So I’m trying to decide wether to get a NEX-7 or not. But thanks to the discrepency between the glowing initial reviews & recent focus on the sensor weaknesses I’m having a hard time with the decision. I’ve lurked about in the forum for quite a bit, but still not found anything to sway me one way or the other.
So I’d be real appreciative on some advice from NEX-7 owners on mainly these points:
- How well can you rely on focus peaking with different kinds of lenses?
- How is the image quality over all (disregarding corner color shifts)?
And perhaps most important:
- Do you enjoy the camera, or do you wish you’d gone for something else?
Of the current cameras available, nothing meets my needs better.
But, this is because I don't currently require a true (wider than 28mm) wide angle solution on my mirrorless cameras.
It also isn't my only camera.
If I had to choose a mirror less camera over the NEX-7 for a complete sole solution, it would be the OM-D. Which has weather sealing, IS, and a soso decent enough EVF. However, I would give up both resolution and dynamic range as well as crop factor and no native Zeiss lenses.
1. Peaking works for focusing fairly well. It does not provide critical focus though, that requires magnification. Higher contrast lenses work better than lower contrast lenses as peaking relies on contrast. High microcontrast is even more key.
2. Very good at lower ISO's, A lot better than claimed at higher, but still a bit behind the 5N.
3. Yes, the camera is a joy to use and fits my needs very well. I'm one decent wide short of a full solution though (right now I use the DT 16-50/2.8 SSM for my wide needs, which is just a bit unwieldy, I want a nice 17-18mm prime for APS-C)
KJ, if you disregard the fact that "it won't work with all lenses", then the NEX 7 has everything going for it. IQ is markedly better than the acclaimed 5N, and the body has great controls. Focus peaking is better than 5N because it works best in the VF, and I really did not like the add-on VF on the 5N, whereas the integrated one in the 7 is great.
With magnificaiton and peaking, my keeper rate, from a focusing point of view must be above 80%, with all manual lenses. The only time when it won't work is if you are shooting a very low contrast scene, of with a very low contrast lens.
There are still some issues, such as the ill-placed video button, or the fact that batttery life isn't long enough.
But overall, it is a pocket battleship IMHO!
philber wrote:
Focus peaking is better than 5N because it works best in the VF, and I really did not like the add-on VF on the 5N, whereas the integrated one in the 7 is great.
Yours is the second comment I've read along these lines and I'm curious about your experience here.
Prior to the camera coming out, the EVF had always been described as being identical to the add-on EVF for the 5N. I'd expected therefore that people would like or hate the NEX-7's EVF just as much as the 5N's with the exception of the physical integration characteristics.
But your comment suggests that visually the NEX-7 implementation has proven to be superior.
Do you believe the implementation - OLED, optics - is different? Or is the experience better because of the higher resolution sensor feeding it data (which must be downsampled anyway, no?)?
Or do you simply prefer it because of the physical implementation in the camera?
Thanks for your replies, everyone. It's all sounding very promising indeed.
I've become quite taken with manual focus & MF lenses lately, so most other mirrorless cameras are out due to poor MF-implementations. But if I can get as high focus hit rate as 80% with peaking it'd be amazing!
And its not like you have much choice when it comes to using legacy lens without much problems. Its either NEX-7 or NEX-5N+EVF.
Ricoh works to some degree but EVF isnt that good and focus peaking is bit.. strange. Samsung NX could work great in theory, but way they implemented manual focusing aids is super-wierd. And you cant fit M-mount lens on that without some mount surgery.
m4/3s are not bad, but x2 crop isnt something ppl with alt lens want (tho some do!) and they have quite a bit of good lens in system already so there isnt much real need for alt solutions (m4/3s is alt system itself anyway ).
Which leads to what I started with, if you dont mind bit of color shifting and slight sharpness drop, NEX-7 is best choice. And Zeiss 24mm/f1.8 isnt bad lens at all.
Edit: I kinda forgot, but there is always M8 or M8.2 .. not that expensive these days.
Just keep in mind that the main issues are with rangefinder wides, if you plan on using SLR lenses, there will be no problem.
I'm not investing very much into the NEX(M, M39, FD, C, & a bad Exakta adapter) yet till I see what comes out this fall, Canon could release their APS-C or larger mirrorless, as could Pantax.
Till then, I have use of a decent mirrorless camera with better than most manual controls, the best EVF, and more resolution than I need.
All I have to give up is RF wides, and to be honest, I find using RF glass to be more of a pain in the butt, there is almost no focus grip on most which kills the ergonomics for me, so I get more enjoyment out of using SLR glass, and in particular the FD SSC 24/2.8 & 50/3.5 macro.
And if I want compact, I have an Industar 69 28/2.8 & an M-Rokkor 40/2
Best of both worlds.
MF on the 7 is pretty easy. Granted until today I had no adapters for legacy glass and have only used MF for the ZA 24 and Tamron 18-200 and both were extremely easy and spot on. Gonna try the samyang 14 on it tomorrow to see how that looks considering the UWA but because it's DSLR hopefully it will be ok.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Of the current cameras available, nothing meets my needs better.
But, this is because I don't currently require a true (wider than 28mm) wide angle solution on my mirrorless cameras.
Well, the Olympus OM 21, 24 and 28mm lenses seem to work ok, and they are not too large. The Zeiss ZA 24 reportedly works well, and the kit lens is not too bad in the 21-28mm range.
I have also had some success with the Sigma 10-20 mm, which does not have purple corners.
The Samyang 14mm also reportedly performs well, although none of these solutions would be equivalent to having a Zeiss 21mm Distagon.
legaltrouble wrote:
The ZM 18, though like the 21, has purple corners, if I'm not mistaken. The WATE is $5500.
There is a distinction to be made here. Some find purple corners acceptable, as they're easily fixable. It's the detail at the edges that is usually the bigger concern.
douglasf13 wrote:
There is a distinction to be made here. Some find purple corners acceptable, as they're easily fixable. It's the detail at the edges that is usually the bigger concern.
You're suggesting that some might find additional lenses to be acceptable. I'm lazy and would rather deal with neither blurred edges nor purple corners. What puzzles me is the relative lack of acceptance for the Sigma zooms. They're both clean and sharp.
From what I've seen, the ZM may be ok in terms of detail, with only a color shift problem.
I already have to use CornerFix with my CV 15 and ZM 35/2 on my 5N, so needing to use CornerFix on the 7 wouldn't change things much, for me. I'm not really interested in DSLR-sized zooms.
).