FlyPenFly wrote:
Having owned both though, I vastly, vastly prefer the NEX-7, it's so much better to shoot with.
+1
Having both......the 5N is sitting in the lens cabinet. The NEX 7 controls are very user friendly. I am fortunate enough to be right eye dominant and the Gariz case added about 3/8" to the bottom of the camera, so all my fingers can wrap around the grip.
And thank you Philber.....this endeavor looks like it took a lot of time. Much appreciated.
The way I did this, sebooh, is that this shot is at infinity. And infinity on my ZM 35 f:2.0 is right against the hard stop. So I didn't have to worry about losing focus, I just hit the hard stop both times. That said, don't forget that the 5N is at 100%, and the 7 ain't. That ought to help the 7. But the result is not exactly what was anticipated, is it? That is why I didn't rush to publish it. I wasn't looking to sensationalize a result that goes against majority opinion. But Douglas dropped so many hints. If I could do a per-pixel comparison for Andrew, I could do this for Douglas. Except that now, he may not like what he is seeing...
hmmm, i really want the NEX-7 to be the better performer here, but this is an unexpected result. sorry to cause trouble, but i can think of a couple possible explanations other than the preferred one. could it be that the filter induced astigmatism that in general seems to be stronger on the 7 is in fact pulling focus closer in the corners (maybe it's time for me to do some ray tracing)? another explanation is that the sensor on your 7 is a different distance from the mount than the sensor on your 5N. i've long suspected that sony has eased the tolerances on sensor to mount distance with the NEX system since there is no phase detect autofocus system to calibrate (the recent tear down of the NEX-3 also suggests this could be true).
you've already done quite a bit so i don't really want to ask you to do more, but if you feel adventurous you could try to get best focus on each camera in the extreme corner (maybe with focus bracketing to be safe) and compare.
BTW, I just did a DOF calculation, which reads out like this for the wide open shot: Depth of field
Near limit 37.6 ft
Far limit 148.5 ft
Total 110.9 ft
There is no way that this was mis-focused with such huge DOF IMHO. The target was some 60' away, so smack in the in-focus zone.
philber wrote:
BTW, I just did a DOF calculation, which reads out like this for the wide open shot: Depth of field
Near limit 37.6 ft
Far limit 148.5 ft
Total 110.9 ft
There is no way that this was mis-focused with such huge DOF IMHO. The target was some 60' away, so smack in the in-focus zone.
that isn't really meaningful, i'm afraid being within dof is not the same thing as being in focus (something that has become increasingly noticeable with digital and the ability to zoom into 100% view). even when i shoot hyperfocally on lenses where the dof should be from 3m to infinity, i can see a difference in sharpess at an object 8 meters away when i'm focused at 8 meters versus focused at 10 meters. also, i thought you focused at infinity so your far limit should be infinity (assuming your adapter has a proper infinity stop)?
Agreed about the difference between in-focus and withithin DOF. But the shot we are talking about is not exactly as good as what is within DOF should be, is it? In this case, I am pretty sure that I focused at infinity, and the focus throw on the ZM 35 basically goes from 15' to infinity with little travel in between. Again, I am not bashing the 5N, a camera that has served me very well, and a very legitimate performer in its own right. I am just showing the reuslts of my tests, which IMHO suggest that the 7 is not the dog that it is made out to be in terms of corner performance. You will recall a blog post that showed severe corner mush with ZM 35 f:2.0 and NEX 7 at anything wider than f:4.0. Well, that is not what I see and show, what can I say?
philber wrote:
Agreed about the difference between in-focus and withithin DOF. But the shot we are talking about is not exactly as good as what is within DOF should be, is it? In this case, I am pretty sure that I focused at infinity, and the focus throw on the ZM 35 basically goes from 15' to infinity with little travel in between. Again, I am not bashing the 5N, a camera that has served me very well, and a very legitimate performer in its own right. I am just showing the reuslts of my tests, which IMHO suggest that the 7 is not the dog that it is made out to be in terms of corner performance. You will recall a blog post that showed severe corner mush with ZM 35 f:2.0 and NEX 7 at anything wider than f:4.0. Well, that is not what I see and show, what can I say?...Show more →
i definitely think your test shows that the NEX-7 is not a dog, i'm just surprised it seems to be doing better than the 5N in the one area that all the other tests i've seen previously showed it to be worse and trying to think of where the discrepancy comes from. as i said before i really want the NEX-7 to be the winner here as it is the camera i really want to love (and buy in a few months). it's also clear the NEX-5N produces wonderful images, i just like the ergonomics of the 7 and would prefer to get it assuming it can handle all my lenses.
Sebboh, I am pretty much at the same place. I took the wide open shots in order to see if what Utpott had posted jived with my own findings, and checked on the 7 pic that it didn't. I only looked at the 5N shots once I had them posted per Douglas' request. And then my jaw dropped. Had I seen this before, I would have redone them, just to be sure. Different target, different lens, different adapter, to eliminate all possible sources of false positives...yadda, yadda, yadda. You know the drill.
The 5N shot really looks out of focus. Are you sure that both cameras have the exact same register distance? I mean, the adapter could be spot on, on one of the cameras but off on the other.
What is conceivable is that, because my 7 is exactly at infinity with the Novoflex adapter and my ZM 35 f:2.0, a combination that I had never tried on the 5N, it might just fall short of inifnity on the 5N. That would mean that the Novoflex would be "off", somthing that shouldn't happen at this price level, but still. I shall redo, and this time shoot from tripod with more stringent procedures, which I didn't apply because, frankly, this was a total surprise; Hence my use enxt time of G 45 and a different adpater where it cannot bump against infinity.
philber wrote:
But Douglas dropped so many hints. If I could do a per-pixel comparison for Andrew, I could do this for Douglas. Except that now, he may not like what he is seeing...
Honestly, this is exactly what I WANT to see. The ZM 35/2 and 50/1.5 are my two most used lenses right now, with the occasional CV 15 and Contax G 90, and I'm basically dying for a reason to give into GAS and buy a NEX-7, but reports, until now, haven't been great. If it turns out the ZM 35/2 is fine from f2-f4 at the corners, compared to 5N, that will be great news to me.
What is conceivable is that, because my 7 is exactly at infinity with the Novoflex adapter and my ZM 35 f:2.0, a combination that I had never tried on the 5N, it might just fall short of infinity on the 5N. That would mean that the Novoflex would be "off", something that shouldn't happen at this price level, but still. I shall redo, and this time shoot from tripod with more stringent procedures, which I didn't apply because, frankly, this was a total surprise. Hence my use next time of G 45 and a different adpater where it cannot bump against infinity.
philber wrote:
What is conceivable is that, because my 7 is exactly at infinity with the Novoflex adapter and my ZM 35 f:2.0, a combination that I had never tried on the 5N, it might just fall short of infinity on the 5N. That would mean that the Novoflex would be "off", something that shouldn't happen at this price level, but still. I shall redo, and this time shoot from tripod with more stringent procedures, which I didn't apply because, frankly, this was a total surprise. Hence my use next time of G 45 and a different adpater where it cannot bump against infinity....Show more →
Interestingly, the ZM 35/2 is the only lens that I have that seems to nail infinity with my current Hawks adapter, and it actually didn't quite get to infinity with my first Hawks adapter.
The G 45 is fine, no problems, and super sharpness. The Kipon adapter goes way past infinity, so no problems there, plus, I will use a tripod.
For greater reliability, I will try to duplicate the shots with a Leica WATE, so we can see if there is any difference with a true WA.
