Best thing for her to do is to go to a store to check these 2 cameras out. I am sure she will very quickly make a decision, as they are quite different, so one of them will suit her more than the other. Some people like rangefinder style bodies while others prefer the DSLR look. They are both very good systems and you cannot go wrong with either one. A bit like choosing between a Canon and a Nikon.
alwang wrote:
The NEX-7 is not the same AF system as the NEX-6, which has on-sensor PDAF for supported lenses. I believe the E-PL5 will still be faster than the NEX-6, but it will be closer.
Having test-driven the NEX-6, the AF performance is only marginally changed from the NEX-7 or NEX-5N.
FlyPenFly wrote:
If you're only going to buy the kit or kit equiv lens, the NEX is the way to go.
I'd disagree in the particular case of the NEX-6. IMHO the 16-50 is inferior to the 14-42 (the 18-55 however is a different story, very nice lens and better than the current m43 kit lenses aside from the 12-50).
If you're planning to eventually add on, MFT is more compact, has more excellent options at cheaper prices. There are very good NEX lenses but they're usually much more dollars than MFT.
And frankly if you are looking for inexpensive, NEX wins, not m43. You'd struggle to put together a kit comparable to the Sigma 19, 30 and 60 on the NEX with m43. Sure there's the 14/2.5 and the 45/1.8, but those cost almost as much as the Sigma trio and you still need a normal, add the 20 and you are already paying a premium and frankly the 20/1.7 is not a match for the Sigma 30. And yes, the Sigma trio is available (and excellent) on m43, but the focal lengths are not nearly as well matched to m43 as they are to NEX.
m43 comes into its own when you start looking at faster glass in the mid/high pricerange, or want a really good zoom. NEX does well here, but falls down on the longer end and in the zooms with only the 10-18 being really good (the 18-55's remarkable for a kit, but so is the Oly 12-50 and the Panny 14-45). Both the Sigma 60 and the Sony 50 are pretty darn good lenses, but neither can touch the 45/1.8 and Sony offers nothing comparable to the 45 or 60 macro's, the 75/1.8 (until the 85 shows) or the 35-100/2.8.
Both systems have the majority of their lenses in the $4-600 ranges with a few outliers.
More than likely, someone's daughter is probably going to stick with the kit lens.
In that case, the 18-55 Sony + APS-C is a far better option than the Oly 14-42 mk2 + MFT. IMO, the 12-50 is kind of a crap lens. Remember 4:3 wide isn't as wide as 3:2 wide so you're not actually getting what people normally think of when they think of 24mm on the wide end. And considering your reduced sensor size this makes it even worse but the 12-50 needs to be stopped down pretty dark to achieve okay to good results. The Sony 50mm F1.8 is a very ho-hum lens with a surprisingly high level of CA for such an easy design.
MFT is great because of the OM-D, the Panny 25mm F1.4, 45mm F2.8, 14-45mm, Oly 12mm F2, 60mm F2.8, and the old 4/3rds 14-54mm Mk2 and 12-60mm SWD lenses. Otherwise the cheap bodies are also cool. Then there's the family of amazing Zuiko lenses, some work better than others.
The NEX's line of really great lenses don't really come into play unless you're using the cheap but good and boring Sigma budget line or the very high end upcoming Zeiss and Schneider lenses. The budget between those two is where MFT shines.
From what I've experienced and seen thus far on my short time with NEX and its "system", there are really VERY few native lenses that are worth anything at all. Probably less than 5?
I personally think a large part of the allure to NEX is in the alt capabilities that we all know and (some) love. Manual focus with a great EVF and focus peaking is fantastic.
MFT has a wonderful range of primes at this point in the game, and some of them are very reasonably priced.
ISO1600 wrote:
From what I've experienced and seen thus far on my short time with NEX and its "system", there are really VERY few native lenses that are worth anything at all. Probably less than 5?
I personally think a large part of the allure to NEX is in the alt capabilities that we all know and (some) love. Manual focus with a great EVF and focus peaking is fantastic.
MFT has a wonderful range of primes at this point in the game, and some of them are very reasonably priced.
These are the MFT primes that I'm aware of:
Olympus 12/2
Olympus 15/8
Olympus 17/2.8
Olympus 17/1.8
Olympus 45/1.8
Olympus 75/1.8
Olympus 60/2.8
Panasonic 8/3.5
Panasonic 14/2.5
Panasonic 20/1.7
Panasonic 25/1.4
Panasonic 45/2.8
Sigma 19/2.8
Sigma 30/2.8
These are the NEX primes that I'm aware of:
Sony 16/2.8
Sony 20/2.8
Sony 24/1.8
Sony 30/3.5 macro
Sony 35/1.8
Sony 50/1.8
Sigma 19/2.8
Sigma 30/2.8
Zeiss 12/2.8
Zeiss 32/1.8
I left off a couple of manual focus native lenses on both sides, because honestly, at that point, those no real difference from using an alt lens. So, basically MFT has 14 primes, and NEX has 10. Every prime on the NEX side is good-to-great, with the possible exceptions of the Sony 16 and the Sony 30. So yeah, MFT has a very nice prime lineup, but the difference is not that dramatic.
Okay, that is the complete future lineup, but let's remove the Zeiss lenses, which aren't out yet. 14:8.
Now let's remove third-party lenses, since they don't demonstrate the first-party's commitment to lens production, 12:6. Double. And if we remove blah lenses, things look even worse.
MFT has the range from 12-150mm, Sony from 24-75mm. MFT has a long macro lens.
Sony is improving, slowly, but they aren't there yet, new math notwithstanding. MFT's lens lineup is still substantially more fleshed out.
carstenw wrote:
Now let's remove third-party lenses, since they don't demonstrate the first-party's commitment to lens production, 12:6. Double. And if we remove blah lenses, things look even worse.
MFT has the range from 12-150mm, Sony from 24-75mm. MFT has a long macro lens.
Sony is improving, slowly, but they aren't there yet, new math notwithstanding. MFT's lens lineup is still substantially more fleshed out.
You've made the argument about "first-party commitment to lens production" before, and while I understand it may be important to you, I personally don't think about it at all. To be honest, neither of these systems are expensive enough that I'm looking down the road on how the manufacturer will support the system. Even if Sony drops NEX in the future, or becomes less competitive, my sunk cost in native lenses would be less than one used Leica prime.
Also, if you really want to be a stickler for first-party lenses, Olympus camera-owners should only count Olympus lenses, and Pany owners should only count Pany lenses. Obviously, that wouldn't make any sense either.
Olympus isn't exactly in the best situation with first-party lenses either, as some of the most "high-end" MFT lenses at the moment are Panasonic, so the Oly's won't correct CA and all that.
Probably because Oly doesn't typically produce many (some but not many) lenses that require a large amount of CA correction that Panasonic seems to like to do.
Nex lenses worth having are basically the two Zeiss lenses and possibly the 35mm F1.8. The 50mm F1.8 produces a stupid amount of CA for an easy design and is an awkward focal length for most people.
MFT side, all the pricier Oly primes are worth having with the possible exception of the 17mm F1.8. The two Panny Leica lenses are also sublime. The Panny 25mm F1.4 is probably my very favorite automatic lens I've ever owned and I've owned almost all the under $2000 Zeiss lenses.
This situation will probably change when Schneider native lenses come out for E-Mount but those are going to be very pricey.
