vallejo wrote:
How is the experience of shooting with 5N and the EVF, compared to a DSLR, in terms of viewfinder and shutter lag? My thing is street photography...
For me, the only time I rely on the tiltable LCD instead of the EVF is for street photography, which is doable by relying on focus peaking.
douglasf13 wrote:
Ron, the concern that I have is that the NEX-7 sensor will still not be quite as good with native Sony lenses, too. There's already evidence that the Sony 16mm is better on the 5N when compared to the 5, and that could be the case with the Zeiss 24, but we'll see.
What to donald sutherland always say in Kelly's heros? "Always wit da negative vibes, Moriarty..."
I prediect the 7 will have a distinct signature, just like the m9 does. Once in the proper hands---ours---the ooooooing and ahhhhhhing will commence.
DXO: "Apart from a lower Lowlight ISO score due to its translucent mirror, the Sony A77 comes really close to these full-frame cameras"
I say hold on to your hat. This thing will rip. Every time you doubt, look at Rock HUffwell's giraffe and that self portrait in the balloon that showed up somewhere and made the kit zoom look like it was really something.
uhoh7 wrote:
I say hold on to your hat. This thing will rip. Every time you doubt, look at Rock HUffwell's giraffe and that self portrait in the balloon that showed up somewhere and made the kit zoom look like it was really something.
+1
I predict that after some of the people on this forum get their hands on the N7, we're going to look back at the Rock Huffwell "tests" and have a big belly laugh.
I also think the N7 will be the camera to beat for quite some time and I haven't seen any evidence that any other camera maker has the technology to come close to Sony's current generation EVF.
I predict that after some of the people on this forum get their hands on the N7, we're going to look back at the Rock Huffwell "tests" and have a big belly laugh.
I also think the N7 will be the camera to beat for quite some time and I haven't seen any evidence that any other camera maker has the technology to come close to Sony's current generation EVF.
I predict that the 5N vs the 7 will be like Belgian vs German chocolate. The 0.0001% of the world's chocolate connoisseurs will be able to tell the difference, but to most people, they will both taste indiscernibly delicious.
corposant wrote:
I predict that the 5N vs the 7 will be like Belgian vs German chocolate. The 0.0001% of the world's chocolate connoisseurs will be able to tell the difference, but to most people, they will both taste indiscernibly delicious.
Great analogy. Yes, I actually love my 5N and am totally happy with the IQ. It's just that I think I'll prefer the form factor of the 7 with the built in EVF and think I may be more comfortable mounting some larger lenses (like my Pentax limiteds) with the slightly larger form factor. I agree with you that I don't expect the N7 to be a better camera to work with than the N5N in any significant manner.
uhoh7 wrote:
I say hold on to your hat. This thing will rip. Every time you doubt, look at Rock HUffwell's giraffe and that self portrait in the balloon that showed up somewhere and made the kit zoom look like it was really something.
Since it appears you'll get yours before I get mine, the fate of the NEX-7 world rests upon your shoulders (and other early-receivers) to prove Rock Huffwell wrong. Good luck, we are with you. Solidarity.
michael49 wrote:
Its better, at least for me. Using MF with peaking you can easily focus anywhere in the frame, plus you are seeing the actual exposure and WB, in addition to a live histogram if you want it. The auto-ISO feature is God-send for street shooting as well.
From my (somewhat limited) experience so far, you need to know when to rely on focus peaking, and when not to. If it's a person standing in a scene without a near background and with a more telephoto lens, then it will be quick and reliable. In a scene with a lot of high contrast transitions at various distances, with the lens stopped down a bit, you can be faced with an explosion of color on the display from focus peaking implying good focus everywhere. But from my understanding, peaking simply shows areas of highest contrast, which assumes correct focus. In many situations this is indeed the case, but it's important to know when it's not.
Here are a couple non-street examples where if one were to view the images at 100%, one would see that in the first image there are three planes of focus, in the second image the plane of focus slopes away from the camera. In each there are areas where the focus is not tack sharp, yet when I made these, focus peaking implied good focus across each scene because of the high contrast linear angles and shapes. This is more a problem with stopped down longer lenses, which was the case here with the Leica 90 Summarit at about f/8. Obviously the solution is to focus at or near wide open, then stop down, but sometimes that could add too much time to the process. For these I switched to magnified view and focused wide open on the spot where I wanted exact focus. It's also one aspect where shooting with these manual alt lenses that full manual exposure settings is inconvenient because you need to actually watch what you're doing on the camera to make sure you stop down back to the correct aperture for the selected shutter speed since there is no aperture readout on the display or in the EVF. I'm not saying this is terrible, just one of the compromises of using alt lenses on this system. Instead I've generally been working in aperture priority and adjusting the exposure compensation based on the live histogram. I was never a big fan of auto ISO, but I can see how it is a huge benefit here, and will definitely give it a shot.
Maybe it will come with time, but I currently think rangefinder focusing is faster, as is presetting focus based on the focusing scale, at least for me. It also doesn't help that all my lenses focus to infinity before actually hitting the infinity stop. I realize I can shim the adapter, a Novoflex in my case, but am reluctant to try this should I throw it a bit out of alignment.
najibs - love the view and the colour. The lens looks very good on a NEX!
Hm, I just read some strange no-name photo magazine around here, and they were not pleased with the NEX-5N. They said it is softer than the NEX-5. Go figure. So I am having a hard time trusting the various tests as long as I don't know how it was made. Let's see some results from the early buyers.
rscheffler wrote:
For these I switched to magnified view and focused wide open on the spot where I wanted exact focus.
Ron, good summary and I agree with everything that you've said except that I find when manual focusing in magnified view, the magnification is high enough (and the EVF detailed enough) that I can focus at f5.6 or 8 without any need to open up the lens. I also like focusing at the shooting aperture as it eliminates any potential focus shift.
uhoh7 wrote:
What to donald sutherland always say in Kelly's heros? "Always wit da negative vibes, Moriarty..."
That is possibly the best quote in Hollywood history, together with his look, the way he say it - and the situation they're in.. Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Well now, back in line, straight necks and NEX images :-)
Ron, I wouldn't bother with using stop down metering at all. All that is going to do is introduce the possibility of focus shift, and, like you mentioned, possibly setting the wrong aperture in a hurry. I think you're better off just using focus magnification at your shooting aperture.
This leads me to a dilemma with the 5N vs. 7 debate, because I've really come to like the touchscreen for focus magnification. No more slowly moving that darn focus box around.
douglasf13 wrote:
This leads me to a dilemma with the 5N vs. 7 debate, because I've really come to like the touchscreen for focus magnification. No more slowly moving that darn focus box around.
I wont buy the 7, never had the idea. But I am weary if I should get the EVF.
These are the steps I do today before a shot (LCD, no EVF)
1) Frame the scene
2) Quick basic focus with the ring
3) Click screen where I want focus
4) Optimal focus with the ring
5) Halfpress shutter, check values and final adjust composition
6) Shutter
These are the steps I believe I would use with an EVF
1) Frame the scene
2) Quick basic focus with the ring
3) Click screen where I want focus
4) Put eye to the EVF
5) Optimal focus with the ring
6) Halfpress shutter, check values and final adjust composition
7) Shutter
Everything identical except an extra step with the EVF. Is there a better way with the EVF? Seem to add nothing, except perhaps in extreme lighting?
wfrank wrote:
Everything identical except an extra step with the EVF. Is there a better way with the EVF? Seem to add nothing, except perhaps in extreme lighting?
First of all, I look at the scene to get a rough idea of what I want to take a photo of, put the EFV to my eye and make all adjustments from the EVF, including basic framing, check shutter speed and then make any adjustments to aperture and iso, look at histogram and make exposure comp adjustments, rough focus based on focus peaking and then magnified focus for fine tuning. Some times the order may change a little, but this is all with the EVF to my eye - I don't use the LCD.
Second, I find I can hold the camera much more steady with the EVF pressed to my eye as opposed to arms length focusing with the LCD.
For those who can't imagine using an EVF, I wonder how many have never used a viewfinder of any sort? There must be a fair number of digital-only photographers out there that weren't weaned on viewfinders (rangefinder, plain viewfinder, through the lens SLRs) on film cameras.
Sorry to continue the off topic discussion but a much more mundane but for me necessary need for a viewfinder is that I don't like to shoot wearing glasses, and I don't need glasses to move about - only reading or computing. It is uncomfortable to me to use a rear panel for extended periods - I'd much rather put my eye to a finder equipped with a diopter adjustment. I also find it easier to frame accurately and like Jeff I find it easier to brace for low light slow shutter speed shooting when the camera is against my head. Third... I grew up with finders. I'm adaptable not a curmudgeon, but see no need to adapt now that decent finders are - finally as a result of improved technology - showing up on compact digital cameras that don't cost seven large. Yay.
michaelwatkins wrote:
For those who can't imagine using an EVF, I wonder how many have never used a viewfinder of any sort? There must be a fair number of digital-only photographers out there that weren't weaned on viewfinders (rangefinder, plain viewfinder, through the lens SLRs) on film cameras.
In case you wonder about me let me enlighten you that my normal camera is the 5D2 with the EG-S focusing screen in case you know what that is. If you describe your steps when focusing using the EVF it could perhaps add something for us that still are a bit doubtful, given your evident insights in EVFs.
Jeff Kott wrote:
Second, I find I can hold the camera much more steady with the EVF pressed to my eye as opposed to arms length focusing with the LCD.
That's a value-add for me. I use the sniper scheme, breathe-in, breathe-out halfway, stop, shutter. Often works but additional physical support would be a plus.
I find that holding the nex chest level, with elbows pinned at sides in a pseudo waistlevel hold is nearly as stable as using a viewfinder. Its kinda like shooting a Hasselblad, with the nex screen tilted up. I never hold the camera out in front of me.
