This topic is in the 2013 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2013Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
p.21 #1Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
alundeb wrote:
The test was of how much power is required to keep the EVF alive. It should not be too difficult to estimate the consequences for total power consumption of using an EVF in any use case you want.
versus what? i'm not sure how you are isolating evf power draw with such a test (nor why that would be particularly interesting). i'd be more interested in how long i can expect the battery to last in actual use situations with power cycling and shutter actuations. i'm not sure you can extrapolate that.
sebboh wrote
that doesn't seem like real world usage though. you need fire the shutter at some rate as well as possibly powering the lens focus and IS.versus what? i'm not sure how you are isolating evf power draw with such a test (nor why that would be particularly interesting). i'd be more interested in how long i can expect the battery to last in actual use situations with power cycling and shutter actuations. i'm not sure you can extrapolate that.
Aug 08, 2013 at 10:50 AM
p.21 #2Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
alundeb wrote:
The test was of how much power is required to keep the EVF alive. It should not be too difficult to estimate the consequences for total power consumption of using an EVF in any use case you want.I'd much appreciate your insight in estimating battery life at colder ambient temperatures?We have climate testing equimpent at my workplace, and I don't think it is occupied right now. What temperature would you prefer the test done at?
A comparison at 5C steps between +5 Celsius to -10 Celsius (41 Fahrenheit to 14 Fahrenheit) would be great. OTOH If only one test is practicable then a battery life test at 0 Celsius/ 32 Fahrenheit. Thanks in anticipation.
Jon Tainton wrote
alundeb wrote
sebboh wrote
that doesn't seem like real world usage though. you need fire the shutter at some rate as well as possibly powering the lens focus and IS.A comparison at 5C steps between +5 Celsius to -10 Celsius (41 Fahrenheit to 14 Fahrenheit) would be great. OTOH If only one test is practicable then a battery life test at 0 Celsius/ 32 Fahrenheit. Thanks in anticipation.
Aug 08, 2013 at 10:52 AM
p.21 #3Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Back on topic. . .
So the specs for the 7N (if correct) look great. I'd buy that camera, except that I'll be buying the FF instead. Unless, of course, it has some strange subset of features (eg, it's not as good), in which case I will shake my fist at Sony and go buy something else. But, I don't see that happening, to me I think the 7N will be the A77 to the FF's A99. AFAIK, there's nothing the A77 has that the A99 doesn't; the latter is simply bigger and more expensive.
So the specs for the 7N (if correct) look great. I'd buy that camera, except that I'll be buying the FF instead. Unless, of course, it has some strange subset of features (eg, it's not as good), in which case I will shake my fist at Sony and go buy something else. But, I don't see that happening, to me I think the 7N will be the A77 to the FF's A99. AFAIK, there's nothing the A77 has that the A99 doesn't; the latter is simply bigger and more expensive.Aug 08, 2013 at 10:57 AM
p.21 #4Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
sebboh wrote:
The test was of how much power is required to keep the EVF alive. It should not be too difficult to estimate the consequences for total power consumption of using an EVF in any use case you want.versus what? i'm not sure how you are isolating evf power draw with such a test (nor why that would be particularly interesting). i'd be more interested in how long i can expect the battery to last in actual use situations with power cycling and shutter actuations. i'm not sure you can extrapolate that.
I didn't mean strictly the EVF, but the whole system required to make it work, including live sensor reading and processing. Using the LCD instead of the EVF doesn't make any principal difference, you need a live video stream. And using the LCD instead of the EVF doesn't draw any less power, maybe slightly more.
Each minute you use a live video stream either through the EVF or LCD, is going to cost you 0,4 % of the battery power.
If I use a DSLR with the LCD off, the corresponding number is much smaller than that.
alundeb wrote
sebboh wrote
that doesn't seem like real world usage though. you need fire the shutter at some rate as well as possibly powering the lens focus and IS.I didn't mean strictly the EVF, but the whole system required to make it work, including live sensor reading and processing. Using the LCD instead of the EVF doesn't make any principal difference, you need a live video stream. And using the LCD instead of the EVF doesn't draw any less power, maybe slightly more.
Each minute you use a live video stream either through the EVF or LCD, is going to cost you 0,4 % of the battery power.
If I use a DSLR with the LCD off, the corresponding number is much smaller than that.
Aug 08, 2013 at 11:13 AM
p.21 #5Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Taylor Sherman wrote:
Back on topic. . . So the specs for the 7N (if correct) look great. I'd buy that camera, except that I'll be buying the FF instead. Unless, of course, it has some strange subset of features (eg, it's not as good), in which case I will shake my fist at Sony and go buy something else. But, I don't see that happening, to me I think the 7N will be the A77 to the FF's A99. AFAIK, there's nothing the A77 has that the A99 doesn't; the latter is simply bigger and more expensive.
The EVF is a big improvement. Otherwise I think most of the improvements are AF and video oriented and, obviously, the larger sensor.
Back on topic. . .
So the specs for the 7N (if correct) look great. I'd buy that camera, except that I'll be buying the FF instead. Unless, of course, it has some strange subset of features (eg, it's not as good), in which case I will shake my fist at Sony and go buy something else. But, I don't see that happening, to me I think the 7N will be the A77 to the FF's A99. AFAIK, there's nothing the A77 has that the A99 doesn't; the latter is simply bigger and more expensive.The EVF is a big improvement. Otherwise I think most of the improvements are AF and video oriented and, obviously, the larger sensor.
Aug 08, 2013 at 12:19 PM
p.21 #6Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Sorry for the off topic thread branch.
While the NEX 7 is cooling, I tested the power consumption of taking pictures with the 5N.
Manual focus, OSS off. Continous mode speed priority, RAW + JPG.
Within 7 minutes I was able to get 300 images (600 files) written to the card, and the battery drain was 5%.
That would give me 6000 images on one charge. If I could have the LCD off while the camera was writing to the card, it could have been even more.
In single shot mode, with AF and OSS active, moving around and changing the distance for each shot, I got 250 images (500 files) on 5% battery drain, or 5000 images on one charge.
It is no doubt where the power goes in OVF-less cameras....
While the NEX 7 is cooling, I tested the power consumption of taking pictures with the 5N.
Manual focus, OSS off. Continous mode speed priority, RAW + JPG.
Within 7 minutes I was able to get 300 images (600 files) written to the card, and the battery drain was 5%.
That would give me 6000 images on one charge. If I could have the LCD off while the camera was writing to the card, it could have been even more.
In single shot mode, with AF and OSS active, moving around and changing the distance for each shot, I got 250 images (500 files) on 5% battery drain, or 5000 images on one charge.
It is no doubt where the power goes in OVF-less cameras....
Aug 08, 2013 at 12:20 PM
p.21 #7Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Jon Tainton wrote:
The test was of how much power is required to keep the EVF alive. It should not be too difficult to estimate the consequences for total power consumption of using an EVF in any use case you want.I'd much appreciate your insight in estimating battery life at colder ambient temperatures?We have climate testing equimpent at my workplace, and I don't think it is occupied right now. What temperature would you prefer the test done at?A comparison at 5C steps between +5 Celsius to -10 Celsius (41 Fahrenheit to 14 Fahrenheit) would be great. OTOH If only one test is practicable then a battery life test at 0 Celsius/ 32 Fahrenheit. Thanks in anticipation.
With the camera and battery cooled to 0 degrees C, I got about 85% of the capacity at 23 C. I don't expect it to be radically worse at -10 C, as Li Ion doesn't fall off a cliff until below -10.
alundeb wrote
Jon Tainton wrote
alundeb wrote
sebboh wrote
that doesn't seem like real world usage though. you need fire the shutter at some rate as well as possibly powering the lens focus and IS.With the camera and battery cooled to 0 degrees C, I got about 85% of the capacity at 23 C. I don't expect it to be radically worse at -10 C, as Li Ion doesn't fall off a cliff until below -10.
Aug 08, 2013 at 02:01 PM
p.21 #8Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
sebboh wrote:
I'd be more interested in how long i can expect the battery to last in actual use situations with power cycling and shutter actuations. i'm not sure you can extrapolate that.
I'd take a rough one and say that with my NEX 7 I have:
- About 4 hours use with the camera actually on.
- Taking 500 photos with AF and OSS only reduces that to 3 1/2 hours.
- A power cycle costs about as little as taking one photo.
I'd be more interested in how long i can expect the battery to last in actual use situations with power cycling and shutter actuations. i'm not sure you can extrapolate that.
I'd take a rough one and say that with my NEX 7 I have:
- About 4 hours use with the camera actually on.
- Taking 500 photos with AF and OSS only reduces that to 3 1/2 hours.
- A power cycle costs about as little as taking one photo.
Aug 08, 2013 at 02:36 PM
p.21 #9Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
alundeb wrote:
- A power cycle costs about as little as taking one photo.
that's good to know. i've always been curious about the effects of turning the camera off when i'm only intermittently shooting versus letting it sleep. for whatever reason i find i get more consistant startup times from camera off than from the camera asleep.
- A power cycle costs about as little as taking one photo.
that's good to know. i've always been curious about the effects of turning the camera off when i'm only intermittently shooting versus letting it sleep. for whatever reason i find i get more consistant startup times from camera off than from the camera asleep.
Aug 08, 2013 at 02:42 PM
p.21 #10Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Yep. I almost reflexively turn the camera off when I am done with a block of photos (eg when I let go of it and start walking again).
I've never used more than 100% of a battery in a single outing. I think I've used more than one in a given day before though. The only times I've had to change in the field were when I started with < 100% to begin with.
I've never used more than 100% of a battery in a single outing. I think I've used more than one in a given day before though. The only times I've had to change in the field were when I started with < 100% to begin with.
Aug 08, 2013 at 02:45 PM
p.21 #11Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
alundeb wrote:
The test was of how much power is required to keep the EVF alive. It should not be too difficult to estimate the consequences for total power consumption of using an EVF in any use case you want.I'd much appreciate your insight in estimating battery life at colder ambient temperatures?We have climate testing equimpent at my workplace, and I don't think it is occupied right now. What temperature would you prefer the test done at?A comparison at 5C steps between +5 Celsius to -10 Celsius (41 Fahrenheit to 14 Fahrenheit) would be great. OTOH If only one test is practicable then a battery life test at 0 Celsius/ 32 Fahrenheit. Thanks in anticipation.With the camera and battery cooled to 0 degrees C, I got about 85% of the capacity at 23 C. I don't expect it to be radically worse at -10 C, as Li Ion doesn't fall off a cliff until below -10.
Thank you for taking the time to test this, it is much appreciated.
Jon Tainton wrote
alundeb wrote
Jon Tainton wrote
alundeb wrote
sebboh wrote
that doesn't seem like real world usage though. you need fire the shutter at some rate as well as possibly powering the lens focus and IS.Thank you for taking the time to test this, it is much appreciated.
Aug 08, 2013 at 03:10 PM
p.21 #12Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
sebboh wrote:
that's good to know. i've always been curious about the effects of turning the camera off when i'm only intermittently shooting versus letting it sleep. for whatever reason i find i get more consistant startup times from camera off than from the camera asleep.
Yes, I've found that as well. Although I'm a little concerned that I'm over-stressing the power switch on my NEX-5N, since I'm flipping it on and off all the time.
On a completely different topic, I haven't seen any discussion of this comparison:
http://www.lesnumeriques.com/camescope/sony-nex-vg900-p16043/sony-nex-plein-format-avons-teste-n28888.html
A test of the Sony VG900 against a Leica M, both using the 50 Lux. Although the Leica is clearly better, what struck me was that the far corners on the VG900 using a 50mm m-mount lens were actually very good (look at the map image). The only question in my mind is if this performance holds up at longer focus distances.
If the FF NEX can improve on this performance (which seems reasonable), I'll be pretty happy. It would be great to be able to use rangefinder lenses for 45mm and up, and then I'd be okay with using native NEX lenses or SLR lenses for shorter focal lengths.
that's good to know. i've always been curious about the effects of turning the camera off when i'm only intermittently shooting versus letting it sleep. for whatever reason i find i get more consistant startup times from camera off than from the camera asleep.
Yes, I've found that as well. Although I'm a little concerned that I'm over-stressing the power switch on my NEX-5N, since I'm flipping it on and off all the time.
On a completely different topic, I haven't seen any discussion of this comparison:
http://www.lesnumeriques.com/camescope/sony-nex-vg900-p16043/sony-nex-plein-format-avons-teste-n28888.html
A test of the Sony VG900 against a Leica M, both using the 50 Lux. Although the Leica is clearly better, what struck me was that the far corners on the VG900 using a 50mm m-mount lens were actually very good (look at the map image). The only question in my mind is if this performance holds up at longer focus distances.
If the FF NEX can improve on this performance (which seems reasonable), I'll be pretty happy. It would be great to be able to use rangefinder lenses for 45mm and up, and then I'd be okay with using native NEX lenses or SLR lenses for shorter focal lengths.
Aug 09, 2013 at 01:21 PM
p.21 #13Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
alwang wrote:
If the FF NEX can improve on this performance (which seems reasonable), I'll be pretty happy. It would be great to be able to use rangefinder lenses for 45mm and up, and then I'd be okay with using native NEX lenses or SLR lenses for shorter focal lengths.
agreed. while i'd love the contax g21 to work great on the camera, i'm not going to be too broken up about it. a NEX-7 with vg900 sensor would suite me fine.
If the FF NEX can improve on this performance (which seems reasonable), I'll be pretty happy. It would be great to be able to use rangefinder lenses for 45mm and up, and then I'd be okay with using native NEX lenses or SLR lenses for shorter focal lengths.
agreed. while i'd love the contax g21 to work great on the camera, i'm not going to be too broken up about it. a NEX-7 with vg900 sensor would suite me fine.
Aug 09, 2013 at 01:30 PM
p.21 #14Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Yeah, and I'd imagine that the FF NEX won't have an AA filter, so I'd guess that corner performance would improve a bit. 50mm looks good enough to me.
My problem is that, over the last couple of years, I've transitioned from a 50mm shooter to a 35mm shooter, and that will be a bit tougher for the sensor, especially when compared to Leica or my RX1. Still, a FF NEX may be good for a bit of short tele use, for me, if I can justify spending the money on something I wouldn't use all that much.
My problem is that, over the last couple of years, I've transitioned from a 50mm shooter to a 35mm shooter, and that will be a bit tougher for the sensor, especially when compared to Leica or my RX1. Still, a FF NEX may be good for a bit of short tele use, for me, if I can justify spending the money on something I wouldn't use all that much.
Aug 09, 2013 at 02:05 PM
p.21 #15Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
douglasf13 wrote:
Yeah, and I'd imagine that the FF NEX won't have an AA filter, so I'd guess that corner performance would improve a bit. 50mm looks good enough to me.
My problem is that, over the last couple of years, I've transitioned from a 50mm shooter to a 35mm shooter, and that will be a bit tougher for the sensor, especially when compared to Leica or my RX1. Still, a FF NEX may be good for a bit of short tele use, for me, if I can justify spending the money on something I wouldn't use all that much.
If you don't need speed, the rumored Zeiss 35/2.8 FF e-mount lens seems like it would fill that gap. We'll have to see though.
Yeah, and I'd imagine that the FF NEX won't have an AA filter, so I'd guess that corner performance would improve a bit. 50mm looks good enough to me.
My problem is that, over the last couple of years, I've transitioned from a 50mm shooter to a 35mm shooter, and that will be a bit tougher for the sensor, especially when compared to Leica or my RX1. Still, a FF NEX may be good for a bit of short tele use, for me, if I can justify spending the money on something I wouldn't use all that much.
If you don't need speed, the rumored Zeiss 35/2.8 FF e-mount lens seems like it would fill that gap. We'll have to see though.
Aug 09, 2013 at 03:32 PM
p.21 #16Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
douglasf13 wrote:
Yeah, and I'd imagine that the FF NEX won't have an AA filter, so I'd guess that corner performance would improve a bit. 50mm looks good enough to me.
My problem is that, over the last couple of years, I've transitioned from a 50mm shooter to a 35mm shooter, and that will be a bit tougher for the sensor, especially when compared to Leica or my RX1. Still, a FF NEX may be good for a bit of short tele use, for me, if I can justify spending the money on something I wouldn't use all that much.
for 35mm i think i'll just use the rx1. i don't think there's gonna be reasonably compact interchangeable lens that will beat that lens for a while. just wish it had a built in viewfinder.
the lux pre asph is tempting though, too bad it costs as much as my rx1.
Yeah, and I'd imagine that the FF NEX won't have an AA filter, so I'd guess that corner performance would improve a bit. 50mm looks good enough to me.
My problem is that, over the last couple of years, I've transitioned from a 50mm shooter to a 35mm shooter, and that will be a bit tougher for the sensor, especially when compared to Leica or my RX1. Still, a FF NEX may be good for a bit of short tele use, for me, if I can justify spending the money on something I wouldn't use all that much.
for 35mm i think i'll just use the rx1. i don't think there's gonna be reasonably compact interchangeable lens that will beat that lens for a while. just wish it had a built in viewfinder.
the lux pre asph is tempting though, too bad it costs as much as my rx1.
Aug 09, 2013 at 03:46 PM
p.21 #17Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
The 35/2.8 was a curious start (if true), but probably planned back in the days before the RX1 release and critical response. It does set them up for instant comparisons, so the body and the sensor better help balance the equation in a straight shootout.
People will say: why buy a $3000 body and (say) $1200 lens when it won't equal the RX1? Might put downward pressure on it's price however. With this many dollars at stake people tend to think this way..
Of course if M lenses work, all may be (almost) forgiven. Many will never forgive Sony for being Sony, lol.
People will say: why buy a $3000 body and (say) $1200 lens when it won't equal the RX1? Might put downward pressure on it's price however. With this many dollars at stake people tend to think this way..
Of course if M lenses work, all may be (almost) forgiven. Many will never forgive Sony for being Sony, lol.
Aug 09, 2013 at 04:23 PM
p.21 #18Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
sebboh wrote:
My problem is that, over the last couple of years, I've transitioned from a 50mm shooter to a 35mm shooter, and that will be a bit tougher for the sensor, especially when compared to Leica or my RX1. Still, a FF NEX may be good for a bit of short tele use, for me, if I can justify spending the money on something I wouldn't use all that much.for 35mm i think i'll just use the rx1. i don't think there's gonna be reasonably compact interchangeable lens that will beat that lens for a while. just wish it had a built in viewfinder.
the lux pre asph is tempting though, too bad it costs as much as my rx1.
Agreed. I don't really see any 35mm lens coming onto the market that would beat the RX1's lens. My 35/2 Summicron ASPH didn't.
The Nokton 35/1.4 is more or less a copy of the lux pre asph. Have you tried one lately? It also is the least color shift 35mm lens that I've tried, although it obviously isn't close to being sharp across the frame.
douglasf13 wrote
Yeah, and I'd imagine that the FF NEX won't have an AA filter, so I'd guess that corner performance would improve a bit. 50mm looks good enough to me.My problem is that, over the last couple of years, I've transitioned from a 50mm shooter to a 35mm shooter, and that will be a bit tougher for the sensor, especially when compared to Leica or my RX1. Still, a FF NEX may be good for a bit of short tele use, for me, if I can justify spending the money on something I wouldn't use all that much.
the lux pre asph is tempting though, too bad it costs as much as my rx1.
Agreed. I don't really see any 35mm lens coming onto the market that would beat the RX1's lens. My 35/2 Summicron ASPH didn't.
The Nokton 35/1.4 is more or less a copy of the lux pre asph. Have you tried one lately? It also is the least color shift 35mm lens that I've tried, although it obviously isn't close to being sharp across the frame.
Aug 09, 2013 at 05:08 PM
p.21 #19Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
philip_pj wrote:
The 35/2.8 was a curious start (if true), but probably planned back in the days before the RX1 release and critical response. It does set them up for instant comparisons, so the body and the sensor better help balance the equation in a straight shootout.
People will say: why buy a $3000 body and (say) $1200 lens when it won't equal the RX1? Might put downward pressure on it's price however. With this many dollars at stake people tend to think this way..
Of course if M lenses work, all may be (almost) forgiven. Many will never forgive Sony for being...Show more →
Agreed. I personally think that the rumored 35/2.8 lens indicates just how difficult it is to make a small, fast 35mm lens for the system that isn't of the fixed variety.
The 35/2.8 was a curious start (if true), but probably planned back in the days before the RX1 release and critical response. It does set them up for instant comparisons, so the body and the sensor better help balance the equation in a straight shootout.
People will say: why buy a $3000 body and (say) $1200 lens when it won't equal the RX1? Might put downward pressure on it's price however. With this many dollars at stake people tend to think this way..
Of course if M lenses work, all may be (almost) forgiven. Many will never forgive Sony for being...Show more →
Agreed. I personally think that the rumored 35/2.8 lens indicates just how difficult it is to make a small, fast 35mm lens for the system that isn't of the fixed variety.
Aug 09, 2013 at 05:10 PM
p.21 #20Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
douglasf13 wrote:
The Nokton 35/1.4 is more or less a copy of the lux pre asph. Have you tried one lately? It also is the least color shift 35mm lens that I've tried, although it obviously isn't close to being sharp across the frame.
i did, the optical formulas may be similar but the lux smokes the cv at least on aps-c. fine detail at large aperture is better though contrast might be lower, color is nicer, and field curvature is less problematic for stopped down landscapes. i didn't play with the voigtlander long enough to judge bokeh stopped down, but both are quite funky wide open.
The Nokton 35/1.4 is more or less a copy of the lux pre asph. Have you tried one lately? It also is the least color shift 35mm lens that I've tried, although it obviously isn't close to being sharp across the frame.
i did, the optical formulas may be similar but the lux smokes the cv at least on aps-c. fine detail at large aperture is better though contrast might be lower, color is nicer, and field curvature is less problematic for stopped down landscapes. i didn't play with the voigtlander long enough to judge bokeh stopped down, but both are quite funky wide open.
Aug 09, 2013 at 05:24 PM