sebboh wrote:
also, sleep deprivation has been shown to have terrible effects on memory retention. this is what allows couples to come to the conclusion that having a second (third, fourth, ...eleventh) child isn't such a crazy idea (i mean we survived fine last time right?).
No kidding, my wife and I were laughing about that today. We obviously can't imagine doing this again, at least at this moment.
'But your comment suggests that visually the NEX-7 implementation has proven to be superior.' Not answered unless I missed it, but I point out that any add-on bit is never implemented as well as when professional designers do it through the development process, as it is essentially an afterthought.
Agree that rangefinder lenses lack decent purchase, then again they were not much used by mainstream pro photographers, who need robust stuff that just works. C/N.
The lens question boils down to (i) whether you need wider than around 28mm for top flight name lenses, and (ii) whether you are prepared to use most any lens that works provided it is the appropriate focal length, which is maybe how names like 'Sigma' and 'Samyang' come into the picture...and I guess (iii) are you prepared for your photography to be restricted irrevocably to corner fix software, presumably in RAW only, for some otherwise very desirable wider lenses.
philber wrote:
Thanks for your example. I will look again to see if my shots show this. Any reason, other than decentering, why one corner might show more trouble than others?
Joakim has some explanation for this asymmetry with the M9's CCD, which I'd imagine would at least partially translate to the 5N: link
That being said, I just looked at my CornerFix profile for the lens, and the corners are more even than I remembered. The entire right edge and corners of the frame seem slightly more purple than the entire left side, but it is closer than I remembered. Since the bottom right corner is usually darker than the top (the top usually has sky or something,) I just notice the bottom right corner the most, apparently.
philip_pj wrote:
'But your comment suggests that visually the NEX-7 implementation has proven to be superior.' Not answered unless I missed it, but I point out that any add-on bit is never implemented as well as when professional designers do it through the development process, as it is essentially an afterthought.
Agree that rangefinder lenses lack decent purchase, then again they were not much used by mainstream pro photographers, who need robust stuff that just works. C/N.
The lens question boils down to (i) whether you need wider than around 28mm for top flight name lenses, and (ii) whether you are prepared to use most any lens that works provided it is the appropriate focal length, which is maybe how names like 'Sigma' and 'Samyang' come into the picture...and I guess (iii) are you prepared for your photography to be restricted irrevocably to corner fix software, presumably in RAW only, for some otherwise very desirable wider lenses.
I believe the name "Olympus" was mentioned....Moreover, Sigma's recent performance among SLR users is better than its historical reputation might suggest.
aleksanderpolo wrote:
I dislike the FL 55/1.2 too because of the size, so I hesitate to get the CV 35/1.2 But I got it today and it feel pretty well balanced on GXR-M, so I think it's not primarily about weight (they are about the same weight I think, CV is much slimmer), but how far away the weight distribution is from the body. The addition of FD adapter just make the combination of 55/1.2 with mirrorless body very unbalanced.
Yes, so true. Pushing a one pound SLR lens out an inch from the camera does effect overall balance.
aleksanderpolo wrote:
I dislike the FL 55/1.2 too because of the size, so I hesitate to get the CV 35/1.2 But I got it today and it feel pretty well balanced on GXR-M, so I think it's not primarily about weight (they are about the same weight I think, CV is much slimmer), but how far away the weight distribution is from the body. The addition of FD adapter just make the combination of 55/1.2 with mirrorless body very unbalanced.
By the way I have completely forgotten how I got through the first few months of my first daughter (that was 4 years ago), but you will get better. ...Show more →
I forgot to mention that I get a little annoyed with the size of my ZM 35/2, which is nearly 20mm shorter and practically half the weight of the CV 35/1.2, so I don't think the CV would work for me.
I doubt we'll see anything until the high end zooms come out for the NEX.
I think the 30mm Macro and 16mm pancake have problems on the 7 because that sensor didn't exist when those lenses were released. However, with the 7, I imagine we'll see future lenses perform much better.
FlyPenFly wrote:
I doubt we'll see anything until the high end zooms come out for the NEX.
I think the 30mm Macro and 16mm pancake have problems on the 7 because that sensor didn't exist when those lenses were released. However, with the 7, I imagine we'll see future lenses perform much better.
That's an interesting point, and it stinks if true, because that means Sony has to build larger, more telecentric lenses to cater to the 24mp sensor from now on. I'm not sure it's true, though. It looks to me that the 50/1.8 also has problems at the corners below f4 on the nex-7, unless that lens is just designed to have more terrible than usual corners at those apertures (according to PZ's tests.)
FlyPenFly wrote:
I don't know, the corners for that lens don't look that terrible to me when you consider its not great on the NEX5 either.
Photozone hasn't released a test with that lens on the NEX-5, but, if I remember correctly, Klaus implied in the forums that the 5 did indeed handle corners better at wider apertures. Not sure.
douglasf13 wrote:
Photozone hasn't released a test with that lens on the NEX-5, but, if I remember correctly, Klaus implied in the forums that the 5 did indeed handle corners better at wider apertures. Not sure.
Perhaps I misremember, but the ZA 24 is acceptable, no? It's just not a full-frame rangefinder lens.
That's interesting. The e-mount 50/1.8 on the NEX5 looks to be better at the edges/corners than the a-mount 50/1.8 on the A700 at pretty much all apertures, in those tests.
Great input everyone, thanks a lot! Feeling quite encouraged by your replies, have pretty much decided to go for it. Given I can find one to buy that is.
I'm still curious about what to expect from focus peaking. Aside from contrast, does it work better with shorter/longer, wide open/stopped down lenses or is it pretty much the same regardless?
I'm thinking I'll go for the kit, since the price difference is minimal. Lens wise I'm not really that keen on the wider angles, so I'm thinking the E 16 will give me good enough WA for now. For low light I have a CV 40/1.4 that I'm guessing will do well enough. Together with the zoom I'm mostly covered. What I'm missing is the ideal every day lens, for me as close to 40mm equivalent as possible. Any consensus on what are the best ~28mm alternatives that's fairly small and bright (preferably in the €500-600 range)?
Focus peaking is dependent on contrast, so jpeg settings, lens contrast, and peaking sensitivity all affect it. The shallower the DOF, the less the effect shows up. Some think less of the effect is easier to use, because you can pinpoint what is in focus more easily, but it depends. I use it with all lenses, although, if I have time, I still use focus magnification to be sure 100%.
Ok. So image adjustments also factor in. Interesting. Would have guessed that it used the 'native' signal, but come to think about it, it's obvious that that would be very inefficient. Thanks Douglas.
