rji2goleez wrote:
I'm still amazed at the sharpness that can be achieved with the NEX and good glass. Below is an image taken handheld along with a 100% crop. This is the CV35/1.2 v2 that hasn't left my camera since it arrived a little more than a week ago. This was shot at f/5.6, ISO 100, 1/500 sec.
Hahaha! Bob, you are going to hate me, we both know what I am going to write. 5N is a fine camera. I have kept it, and is a very good imagemaker. But, if it is sharpness and IQ with your delightful CV 35 f:1.2 you're after, there is only one place to go. The good news is, when you resell your 5N against a 7, you won't have lost much, so your interim with 5N won't have cost you that much at all...:-)
I plan to show the difference now that I have a "standard" 35mm lens.
douglasf13 wrote:
You know, I've been going through my Contax G 35 + NEX-5 photos from last year, and there is just something about that lens. I'm starting to wonder if I may keep it after all. Not sure if I've posted this before, but here is one from Chicago:
indeed, for stopped down landscape it has a wonderful (dare i say 3d) look to it that isn't dependent on sharpness so much as color and contrast. i do occasionally miss mine. the 45mm has the same quality with even more contrast and a focal length i prefer, but it can be hard get as much dof with the longer lens. i keep meaning to get a g 28mm to replace the g 35mm i sold for such shots but keep being distracted by other lenses...
That second picture of yours is fascinating, Sebboh! is it shot with a ZE 35 f:1.4 with Conurus/Metabones connector, or a Contax with standard connector?
sebboh wrote:
indeed, for stopped down landscape it has a wonderful (dare i say 3d) look to it that isn't dependent on sharpness so much as color and contrast. i do occasionally miss mine. the 45mm has the same quality with even more contrast and a focal length i prefer, but it can be hard get as much dof with the longer lens. i keep meaning to get a g 28mm to replace the g 35mm i sold for such shots but keep being distracted by other lenses...
Great pics, sebboh. I must admit, as technically perfect as my ZM 35/2 is, I'm getting a little tired of having to deal with the mild color shift, it is slightly large and heavy, and, for some reason, my vibe with it just isn't great. Maybe it's just due to lack of sleep from a caring for a two-week old, but I'm seriously considering saying "to heck with it" and selling all of my rangefinder lenses outside of the CV 15/4.5, G 35 and G90. I use the 35mm focal length 90% of the time, anyways, and having something like $5K tied up in all of those lenses is starting to make less and less sense. I have a few old SLR lenses laying around, like the SMC Tak 50/1.4, if I need a fast portrait lens, but I think the 15, 35, 90 lineup could do it all for me...although the G 45 is still tempting...and so is the NEX-7.
p.s. I'm realizing that I haven't used the 35 G all that much since I received the 5N, and, anecdotally, it seems like the corner resolution is better than with my old 5, but I haven't tested it, so huge grain of salt there.
philber wrote:
That second picture of yours is fascinating, Sebboh! is it shot with a ZE 35 f:1.4 with Conurus/Metabones connector, or a Contax with standard connector?
contax. i've not been convinced the changes in look of the new Z* constitute an improvement over the contax, so i'm unwilling to pay the price and size premium for the newer version.
Terrific pictures Sebboh. I'm in the San Francisco Bay Area too, so I'm pretty familiar with what photographs taken around here tend to look like given the light, the sky etc... and that guy on the bench is really different and creative.
philber wrote:
Hahaha! Bob, you are going to hate me, we both know what I am going to write. 5N is a fine camera. I have kept it, and is a very good imagemaker. But, if it is sharpness and IQ with your delightful CV 35 f:1.2 you're after, there is only one place to go. The good news is, when you resell your 5N against a 7, you won't have lost much, so your interim with 5N won't have cost you that much at all...:-)
I plan to show the difference now that I have a "standard" 35mm lens.
You're right Philippe, I was waiting for that exact response! Funny, it's always easy to spend other people's money!
rji2goleez wrote:
You're right Philippe, I was waiting for that exact response! Funny, it's always easy to spend other people's money!
I look forward to what you have to show.
FWIW I just got another 5N last week
Maybe there is a slight improvement in resolution in 7, but I haven't seen it yet...
What finally made my mind is last two weeks of shooting my 5N with EVF.
It's simply an exceptional viewfinder and the tilt option is very hard to beat.
Can't really imagine going with a camera (NEX-7) with some major limitations
affecting my shooting (no touch screen and no tilt EVF).
Let's agree the test protocol for comparing NEX 5N and NEX 7. Similar shot, tripod, timer. Lens would be ZM 35 f:2.0 Then into Lightroom for RAW conversion, but kept SOOC. One full res from 5N, one full res and one cropped to similar dimension as 5N's from 7.One from centre and one from corner, one wide open and one @ f:5.6. Would that be correct?
Judging by a couple of other tests I've seen, I think we have a pretty good idea that the 7 catches up to the 5N at the edges at f5.6 with the 35/2. I'd be curious to see f2, f2.8 and f4 at infinity. It'd also be cool to see a set focused in the center and another focused into the corners, if ya feel like it.
I have a very strong feeling that I can probably match "missing" resolution of 5N
with some good post work.
That would actually be interesting too, post RAW files of the same highly detailed scene -
5N and 7 - and uprez the 5N file to 24MP to compare.
Fantastic. This surely helps to dispell my fears that the NEX 7 mp count actually work against it. One huge setback I have with the 5N + EVF is that I can't mount a flash for indoor shots especially during fast moving family events. So I have special interest to add the NEX 7. Many thanks in advance to Philippe.
I don't see the point of comparing 100% crops, because of the difference in pixelcount. If I do this, pics won't be showing the same scene. What that reveals is per-pixel-sharpness (and noise, colour, contrast), but not what the overall picture looks like. Because, with a higher pixel count, you have more pixels in the same scene.
This is why I plan to show a 100% crop of the 5N, and the same scene cropped out of the 7 shot. This means that the 7 shot will be cropped to less than 100%. That replicates on a magnified scale what takes place on the full picture, whether on screen or in print.
However, if per-pixel info is still of use to you, Andrew, I will do my best.
And if my understanding, as outlined above, is flawed, please let me know. Learning is for me a highly desirable experience.
It all makes sense except the result will be affected by "your" way of resizing.
Once you start resizing, you "should" basically add sharpening into the process
to be fair. And that opens the whole can of warms.
It's a simple fact every image we see is a result of some digital manipulation.
But to compare cameras fairly, you should present two images
with identical steps applied to both. If you resize only one - it changes everything IMO.
snowboarder wrote:
FWIW I just got another 5N last week
Maybe there is a slight improvement in resolution in 7, but I haven't seen it yet...
What finally made my mind is last two weeks of shooting my 5N with EVF.
It's simply an exceptional viewfinder and the tilt option is very hard to beat.
Can't really imagine going with a camera (NEX-7) with some major limitations
affecting my shooting (no touch screen and no tilt EVF).
Couldn't agree more. I sold my NEX-7 because of handling issues, and after much agonizing cancelled my pre-order for the Fuji X1Pro because I realized that no image stabilization + no touch screen + no tilt on either the screen or EVF was 3 strikes and Fuji is "out".
NEX 5N is the Goldilocks camera for me, and I'm hoping the Olympus OM-D will be also.
ebrandon wrote:
I've been selling off a lot of lenses recently, where the redundancy or even outright duplication has become ridiculous.
In that spirit, I was preparing a bunch of sample images from one of my two Konica 57mm f1.2 lenses to post in the "for sale" ad. But as I was getting the pictures together, the images convinced me to keep both copies -- they're optically identical but I just can't bear to part with a lens this good.
Your's truly - hopefully I don't break your monitor.
Eric......there are some lenses that are just in that very special category. The Hex 57/1.2 is one those lenses...and the bokeh is exceptional.
You know, I've been going through my Contax G 35 + NEX-5 photos from last year, and there is just something about that lens. I'm starting to wonder if I may keep it after all. Not sure if I've posted this before, but here is one from Chicago:
It's a full test shot from the canon nFD 24/2 at f/8 or so. Note the edges. Yet this lens can produce good edges.
My lesson is: focus at center for landscapes at your peril. Ultimate sharpness in the center may bring softer edges---better to focus at the edge. My current landscaper theory anyway.
