My anti glare coating on my nex 3 wore so badly, I just toolkit off and never looked back. Removing it made my camera look mint again, and never saw any detrimental efect of just taking it off. In fact, I never knew it was the anti glare coating until reading this thread, thought it was a very difficult to remove protection like you get on any screen tou buy these days like the iPhone,
My anti glare coating on my nex 3 wore so badly, I just toolkit off and never looked back. Removing it made my camera look mint again, and never saw any detrimental efect of just taking it off. In fact, I never knew it was the anti glare coating until reading this thread, thought it was a very difficult to remove protection like you get on any screen tou buy these days like the iPhone,
My anti glare coating on my nex 3 wore so badly, I just toolkit off and never looked back. Removing it made my camera look mint again, and never saw any detrimental efect of just taking it off. In fact, I never knew it was the anti glare coating until reading this thread, thought it was a very difficult to remove protection like you get on any screen tou buy these days like the iPhone,
timpdx wrote:
In fact, I never knew it was the anti glare coating until reading this thread, thought it was a very difficult to remove protection like you get on any screen tou buy these days like the iPhone,
the nex-3 came with one of those too. are you sure that's not what you removed?
FlyPenFly wrote:
However, I'm very surprised how well the E-M5 did here in this made up torture test. In the past, this sort of torture test would have had MFT fall on it's face. The C3 retains a bit more shadow detail but the E-M5 isn't terrible here either.
Both cameras do have a minimal iso setting of 200, don't they? The Nex-5n does iso 100 and my impression is that it gives about one additional stop when lifting shadows.
Impressive performance from the e-M5 none the less.
What I removed was quite difficult to get off, and it left the LCD pristine. Was not the typical manufacturer protective plastic, I had my nex 3 for a year and it was just getting uglier and uglier areund the edges, finally took an xacto to the edge to get started peeling the thing off and once started, it came off fine, and I really see no anti glare difference, and no longer have the ugly edges of the filter.
Has anybody used the Pentax 15mm Limited on the NEX7? I just upgraded and also have a LAE2 (or whatever it's called) coming as well, so I was thinking about just getting the Tokina 11-16 and calling it a day on the wide side. The 15mm is pretty compelling and I have a 49mm adapter ring for my RF75.
Okay, so the LA-EA replacement should have a function that allows you to rotate the camera on the mount so you can change on-pod orientation without the use of an L-bracket or adjusting your head. Thank you. That is the extent of my rant.
One nice thing the LA-EA1 has is this stray-light absorbing filler that's has an opening the same dimensions as the sensor. I'm wondering if that significantly improves edge performance. I've got a cheap Sony A to NEX adapter coming from a friend and I'm going to see how they do side by side with the R 24. If it is significant, I wonder how hard it would be to pack a like design into the other adapters.
Francesco - You asked about the Tokina 17mm. I just received one today - AT-X (not the pro model) and posted a quick photo taken with it on the Nex images thread.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Hmm I'm not sure if light leak would affect corner magenta or blurring.
I'm not sure how much you can effect the angle of incidence issues with RF lenses or Pen-F lenses. Not at all would by my guess. I'm speaking of SLR lenses that shouldn't have weak edges but do. What started this was a friend of mine borrowing my R 24 to shoot on his a900 and NEX-5N. He was happy with the a900 shots but thought it was pretty weak in the corners and edges on the 5N. I haven't had that problem using the LA-EA1, so he's sending me his adapter back with the lens so I can shoot them side-by-side. I doubt it's light leaks. Internal reflection would seem to me to be the more likely culprit, if there is a noticeable difference when they're shot side-by-side.
Question... and I may have missed it in the manual... but is there a way to turn off the touch to focus feature without disabling the touch screen completely? I'm finding that if I inadvertently hit the 5n's screen the focus point shifts and can screw up shots.
I am finding it a challenge to get true , natural looking reds from the Nex 5N is anybody else out there finding reds to be a challenge as well.It just seems to take quite a bit more time in PS to get the color that i am used to.Any suggestions?
-Jim
Jim Schemel wrote:
I am finding it a challenge to get true , natural looking reds from the Nex 5N is anybody else out there finding reds to be a challenge as well.It just seems to take quite a bit more time in PS to get the color that i am used to.Any suggestions?
-Jim
Didn't you download Capture One? Did you have the same issue with C1?
