They're both good systems, MFT is better right now (for most people not shooting legacy) but NEX will be better when the Zeiss and possibly Schneider lenses arrive. It'll cost a lot though, far more than great MFT lenses.
They're close enough that it doesn't matter really. As in, they don't get in the way. The NEX-7 not having touch focus does get in the way when you get used to it on the OM-D. Neither will get you something the other one won't and in actual use, you're just not going to notice the half millisecond difference.
I used the PL25 on the OM-D and ZA24 on the NEX-7 extensively for a recent press event for a car company.
The CA was a nightmare to remove on all the ZA24 shots, never using that again for shiny things.
FlyPenFly wrote:
They're close enough that it doesn't matter really. As in, they don't get in the way. The NEX-7 not having touch focus does get in the way when you get used to it on the OM-D. Neither will get you something the other one won't and in actual use, you're just not going to notice the half millisecond difference.
hmm, my experience with the NEX auto focus is that the spot focus won't work in low light while it works fine on both olympus and panasonic cameras i've tried. maybe there is some setting i don't know about? since i don't have any autofocus lenses i just test them out for the sake of curiosity and then quickly turn the autofocus off.
The only truly low light shots I've done with NEX AF is with the Sigma 28mm F2.8. I do agree it has problems but I just assumed it was generally a problem with the Sigma. Oh turning off the AF assist light actually seems to help... just like the X100.
I don't recall light being a problem with the NEX-7 ZA24 but i haven't used it for that all that much.
"Canon’s Q3, 2012 results have been announced and the news is horrible. Canon only had revenue of $10.3 billion and an operating profit of $908 million. What’s at fault? Well, according to Canon: “negative impact of economic deterioration” in China and Europe. As always, the yen was blamed as well."
A very large problem for Canon IMO is the competition i.e. Nikon's D800/D800E and new DX models ... and Sony NEX/SLT and Olympus/Panasonic MFT systems.
While Sony/Zeiss plan on making a FF Nex, maybe.... How will all these APS-C lenses fit the new sensor size or will they need to make a whole new line of lenses, again?
FlyPenFly wrote:
In truth, all the systems kind of suck.
Actually, most of these systems are pretty awesome.
If I were to go back in time 5 years and tell my 2008 self that there were multiple systems that fit in a coat pocket where you could shoot at ISO3200 with fantastic IQ, and that they could be had for under $600, he'd tell me "why the hell are you still hanging out on gear forums?"
The quibbles we have with modern systems are just that. Quibbles.
alwang wrote:
Actually, most of these systems are pretty awesome.
If I were to go back in time 5 years and tell my 2008 self that there were multiple systems that fit in a coat pocket where you could shoot at ISO3200 with fantastic IQ, and that they could be had for under $600, he'd tell me "why the hell are you still hanging out on gear forums?"
The quibbles we have with modern systems are just that. Quibbles.
alwang wrote:
Actually, most of these systems are pretty awesome.
If I were to go back in time 5 years and tell my 2008 self that there were multiple systems that fit in a coat pocket where you could shoot at ISO3200 with fantastic IQ, and that they could be had for under $600, he'd tell me "why the hell are you still hanging out on gear forums?"
The quibbles we have with modern systems are just that. Quibbles.
from an image quality perspective you are right, from a usability perspective i think we are way behind where we were 20-30 years ago.
FlyPenFly wrote:
The only truly low light shots I've done with NEX AF is with the Sigma 28mm F2.8. I do agree it has problems but I just assumed it was generally a problem with the Sigma. Oh turning off the AF assist light actually seems to help... just like the X100.
I don't recall light being a problem with the NEX-7 ZA24 but i haven't used it for that all that much.
Low light AF isn't a problem with the NEX-7/ZA24 (I was shooting like that last night in fact, a rare occurance for this dedicated MF user). But my experience is the 50/1.8 and 16 don't do as well.
As to OM-D vs NEX, I agree with the posters above who indicated it's really a choice between Native glass or adapter lenses (of any mount). m43 for native lenses, E mount for adapting. I don't consider the IBIS system on the OM-D to be worth consideration (it's good, but I see little benefit to IS at the focal lengths I shoot at with mirrorless systems), but I have very steady hands and actually have found IS to be a non-issue on mirrorless systems (I came from IBIS-equipped DSLR's in A and K mounts and don't miss the IS at all on NEX and didn't really on the G1 either). I also prefer the larger lenses in the E mount system, I like to brace the camera using the lens barrel, which is impractical with a small body and a pancake. I don't buy pancake lenses unless I don't have another option. The NEX lenses, aside from the 16, are pretty much perfectly sized for me and most of the adapted lenses I use are similar in size when combined with adapters (I'm adapting mostly Nikkors at the moment, and smaller AI-S ones at that).
I've owned or used 4 E mount lenses (16, 18-55, ZA24, 50/1.8) and the only one I kept was the ZA24. That said, the 50 OSS is actually quite good, I sold it due to the rendering (it's too Leica to make a good pair with the ZA24, especially when my go-to telephoto is Sony's 85/2.8 Sonnar in A mount) and the 16 is a heavily under-rated lens, quite a good performer in fact although the extreme corners have issues, but then again it's a $200 wide, what do you expect?
sebboh wrote:
from an image quality perspective you are right, from a usability perspective i think we are way behind where we were 20-30 years ago.
I disagree, the NEX-7 is the first camera who's usability I find to be better than my FM2. I am not a big fan of AF camera ergonomics or UI, but the mirrorless cameras have solved that to a great extent and some offer capabilities that are lacking elsewhere (most notably Sony's 3-dial Tri-Navi system, which allows control of all three aspects of exposure, aperture, shutter and ISO directly on a dial by default).
mawz wrote:
I disagree, the NEX-7 is the first camera who's usability I find to be better than my FM2. I am not a big fan of AF camera ergonomics or UI, but the mirrorless cameras have solved that to a great extent and some offer capabilities that are lacking elsewhere (most notably Sony's 3-dial Tri-Navi system, which allows control of all three aspects of exposure, aperture, shutter and ISO directly on a dial by default).
i like the controls a lot on the NEX-7 as well, but there are some very annoying problems with it's interface, though those problems are of course all related to technology that didn't exist 30 years ago. the ones that get me the most are: no adjustable high iso or minimum shutter speed for auto iso, no way to adjust peaking without menu diving, no bracketing with remote (or timed) release, useless eyecup, and no control of viewfinder settings independent of the jpeg settings. there are others that don't bother me much but might bother others. i do think the NEX-7 is much better than nearly any other digital camera i've used though.
sebboh wrote:
i like the controls a lot on the NEX-7 as well, but there are some very annoying problems with it's interface, though those problems are of course all related to technology that didn't exist 30 years ago. the ones that get me the most are: no adjustable high iso or minimum shutter speed for auto iso, no way to adjust peaking without menu diving, no bracketing with remote (or timed) release, useless eyecup, and no control of viewfinder settings independent of the jpeg settings. there are others that don't bother me much but might bother others. i do think the NEX-7 is much better than nearly any other digital camera i've used though....Show more →
The only of those which actually affects my shooting is the eyecup, the other's all affect either options I don't use (JPEG, bracketing, Auto ISO) or ones I don't change regularly (peaking). I actually very rarely use any controls on the NEX-7 that aren't on the FM2, aside from focus magnification.
mawz wrote:
The only of those which actually affects my shooting is the eyecup, the other's all affect either options I don't use (JPEG, bracketing, Auto ISO) or ones I don't change regularly (peaking). I actually very rarely use any controls on the NEX-7 that aren't on the FM2, aside from focus magnification.
i don't shoot jpeg either, but occasionally i want to shoot a family video and then i need to change the jpeg settings. i also don't use bracketing because there is no point the way sony has it set up.
I thought is should be better than this? I'd rather still have my 5N for this but we'll see, a friend is dropping his EM-5 tomorrow so I could take it for a real spin my self.
Focus point was on the building so you'll see some CA in the branches. This file was also pushed and pulled a bit so you'll see pixel level noise moreso than normal.
frezeiss wrote:
I thought is should be better than this? I'd rather still have my 5N for this but we'll see, a friend is dropping his EM-5 tomorrow so I could take it for a real spin my self.
It definitely should be better than that. The 45/1.8 is a very sharp lens and that result is smeared to heck. I have no idea what the deal is there. My 45 certainly doesn't look like that.
Here's a rather large (about the same size as the 'full size' pic posted by you) shot of mine with the 45/1.8 wide open (let alone 2.8):
.
