besides cameras don't have souls, the people using them have to inject theirs into them. cameras are all just ugly hunks of metal (or more recently plastic). people using old cameras as style accessories always amuse me. i'm sure whatever mirrorless cameras become really successful and have some future famous photography names use them will seem like they had soul to our equivalents 50 years from now (the difference is they won't last 50 years since they're electronic rather than mechanical).
on the actual topic: i believe some of the rangefinder wides actually have pretty decent corners after to run cornerfix. it doesn't seem like we have enough solid data yet.
ChrisDM wrote:
Especially with "alt" lenses, I like to shoot with cameras with a soul, and the Sony cameras to me just have no soul. They are so plain, so industrial, so boring, it just doesn't seem right mounting interesting glass to them. I know that's trivial in the final image making process, and it is just my opinion. But in terms of photography as a hobby (I'm a professional also), I have this romantic attraction to using my tools, making photographs with these objects of desire. And there's no lust built in to the Sony bodies, I don't care how many megapixels they cram in there....Show more →
I'm as emotional about this as anyone, but that's just silly. To me, there's nothing colder than a massive DSLR, but I still like mine, and use them all the time -- even though my FE2 is more satisfying.
And while I'm not going to use the word "soul" to describe it, the NEX-7 is as viscerally satisfying to handle as any mechanical camera short of a Leica M. The controls are just right, the viewfinder is exactly where it's supposed to be, and it's light, quick, and responsive. This camera, more than any other, is (for me) the true heir to the compact rangefinders I carried for many years (Olympus RC/RD/SP, Canonets, etc.).
To the original poster: consider what focal lengths are important to you, and assess the options. If you can meet those needs, an NEX may well be very useful for you. For me, it's great. I doubt I'll be taking my D700 10 miles deep on a trail again.
sebboh wrote:
on the actual topic: i believe some of the rangefinder wides actually have pretty decent corners after to run cornerfix. it doesn't seem like we have enough solid data yet.
Yeah, we really need some A/B comparisons with the 5n and 7. The only comparisons I've seen favor the 5N, but we need more. Apparently, some of the Leica wides do ok on the NEX-7, but I'd still like to see how they compare on the 5N.
mpmendenhall wrote:
If getting a NEX for use with alt glass is a stupid idea, then you should probably not trust the quality of answers you get on a forum crawling with enough idiots to produce a 200 page NEX images thread
and
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Yeah, I think a strong argument could be made that using alt lenses on an NEX actually makes the most sense given the lack of really good native lenses available.
I think you'll have a problem with NEX doing wide angle landscape work. Well, perhaps you could try something like EF-S 10-22 or Nikon 12-24 with a proper adapter - their register distances are much longer than with RF lenses and should produce the same results as on normal crop DSLRs.
Yeah I agree that Sony NEX has no "soul". It's just a tool and I feel no emotions towards it, unlike few other cameras that feel nice to hold in your hands. Just shoot RAW and inject your own soul into the results.
pdmphoto wrote:
I don't have any idea what lenses you have for portrait, but focus peeking isn't ideal for a fast tele lens for portrait work. With good technique (and maybe magnification instead of peeking) you might get decent results if there isn't to much subject movement.
I respectfully disagree with you on this. I find that if I have focus peaking set correctly for the aperture I'm using, I can shoot without using magnified view and see peaking around the eye pupil and get critical focus virtually 100% of the time. I find this much more accurate than using autofocus with my Nikon and Pentax DSLRs.
Ataboy wrote:
Yeah I agree that Sony NEX has no "soul". It's just a tool and I feel no emotions towards it, unlike few other cameras that feel nice to hold in your hands. Just shoot RAW and inject your own soul into the results.
ChrisDM wrote:
Especially with "alt" lenses, I like to shoot with cameras with a soul, and the Sony cameras to me just have no soul. They are so plain, so industrial, so boring, it just doesn't seem right mounting interesting glass to them. I know that's trivial in the final image making process, and it is just my opinion. But in terms of photography as a hobby (I'm a professional also), I have this romantic attraction to using my tools, making photographs with these objects of desire. And there's no lust built in to the Sony bodies, I don't care how many megapixels they cram in there. ...Show more → mawz wrote:
That's a pretty good description of any DSLR or Mirrorless camera with the possible exception of the M9 and the Oly Pens & OM-D.
ChrisDM wrote:
I agree. I recently bought a GX1 and while its performance and image quality is quite remarkable, it has no soul ... I think it has something to do with its lack of viewfinder, and something to do with the fact that it is manufactured by what I perceive to be a television company (and the fact that it pretty much visually resembles most ho-hum compacts on the market). I am planning to sell my GX1 when the OMD comes out for this reason. I don't expect any better performance, but I will have a nice viewfinder on a camera that wasn't made by a television manufacturer. And it looks more like a camera.. ...Show more →
I totally know where you're coming from! As a non-professional about 25% or a tad more, of the fun in shooting is using interesting, well built, soulful equipment manufactured by a maker I can respect. Sony is worst of all but Panasonic too gets absolutely zero points in those areas! (Hehe, maybe Sony gets negative points!) IMO the OM-D is the first mirrorless to score at all in these areas - besides maybe the Fuji that is - but that's based on a rangefinder design an I don't really get on with RF designs unless they're ancient.
ken.vs.ryu wrote:
wrap it in a leather case with a cow's or an animal's soul.
Indeed. I've found little quite so soulful as quality cowhide (well, other than bacon -- but that's a little greasy for a camera case).
My NEX-7 is grateful for the Gordy's leather straps I provide for it, but curiously, I've found that it actually became even more soulful when I replaced the leather wrist strap with an old nylon cord version that I scavenged off an old Canonet. It's not digital, but it's not exactly analog, either. Is it possible that it now has a synthetic, petroleum soul?
I wonder, does it dream of photographs of electric sheep?
What do I know? Anyone who prints with anything other than albumen is probably a soulless poser.
------------------------
Also some folks are saying there's no good wide options for Nex...
I think I have to disagree with that! There may be no wide range-finder lenses that don't do the color shift thing but there are plenty of awesome wide SLR lenses around and none of them color shift.
Bifurcator wrote:
I totally know where you're coming from! As a non-professional about 25% or a tad more, of the fun in shooting is using interesting, well built, soulful equipment manufactured by a maker I can respect. Sony is worst of all but Panasonic too gets absolutely zero points in those areas! (Hehe, maybe Sony gets negative points!) IMO the OM-D is the first mirrorless to score at all in these areas - besides maybe the Fuji that is - but that's based on a rangefinder design an I don't really get on with RF designs unless they're ancient.
ha, i'm afraid i've given up on something well designed, well built, and manufactured by a maker i can respect. i'd be ecstatic if somebody makes a camera that lets me use my favorite lenses, doesn't anger me to use, and will survive a drop. i think fuji and leica are the only current camera companies i don't actively hate (maybe olympus).
Huh?