snowboarder
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
philber wrote:
Now that I have used the 7 for a couple of quick shoots, I am amazed at how almost totally different from the 5N it feels.
First, the heft. 5N is a definite lightweight, not different, when fitted with a Contax G 28, from a "supercompact", such as the Canon G. It even feels a bit smaller/lighter than Fuji X-100 or Leica X-1. Not so with the 7, which more like a smaller DSLR, a tad more compact and more dense.
Then the user interface. As most users, I have grown very fond of the 5N's touchscreen, even though I didn't think much of it at first. I still touch the 7's screen and am fustrated that it doesn't help with viewing and focusing. And, instead of a great aid, all I get is a dirty screen..:-( Another item, the loupe. The NEX 3, 5 and C3 had, if memory serves, a 7X and 14x loupe. The 5N sports a less powerful 4.8x and 9.5x, less useful IMHO. The 7 goes halfway, with 5.9x and 11.7x. Probably the best compromise between magnification and usability if you ask me.
The Viewfinder. I tried the add-on on the 5N, and didn't buy. I found it very fiddly to put on, and flimsy to leave on. With the 7, it is just fine, and opens up a whole avenue of possibilities not easy with the 5N without viewfinder, such as very sunny days, or portrait shooting. That is hardly a minor point...
Peaking. With the 5N, I tried peaking, and always found myself more confused than helped by it, so I reverted to switching it off. With the 7, I was once in trouble focusing dark statues against a bright BG, with a low-contrast Leica zoom, so I tried peaking, almost as a last recourse, and hey-presto!, with the same settings (medium, red), it worked a breeze in the VF.
Focusing, and getting sharp images. The 7 is more sensitive than even the 5N to shooting under good conditions. Maybe something to do with pixel density. So I am unable to get clean pics at the same low shutter speeds that I achieved with the 5N, and my keeper rate for perfectly-focused shots is less. This could also have something to do with the fac that viewing a 7 pic at 100% is a more demanding exercise because of the higher magnification, and thus shows minor issues more glaringly.
In summary, my take on the 5N is that it is a fantastic go-everywhere use-anytime, moderately-priced system. I have now completed dozens of professional meetings with my bag-and-5-primes-and-tripod with me, with nobody the wiser. Which has allowed me to make pics before or after the meetings, which I couldn't have with a larger DSLR kit. And the IQ, when used with top glass, is very satisfying indeed, with the added thrill that others, looking on, totally underestimate the results you will get. Shooting with it held at waist level with the swivel screen tilted up was a revelation, and I would not today buy a smaller system that didn't let me do this, such as the Fuji X-1 Pro. But it does have limitations, such as the flimsy, outboard flash or VF, which detract from overall usefulness compared to, say, a Fuji X-100.
Not so the 7. Yes, while larger, the package is still a go-everywhere, use-anytime one, but no longer so moderately priced. And the integrated VF and flash round out its ability nicely beyond the 5N's. IQ is definitely better, but getting it out of the camera is no longer as easy and carefree as with its smaller sibling. The choice of lenses is severely restricted at the wide end. I tried my ZM 18, and it shifted horribly. My Contax G 28 shifted, but did not show mush in the corners, which leads me to think it can be Cornerfixed. My dealer tells me he has a client with an Elmar 24 who is very statisfied. That would be a blessing, as I have one on order. A Leica R 19 seems the logical way to go forward, but it is still a very restrictive choice, unless I go for a Conurus/Metabones setup and take one large lens (Distagon ZE 21) along for the ride. Overall, my guess is that the 7 is on a par with the 3/5 as to what is acceptable or not, shift-wise. That is not great...
So, as of now, I am still undecided as to the way to go. Dump the DSLR altogether, and keep two NEX bodies? The DSLR and a 7 only? Pass on the 7 and wait for the next generation? Keep the 7 and wait for the next generation? If I had to choose here and now, I would keep the 7 over the 5N, but not because of the extra IQ, desirable though it is. For the bonus of an integrated VF and flash, peaking that is a game-changer in touch situations, and an altogether better body. If only Sony hadn't left out the brilliant touchscreen, and had kept the AA filter off.......Show more →
Thanks for this post.
It seems to me there are two different schools:
1. You are serious about NEX and treat it as a serious camera
2. It's a supporting tool to your "serious" camera - a DSLR.
Even if you are school 1. you still might have a "more serious" NEX and a "quicker" NEX.
As of today it would be NEX-7 and NEX-5N.
Also as of today school 2. only makes sense if you go for a FF camera with
a big resolution/DR advantage over NEX-7. I guess there is only one - Nikon 800E
(if you shoot birds or football players, you obviously are school 3).
As far as Leica 19R, I think it might be great, but not really better than Zeiss 21,
a bit smaller, but also much more expensive (haven't seen one for less than $3K).
I think the wide angle will be covered well enough by the upcoming G-zoom.
If it's as good as Sony 16-50 f2.8 lens, there is no need to go Leica 19 path IMO.
If it's not that good, I'll go with the well known Zeiss 21.
I have a Zeiss 18 ZK and I think it's very good on NEX. And it will always be good,
even on NEX-7. Is your Zeiss 18 ZM giving you problems on NEX-7?
|
