-based stabilization, but i suppose i'd just somehow come to believe that IBIS was only good for 1-2 stops. 3-4 stops really sounds like a huge amount of help for static objects.
"i really don't understand why the big two can't put IBIS in their cameras, it's not like lens versus body image stabilization is mutually exclusive and for shorter focal lengths i'd much rather have IBIS."
you're certainly not alone. i'd love to have IBIS to go with my D700 & 35/1.4G. oh, to be able to use ISO400 at night.
"To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day."
Abam, every is a bit different in their handholding ability, so what might 1-2 stops for one person might be 3-4 for another. Somewhat depends on focal length and the overall balance of the camera body as well.
I've noticed on my PEN that it allows you to select a given focal length in the menu too, not sure if that means the IBIS is then designed to work at that focal best or what, but perhaps its something that the shake one would see at 24mm is different than 50mm and so forth.
Downside is that while the PEN has IBIS and would be great for legacy glass, its 2x crop factor (not to mention lots of native glass) makes using it in that manner less than practical.
millsart wrote:
I've noticed on my PEN that it allows you to select a given focal length in the menu too, not sure if that means the IBIS is then designed to work at that focal best or what, but perhaps its something that the shake one would see at 24mm is different than 50mm and so forth.
if you are using unchipped lenses (e.g. manual focus adapted glass), you need to set the focal length (actual) so the IBIS knows how much to move the sensor to offset a given movement of the camera (larger focal lengths require larger sensor movements). with native µ4/3 lenses the camera knows the focal length so fiddling with that setting won't change anything.
this is a very handy feature that sony refuses to provide for their dslrs which require you to get a chipped adapter that tells the camera the correct focal length if you want IBIS to work correctly with your adapted/converted lenses.
Yeah, the programable IBIS is the nicest feature of the digital PENs, in my opinion. If look of the camera alone wasn't nostalgic enough, that feature is like a love-note to every photographer who has "that lens" (or "those lenses") that doesn't get used anymore since the switch to digital. But I really wish they hadn't gone the smaller sensor route.
The NEX-7 looks good. I'm cautiously optimistic about the VF. 24mp on an APS-C, though. That's going to be downright brutal on some lenses.
Does anybody know if the new NEX cameras use Exmor R sensors or not? There seems to be conflicting information on that point. R is back-illuminated (i.e it has the wiring in the back and not in the optical path), but it has so far only been used on tiny 1/2.5" P&S sensors.
I've found some references referring to the NEX-7's sensor as "Exmor R", but none from mainstream sources.
No, backlit sensors aren't expected in large sensor cameras anytime soon. The amount of circuitry in the way on large sensors is proportionally much smaller than with p&s/cell phone sensors, so the cost isn't worth the reward.
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">yes it does. a plethora of dials. EVF. large grip. the only thing that stings a bit is the $2200 price tag for an NEX-7 + 24/1.8 (B&H prices as of now). it's going to have to perform very very well for that kind of money. (and i hope it does - it's one step closer to the FF non-leica digital rangefinder.)
denoir wrote:
Does anybody know if the new NEX cameras use Exmor R sensors or not?
It is confusing. I see DxO, Steve's Digicams and others referring to an "Exmor R" in the A77. The official Sony press release on the other hand is only saying "Exmor".
I'd would be surprised if they were using BSI on a sensor this big from the little I understand about it. Then again, a lot of things Sony has done has surprised me - both good and bad!
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">yes it does. a plethora of dials. EVF. large grip. the only thing that stings a bit is the $2200 price tag for an NEX-7 + 24/1.8 (B&H prices as of now). it's going to have to perform very very well for that kind of money. (and i hope it does - it's one step closer to the FF non-leica digital rangefinder.)
Its not full frame, nor a rangefinder though. Only thing it seems to have gotten right is not saying Leica on it lol.
I think really there just isnt ever enough demand for a true rangefinder camera to see it happen. A Zeiss Ikon with a FF sensor and a $3k price tag would certainly be awesome but only a minority really enjoy shooting RF's and many of those folks are already happy with their Leica's.
A FF digital RF thats not a Leica would basically be making a niche product to appeal to people who enjoy a niche product in itself and just don't want to spend $7k for a camera body, so its like 1% of 1% of photographers so just can't ever see it happening.
I'd buy one though and actually, that Zeiss Ikon had a better VF and overall fell than a Leica actually.
So the GXR with the APS-C M-mount module will price out between the NEX-5N kit and the NEX-7 body-only. While I'm sure the module will be snapped up by current GXR users, will it bring a new audience to Ricoh's singular design and photographer-friendly interface, or has Sony (and makers of fine adapters everywhere) locked it up?
exactly. it's not there yet - it's moving the mark "one step closer" to that.
"...there just isnt ever enough demand for a true rangefinder camera..."
rangefinder-style camera is more what i mean. throw a FF sensor in an NEX-7-ish camera and you're there. compact. thin. metal body. external controls. to-the-side-mounted OLED-VF (which doesn't have to be calibrated like a traditional, optical RF's VF). AF. legacy lenses for the purists. much larger market than one might think, though we're not there just yet.
Now you've completely confused me! If going from K5 to NEX 7 was "worth it," why is going a little smaller not worth it? A m43 camera is a far cry from tiny compact or iPhone. So you're saying that the NEX 7 is providing significantly better performance than a 5D II? Haven't been following each set of posted examples, but I'm skeptical that it will be better high ISO.
Nice looking camera... but needs some nice small primes IMO.
snowboarder wrote:
Even going from 5D II to Pentax K5 was a huge downsizing for me.
If going from K5 to NEX 7 saves me that much more weight, it's worth it.
When I'm on set for several days with my camera on me all the time,
believe me, it does matter. Plus it seems like NEX 7 brings the best
image quality/resolution without going medium format/D3x/1Ds IV.
Sp12 wrote:
Except that graphic is wrong. Sony's latest 16.2 and 24MP sensors are wiring behind the photosites.
Post a link to the whitepaper or press release from Sony and I'll eat my words.
douglasf13 wrote:
I think you keep posting this graph and then don't read the responses. Joakim already mentioned that it's the micro lenses job to direct the light, and, once that happens, it's pretty much a straight shot down, so it doesn't matter if we're talking about CMOS or CCD. Where did you get that graph?
I drew the graph. I would like to know who is designing cover glass with a refractive index more than ten times higher than diamond, gallium arsenide or silicon (required to refract the incident light from a hologon from 52.5° to straight 0°). Someone should tell Leica, Kodak et al! (not to mention give these microlens designers a Nobel physics prize!)
sebboh wrote:
dude, you should look at luka's comparison of vignetting and color shift on the NEX-C3 compared to the m9.
Please link, all I could find is a 35mm lux asph comparison, which is barely a symmetrical lens. Like I said, the problem is not really with ~50mm equivalent lenses on aps-c cmos sensors. The problem is lenses with extremely short back focal distance (the wonderfully compact wide angles). I don't know if Luka has any lenses like a super angulon or 12/15mm heliar.
I do also appreciate that a custom cmos chip (or microlens array) can be designed to cope with extreme incidence from a single lens (a la Fuji x100) but there's a good reason Fuji don't let you put a telephoto over that same sensor.
At the end of the day don't you think if Sony or Zeiss *could* design and manufacture a fast wide or an ultra-wide for this system that isn't almost the size of the camera they would?
millsart wrote:
Its not full frame, nor a rangefinder though. Only thing it seems to have gotten right is not saying Leica on it lol.
I think really there just isnt ever enough demand for a true rangefinder camera to see it happen. A Zeiss Ikon with a FF sensor and a $3k price tag would certainly be awesome but only a minority really enjoy shooting RF's and many of those folks are already happy with their Leica's.
A FF digital RF thats not a Leica would basically be making a niche product to appeal to people who enjoy a niche product in itself and just don't want to spend $7k for a camera body, so its like 1% of 1% of photographers so just can't ever see it happening.
I'd buy one though and actually, that Zeiss Ikon had a better VF and overall fell than a Leica actually....Show more →
An FF with Nex-7 footprint and similar mount versatility would sell to the rafters, IMHO. The leica folks are actually pretty impressed with the nex-7, and many who would not even acknowledge the nex-5 are talking about the 7 as their back up camera.
A hybrid viewfinder, say a la x100 with focus aid in an RF split image style would be pretty nice, but the 7 has the best EVF anyone has ever seen, AND its in the right spot.
as someone said back a few pages, Sony has stolen a big march on Canikon here. I wonder how its going down in those boardrooms.
looks like a fantastic camera to me, but we'll have to wait for some raws made with leica glass to be sure--or better yet ZM.
Shooting with IBIS on the A900 was pretty awesome. That being said, the electronic shutter on the NEX-7 should allow pretty slow hand holding speeds.