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
If you're using Lightroom, I recommend checking out Maurizio's profiles: link
Jeff Kott wrote:
Didn't you download Capture One? Did you have the same issue with C1?
Once i figured out a few things in CS5 such as using sRGB and not Adobe Pro RGB this got me close enough, so i abandoned Capture One.Was actually finding the interface hard to figure out, or at least i did not have the patience to figure it out.
I am somewhat new at using CS5 can someone give a quick guide on how to open the profile in ACR?
-Jim
I am thinking about finally getting rid of my Canon 550d, which i kept for those few times i needed fast AF and an external flash, i would replace it with a Nex-7.
What bugs me is the 7's lack of a touchscreen, on my 5n i use it a lot to set the focus point.
What do you Nex-7 upgraders think? Do you use the EVF 90% of the time anyway which is resolving high enough to critically check focus without zooming into the image?
How does the 7 handle with an attached flash?
Is the 7's Dynamic range noticeably better than the 5n's?
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I am thinking about finally getting rid of my Canon 550d, which i kept for those few times i needed fast AF and an external flash, i would replace it with a Nex-7.
What bugs me is the 7's lack of a touchscreen, on my 5n i use it a lot to set the focus point.
What do you Nex-7 upgraders think? Do you use the EVF 90% of the time anyway which is resolving high enough to critically check focus without zooming into the image?
How does the 7 handle with an attached flash?
Is the 7's Dynamic range noticeably better than the 5n's?
Phillip,
thanks for asking these questions, this could be the path that i am about to travel as well.I am interested in others who have gone from the 5N to the 7
-Jim
The shadow detail is apparently better in the 7, but I haven't noticed the difference much in use. With 7, I use the EVF most of the time, so I don't miss the 5N's touchscreen too badly, although I had to train myself out of using the touchscreen the first week that I had the 7. You can still zoom in using the AF/MF button (or however you program it) when using the EVF.
I've not used flashes with it, so no opinion there.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I am thinking about finally getting rid of my Canon 550d, which i kept for those few times i needed fast AF and an external flash, i would replace it with a Nex-7.
What bugs me is the 7's lack of a touchscreen, on my 5n i use it a lot to set the focus point.
What do you Nex-7 upgraders think? Do you use the EVF 90% of the time anyway which is resolving high enough to critically check focus without zooming into the image?
How does the 7 handle with an attached flash?
Is the 7's Dynamic range noticeably better than the 5n's?
I got over not having the touch screen. It would be a nice feature and I don't know why they left it off, but the improved controls more than make up for it. I could use the EVF 100% of the time to focus, but 50% of the time I'm shooting from the waist or some weirder position, so I'll still use the screen. Zooming to achieve critical focus is still necessary most of the time whether you're using the EVF or screen, but I find presetting my zoom to the desired point of focus before I bring the camera to my eye when using the EVF makes toggling in and out of the zoomed view simple.
Strobes are awkward, but usable. I have both a 58 and 43, and the 43 has worked very well with my Alpha converted and chipped Leica R lenses on the LA-EA1 in full TTL auto. Things obviously get a bit more manual for non-chipped alts, which isn't as big a deal as it sounds. For most set-ups, particularly multi-strobes, but basically anytime you're not just shooting snapshots or bouncing the flash, you'll want to use manual anyway. In my opinion, that's true of any camera system.
I don't see a huge difference in dynamic range. Mind your highlights and you'll be able to pull an incredible amount of detail out of the shadows, but that trick is true across the entire line.
Overall, you couldn't pay me to go back to 5N. The 7 fits well in my hand and has features, like the on-screen level, that I find very useful.
Do plan to spend some necessary time learning how to set up the controls to your liking. Once you've done that, I don't think you'll have many complaints about the 7.
Jim Schemel wrote:
Phillip,
thanks for asking these questions, this could be the path that i am about to travel as well.I am interested in others who have gone from the 5N to the 7
-Jim
I went from the 5N to the 7. Some commentary:
- Ergonomics: 7 infinitely better than the 5N.
- IQ/DR: 5N is already very good, I think the 7 is even better in the shadows, and may even have some more room in the highlights.
- Noise: 5N is better for obvious reasons, fewer pixels. There's some more ambient noise at ISO 100 on the 7, but should be hard to notice unless you're printing big.
- Adaptability: 5N is better for obvious (again) reasons. I feel like you can adapt almost anything to the 5N, but the 7 will have color shift issues on many lenses.
- Summary: if you pick up the 7, I think you will get results close to top of the line DSLRs. I would strongly encourage anybody who upgrades to get some native lenses, where the tri-navi controls really benefit you.
Ok, I was missing from the board for some time, so I would like to ask a question here : I do have a 3 manual lens kit for my NEX-5N, but I would like to ask : what would be the best bang for the buck AF lenses for the 5N ? When on tour with the family, they tend to not have enough patience and since I don't have an infinity stop on them, not to mention the 90/4 Leica as portrait lens, I was trying to get an alternative setup.
I haven't posted to these boards in a while either, but I just got my wife an NEX-5N and it's very very sweet. She's starting to question whether it's her camera or mine lol. I'm also a Canon 7D user and have been shooting SLR's for well over a decade. This is the first mirrorless camera to make me question whether I want to stick with SLR's. I'm blown away by the image quality, portability, and ease of use with control.
We got the 18-55mm kit and I purchased a K mount adapter for my old Pentax 55mm f2.0. Peaking mode makes MF very easy and enjoyable. Anyway, I'm just posting because I'm very excited about our new camera.
slungu wrote:
Ok, I was missing from the board for some time, so I would like to ask a question here : I do have a 3 manual lens kit for my NEX-5N, but I would like to ask : what would be the best bang for the buck AF lenses for the 5N ? When on tour with the family, they tend to not have enough patience and since I don't have an infinity stop on them, not to mention the 90/4 Leica as portrait lens, I was trying to get an alternative setup.
Regards, Stefan
The kit lens would be a no brainer for best bang for the buck/ versatile still/ video lens, particularly for quick casual shooting with family/ travel. Beyond that, the two Sigma's - 30mm 2.8 and 19mm 2.8 AF - are great and very good respectively for stills (both have issues when used with video+AF. The work around is MF there).
I'm not that interested in the video part myself, but I am having a problem that manual focus on the wide end is not going my way right now. I have the feeling I just overdoo both the ZM18 and the ZM35 esp. at mid to distance shots - I know, my adapters are to thin, but all adapters I had on my NEX-3 and 5N were thin, including a Hawks helicoidal one ( I like that one, but for other reasons ). This and the fact that I have to focus wide open with magnification on, go to full image and maybe recompose and then stop down makes it hard to "shoot from the hipp" and fast when on holiday with the family. Plus, I sped some two minutes for one portrait shot, making me a not so nice companion when walking around. On the other hand, the samples I saw from the Sigma made me wonder if I really misfocus my ZM lenses - some of them seemed not that crisp either. Maybe I will give them a try - I will also try the FDA-EV1S for the 5N to see if it helps in the focusing issue.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Hmm can anyone confirm that the NEX-7 captures in 12bit instead of 14bit?
It seems all the NEX cameras are 12 bit according to DXO. The D7k and K-5 are both 14 bit like most DSLRs.
I don't know the answer but far too much is made of 12 bit vs 14 bit as it relates to IQ. I have yet to have ever seen a difference which could be attributable to this one metric. One could easily show 12 bit cameras which outperform 14 bit cameras in IQ as there are so many other variables to consider which make more of a difference. In practical terms, not theoretical, it really does not matter imo.
"In theory:
- More bits should mean higher tonal richness (more levels) on your images, which should make gradations softer and the image more robust against posterization.
- At the same time, a N-bit linear encoding can hold a maximum dynamic range of 2^N f-stops so more bits could make us expect to be able to capture more DR.
In practice:
- 12-bit RAW files provide nearly 4000 tonal levels for captured information, and moreover interpolated levels are already in the 16-bit range (60000 levels) so a 14 bit RAW doesn't produce a visible improvement in tonal richness.
- Regarding DR, it's limited by saturation in the highlights, and by noise in the shadows. Even if newer 14-bit cameras (40D, D3, A700,...) do have less noise in the shadows than the former ones, the improvement in noise is not enough to really need a 14-bit encoding not to loose DR. I have tested these cameras and they have a practical DR useful to the photographer of 9 f-stops, which can also be encoded in a 12-bit RAW file.
So IMO the conclusion is that today's 14-bit cameras don't offer any practical advantage over the previous 12-bit, just for the 2 extra bits. The improvement comes from other features.
BR"
I'm thinking more in terms of post processing lattitude, it seems like having 14 bits per pixel per channel would be more good than having 12. Would also aid in highlight recovery and shadow detail.
FlyPenFly wrote:
I'm thinking more in terms of post processing lattitude, it seems like having 14 bits per pixel per channel would be more good than having 12. Would also aid in highlight recovery and shadow detail.
I added the explanation above which addresses what happens in the highlights and shadows. Saturation and noise come into play before any benefit of the extra bits can make a difference. It's older info but I suspect it's still relevant and applicable.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Interestingly, the A850 and A900 are both 12 bit as well.
Exactly...and the a900 has some of the best color and smoothest tonal transitions I have seen out of a DSLR. As I have mentioned before, I have seen issues with the NEX-7 and smooth tonal transitions, particularly in blue skies for instance. It is not at the level of the a900 in this respect. In normal shooting with color subject matter at low ISO's, this is a non issue in most cases. Where it can be problematic is with custom B&W conversions where the blue channel will show posterization very quickly when pushed. Both cameras are 12 bit so this issue is down to other factors.
I've seen the same issue with the NEX-7 on sunrise shots. Its not quite as strong as the A850 in preventing posterization in post.
I think the NEX-7 may actually be a bit sharper but the A850 seems to handle deep skies with intense color quite a bit better. It also seems to hold more highlights when pushed.
I'm also a Canon 7D user and have been shooting SLR's for well over a decade. This is the first mirrorless camera to make me question whether I want to stick with SLR's. I'm blown away by the image quality, portability, and ease of use with control.