philber wrote:
I have done a quick-and dirty test of ZM18 Vs WATE@18mm on NEX 5N, one of 5N + ZM 18 Vs 7 + WATE, one of WATE on 5N Vs WATE on 7, this time @ 16mm, plus checks of center Vs corners on 7 + WATE wide open @ 16mm.
The problem I have convincing you guys is that a lot of the finer details are going to get lost in downrezzing for the Net, and even what I see is far from "fair" because the way I view detail is to go to 100% magnification, obviously unfair to the 7 because of its higher magnification factor.
What matters IMHO, quite simply, is not how the 7 "may be needlessly robbing the pic of edge resolution", but how much the end result contains. Whether that much is "adequate" or not is a quastion each of us can answer to our satisfaction, and that is a matter for personal choice.
So far, I stand by what I see and wrote yesterday. The WATE on NEX 7 is clean to the point that anyone looking at the pics without knowing how particular the 7 is with WAs would have no chance, nada, zero, of knowing that there is such an issue. What he might see is that extreme corner sharpness wide open is a tad off from center. And that is always the case wide open, isn't it?
Right now I am looking at Cornerfixed ZM 18 + NEX 7 pics, and that is a bit time-consuming for a guy who also needs to put in a few rare moments of work every day. And I have no interest is putting time and energy into shooting targets and brick walls. Either I can see something in "real" pics, and it matters, good or bad. Or I can't, and then it don't matter, as they say. But if others want to,they are welcome to disagree. I ain't got no copyright on the friggin' Truth......Show more →
+100
I agree.
This discussion is ridiculous. Are we testers for Pop Photo or photographers? The posting of tests is no doubt helpful. The theoretical discussion of things unseen is counterproductive and destructive to atmosphere of this forum. Please. Whether or not the Nex 7 achieves its theoretical possibilities is irrelevant to taking good pictures. Which lenses it works well with is relevant but not worth an emotional discussion.
I agree, and I have a WATE, and I have a NEX 7, and this discussion is bordering on pointless... It is only relevant to someone who is planning a WATE purchase for the NEX7, otherwise, well it is one of the best wide angle solution's out there. This point has been made by myself, Philber, and Richmann. In the end, if you need wide, your going to shoot the VC12mm and corner fix it. Even the WATE is only a 24mm equivalent.
I will post photos as soon as I have time, after all this is a photographers forum.
I'm not sure what the fuss is about. The WATE has barely even been discussed in this thread. We're all trying to get a sense of what does and doesn't work well on the 7, and I'm personally trying to get some kind of idea as to which lens designs succeed on the camera. This is, after all, a thread titled "NEX-7 Lens tests." Of course, a thread titled "NEX-7 Lens opinions" might also be useful.
A year or so ago, many NEX-5 users swore that various 35mm rangefinder lenses were fine on the camera, only to find out a year later how much better the 5N was at the edges, and I have a feeling that the same thing is going to happen with the NEX-7.
Again, I'm sure the WATE is fine on the NEX-7, but I'd love to see comparisons with the 5N.
Smiert Spionam wrote:
I dunno, philber. Maybe you should try with some better lenses.
I know, the man has no standards
Philber don't sweat it--you have a great thread here. It's an interesting discussion we like. As to credit for your hard work: no good deed goes unpunished
I have a feeling Klaus is either preparing a presentation or has decided it's not worth the furor. I doubt he is so upset over nothing--I mean he got a second body even.
But who knows maybe he doesn't realise, like us, that a tiny touch against the focus kills the corners, but can turn the centers into hubble like rez.
I agree that I have no standards. To the extent that I have a new ZM 35 f:2.0, and that I cannot replicate the reported corner problems wide open. Yes, it vignettes a bit in the extreme corner, and, yes it is a bit less sharp than in the centre, or than in the corner stopped down.
But that is also true using the same lens on 5N, which is not known for any problem whatsoever with 35mm lenses. And that is also true of the vast majority of lenses when used wide open.
And, of course, no trace of magenta. Yet, in exploring NEX corner issues since my early NEX 5, it is my experience that magenta edges (colour shift) tends to happen before corner softness, since a number of lenses tend to display the former, to be cleaned up with Cornerfix, but not the latter, which cannot be cleaned up.
Yes, Dimitri, it does. Depending on which lenses, there could be none, but it can also be catastrophic with some others, mainly symmetrical-design wide angles, like wide Zeiss Biogon.
I am a bit confused. Klaus commented on a very drastic reduction in resolution in the corners (hopefully he will publish results soon) but from the comments I've seen here this does not seem to be a real world issue - is that the case ?
When I have time, hopefully tomorrow, I will make and publish a comparison in the corners of NEX 5N and NEX 7 with both Contax G 45, a lens of legenday sharpness and no issues on any NEX, and ZM 35 f:2.0. We will see matters clearly after that, I hope
philber wrote:
Yes, Dimitri, it does. Depending on which lenses, there could be none, but it can also be catastrophic with some others, mainly symmetrical-design wide angles, like wide Zeiss Biogon.
Thank you! Sad but true, eh?
I think I will wait and see if Sony really does follow up on the FF NEX/Alpha mount camera...
you2 wrote:
I am a bit confused. Klaus commented on a very drastic reduction in resolution in the corners (hopefully he will publish results soon) but from the comments I've seen here this does not seem to be a real world issue - is that the case ?
Hi. It seems a couple of things are at play, here. First of all, it depends on the design of the lens being used, and, secondly, it depends what one deems "good enough" for their own use.
Who knows, maybe from a testing perspective, Klaus is frustrated because the NEX-7 shows corner issues with many lenses, and he may deem the camera unusable for lens tests, but those issues may not be noticeable to the everyday shooter?
Bjorn Utpott's blog shows that the ZM 35/2 at infinity on the NEX-7 doesn't catch up to the 5N until f5.6 in the corners, but I'm looking forward to seeing tests from other shooters, as this is my most used lens, and I like shooting flat field abstracts in the f2.8-f4 range. I use CornerFix with the 35/2 on the 5N, anyways, even though the color shift is slight, so I'm not bothered by color shift too much.
Getting more comfortable with the NEX7 and, in this case, the ZM25 with Cornerfix correction, I redid the Cornerfix blanks with White balance correction to minimize the Cornerfix alterations to the DNG file. This scene is at calibrated hard stop infinity, and the edge does not improve with adjusting focus with respect to center frame. Center frame is of course sharper. f/8 I think. http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7065/6822187420_3886f2bb26_z.jpg
The corner resolution issue is also present with the 5n and certain extreme wides, it is slightly worse with the NEX7, AND it depends upon the lens in use. I agree we need a definitive test using the same lens on the two bodies. I'll try to find the time... Interestingly, the 35-70mm G lens exhibits magenta corners at 35mm but not above 50mm. My guess is that the magenta onset occurs prior to corner smearing. I have noticed that the smearing on both bodies is almost like a distortion induced by something in front of the sensor. its almost like astigmatism and not blur, has anybody else noticed this?
Andrew Gough wrote:
I have noticed that the smearing on both bodies is almost like a distortion induced by something in front of the sensor. its almost like astigmatism and not blur, has anybody else noticed this?
Yep, that's exactly what it is believed to be. Astigmatism caused by the AA filter and/or the micro lens design.
Here's the question, is it possible that they combined some sort of micro lens into the AA filter? I ask because the "astigmatism" that I am seeing is a function of lens resolving power and/or light ray angle. It seems that some lenses, like the WATE for example, can out resolve the 5n sensor and have no issues. The ZM 18mm out resolves the sensor too, but is displays magenta vignetting, but it is sharp into the outer edges. The 12mm VC is struggling in the corners with the 5n, but no real magenta cast. It is the same on the 7, but now we have magenta... The WATE displays some resolution drop at the outer edges of the 7 until F/11, with little magenta... The WATE is a retro focus design too.
