Thinking of ditching the D700

Laudrup said:
Going from a full frame D700 with nice glass to a crop Sony would be a bit of a comedown.
Click to expand...

In terms of high ISO performance and the general geometry of FF, I'd agree with you. However he'd be gaining a stop of DR, and double the pixels (handy for cropping if nothing else) at moderate ISO's.

Some of the images I've seen from the a77 (same 24mp sensor) look very like my a850 (24mp FF). Without a doubt the FF sensor will be better at high ISO, but there's little or nothing in at ISO100-1600.
 
gingerweasel said:
I'm even wondering whether or not I gave the x100 a fair shake :lol:
Click to expand...

CT said:
I'd imagine it will be possible to turn off image review, but from what I can gather, the viewfinder is eye -sensing anyway, so the viewfinder will only be active when your eye is at the viewfinder and it would make sense if the preview screen was also auto disabled at the same time.

Another really nice touch is that you can choose to show in-focus areas on the preview screen in the colour of your choice which means that focus is very positive and accurate, with exactly the same function being mirrored in the viewfinder. This bodes really well for using manual focus with a huge range of non AF lenses from various manufacturers and will make this camera a very attractive proposition for a lot of people.

I can't really see it as a compact - it's quite a lot bigger than the Nex-5n - more the size of a conventional 35mm rangefinder camera, which suits me just fine.
Click to expand...

It's two things - the first is the image review on the SLTs couldn't be turned off according to some reviews (hopefully wrong) so if you shot a continuous burst you would see where the subject had been, not where they would be. The second (eye detect) I'm less worried about. While the A77 seems on video reviews to be slow on switching to EVF, the NEX didn't seem so, and I'd imagine the 7 is further improved.

The focus peaking is great and would expect that in future cameras from all the makers.

srichards said:
I wonder if you could have the NEX-7 technology but in a dslr sized body and ditch mirrors and mechanical shutters altogether? You'd then have something that is a huge leap forward. Moving a mirror out of the way seems such an old fashioned thing to do somehow.
Click to expand...

That's why I and a few others were talking about the implications of the Nikon 1 - look at it as a beta test for the technology contained, and as research into how to implement them into a DSLR replacement, and it gives you a good idea of where things could be headed.

moreorless said:
The look maybe wouldnt matter but a 70-200 2.8 lens on the NEX would be ridiculously unbalanced

To me the real potential of large sensor mirrorlesses seems likely to be with primes rather than zooms, that would give you a much more balanced system that could be pocketable.
Click to expand...

The potential size wise is in primes, yes. That's self evident.

I disagree about the balance of a 70-200 on one of these. I've used mine on a D300/700 size, D7000 size and D3100 size bodies. Held properly not a single one felt unbalanced. So they could be used if needed, though obviously the use of a large telephoto lens is not going to be a main consideration for a camera bought for portability ;)
 
ausemmao said:
I disagree about the balance of a 70-200 on one of these. I've used mine on a D300/700 size, D7000 size and D3100 size bodies. Held properly not a single one felt unbalanced. So they could be used if needed, though obviously the use of a large telephoto lens is not going to be a main consideration for a camera bought for portability ;)
Click to expand...

I'd see a tele actually being less of a problem than a normal zoom given that a tripod monopod is more likely, something like say the Canon 17-55 or 15-85 on a NEX 3/5 sized body isnt something I'd want to use as a walkaround lens though.

The NEX 7 does look more balanced but then again its much closer in weight to smaller DSLRs. The real advanatge seems to be size but with even the kit zoom is that size difference useful? with a pancake prime it looks pocketable but I don't really see how I'd treat it any differently with a kit zoom than I do my 550D.
 
Last edited:
srichards said:
Full frame at 12mp is beginning to sound comedic.... I have 12mp in a camera phone.
Click to expand...

I took some indoor and outdoor shots with my camera phone recently and they just don't stand up to any kind of scrutiny at all so I can only hope that you have a much better camera phone :lol:

Anyway, mp counts... if you don't crop much and don't print larger than A3 3mp is probably enough for your needs and 12mp is in reality probably vast overkill but how many people will admit that?
 
woof woof said:
I took some indoor and outdoor shots with my camera phone recently and they just don't stand up to any kind of scrutiny at all so I can only hope that you have a much better camera phone :lol:

Anyway, mp counts... if you don't crop much and don't print larger than A3 3mp is probably enough for your needs and 12mp is in reality probably vast overkill but how many people will admit that?
Click to expand...

Which cameraphone do you have? I've not the Nokia N8. Someone on here posted comparisons with a nikon d90 and at mid range apertures you wouldn't know which was which at a casual glance.
 
Moreorless said:
I'd see a tele actually being less of a problem than a normal zoom given that a tripod monopod is more likely, something like say the Canon 17-55 or 15-85 on a NEX 3/5 sized body isnt something I'd want to use as a walkaround lens though.

The NEX 7 does look more balanced but then again its much closer in weight to smaller DSLRs. The real advanatge seems to be size but with even the kit zoom is that size difference useful? with a pancake prime it looks pocketable but I don't really see how I'd treat it any differently with a kit zoom than I do my 550D.
Click to expand...

I'd say it's certainly useful, even with an f2.8 standard zoom on. It's not just pocketability. They're less intimidating to other people (I see the "look less pro" issue as a positive), they leave room for other things, they can be taken into gigs and the like without hassle. You could bring an NEX-7 + any prime up to 85mm or an X100 up to your eye to shoot, and the response from your subject is...different...to a D7000 or D700, and the IQ is indistinguishable until the higher ISOs.

I'm liking the development of these as much for the fact that it will demonstrate the need to downsize "pro" DSLRs as much for their own sake. I'm not small - 6'3", 15 odd stone, but I see no reason to carry unnecessarily large kit. Personally I'd prefer size reduction over weight, but I'll take what's available.
 
I agree, I think with good primes I won't see a drop in quality, especially as most of the time I shoot with flashes or in good light, therefore ISO is not a consideration for me. I think I will be able to be far more flexible in my approach with a lightweight camera that produces images that won't be that much different from that of my old D700...
 
I've only browsed over the 5 pages and seen lots of talk about image quality.

My main concern when travelling is build quality and weather sealing. How well will the NEX-7 stand up to rain, dust, knocks, humidity etc?
 
Harvey_nikon said:
I've only browsed over the 5 pages and seen lots of talk about image quality.

My main concern when travelling is build quality and weather sealing. How well will the NEX-7 stand up to rain, dust, knocks, humidity etc?
Click to expand...

The GF1 has been through the same things that my D700 went through and has worked absolutely fine, but I am seriously anal about looking after my equipment.
 
Just to address this whole M9 thang, and the obvious comparisons which people are drawing...

The Leica has never really appealed to me enough to part with that much of my hard earned wonga for one - either the film or digital versions. Leica have always plodded along happily way behind main stream advances and truth be told they only really entered the digital arena at the nth hour when they were in severe financial doodoo.

I can understand that people buy a Leica for it's heritage, undoubted build quality and what it represents - it's an intangible thing really that you either 'get' or you don't and of course you get some pretty incredible glass - at pretty incredible prices. For me - Leicas strength is in their lenses, not in their cameras. Tell me you like fiddling about with manual focus and a split image rangefinder and I'll quite understand that attraction, but the fact is a Contax G2 will beat you to the shot all day long. I'm not a Leica hater, I admire everything it represents but for me the shortcomings aren't compensated for by the heritage or the undoubted pride of ownership.

As far as comparison between the NEX and the M9 go - they've already been made - at least as far as the Nex 5 is concerned.

Here's one where they were compared using Leica lenses on both cameras...

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/09/10/crazy-comparison-sony-nex-5n-and-leica-m9-image-quality/

and another where the 18-55 kit lens was used on the Nex-5 not doing so well, but form your own opinion of whether the difference is really around 5 or £6Ks worth with a half decent lens.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/08/28/crazy-comparison-leica-m9-vs-sony-nex-5/

Steve Huff is an M9 owner and isn't seeing a big difference between the two cameras. In the first review he makes no bones of the fact that the doesn't see the M8 as a match for the Nex 5
 
Last edited:
CT said:
Just to address this whole M9 thang, and the obvious comparisons which people are drawing...

The Leica has never really appealed to me enough to part with that much of my hard earned wonga for one - either the film or digital versions. Leica have always plodded along happily way behind main stream advances and truth be told they only really entered the digital arena at the nth hour when they were in severe financial doodoo.

I can understand that people buy a Leica for it's heritage, undoubted build quality and what it represents - it's an intangible thing really that you either 'get' or you don't and of course you get some pretty incredible glass - at pretty incredible prices. For me - Leicas strength is in their lenses, not in their cameras. Tell me you like fiddling about with manual focus and a split image rangefinder and I'll quite understand that attraction, but the fact is a Contax G2 will beat you to the shot all day long. I'm not a Leica hater, I admire everything it represents but for me the shortcomings aren't compensated for by the heritage or the undoubted pride of ownership.

As far as comparison between the NEX and the M9 go - they've already been made - at least as far as the Nex 5 is concerned.

Here's one where they were compared using Leica lenses on both cameras...

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/08/28/crazy-comparison-leica-m9-vs-sony-nex-5/

and another where the 18-55 kit lens was used on the Nex-5 not doing so well, but form your own opinion of whether the difference is really around 5 or £6Ks worth with a half decent lens.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/08/28/crazy-comparison-leica-m9-vs-sony-nex-5/

Steve Huff is an M9 owner and isn't seeing a big difference between the two cameras. In the first review he makes no bones of the fact that the doesn't see the M8 as a match for the Nex 5
Click to expand...

I won't say anything about the Contax vs leica points as you know which side of the fence I sit! ;) However, I really see the attraction of a smaller bodies camera as my 7D is only used for wildlife really or taken out on occasions when I can plan to use it. A 5N would be nice to use my 2 M fit lenses on but the crop factor worries me. I bought my 35mm to be a 35mm and my 50 to be a 50. I think I would be happier if the crop factor was 1.3 or so. Perhaps they might even bring out a full frame NEX. Lets hope so! :)
 
menthel said:
I I think I would be happier if the crop factor was 1.3 or so. Perhaps they might even bring out a full frame NEX. Lets hope so! :)
Click to expand...

LOL. I can't argue with that and a full frame version is rumoured. b****r! :D
 
srichards said:
Which cameraphone do you have? I've not the Nokia N8. Someone on here posted comparisons with a nikon d90 and at mid range apertures you wouldn't know which was which at a casual glance.
Click to expand...

Oh, mine is a really old thing someone gave me.... K800, I think.
 
menthel said:
Perhaps they might even bring out a full frame NEX. Lets hope so! :)
Click to expand...

That wouldn't interest me. To me a compact camera body only makes sense with a compact lens and with full frame and even many APS-C lenses what you end up with is a teeny tiny body and a big fat lens. That's why MFT could be the answer for me if only they'd bring out the lenses I want.
 
woof woof said:
That wouldn't interest me. To me a compact camera body only makes sense with a compact lens and with full frame and even many APS-C lenses what you end up with is a teeny tiny body and a big fat lens. That's why MFT could be the answer for me if only they'd bring out the lenses I want.
Click to expand...

Not if you use an adapter and my M fit lenses. It brings it back to where rangefinders excel, small bodies and lenses. So it would interest me! ;)
 
CT said:
Just to address this whole M9 thang, and the obvious comparisons which people are drawing...

The Leica has never really appealed to me enough to part with that much of my hard earned wonga for one - either the film or digital versions. Leica have always plodded along happily way behind main stream advances and truth be told they only really entered the digital arena at the nth hour when they were in severe financial doodoo.

I can understand that people buy a Leica for it's heritage, undoubted build quality and what it represents - it's an intangible thing really that you either 'get' or you don't and of course you get some pretty incredible glass - at pretty incredible prices. For me - Leicas strength is in their lenses, not in their cameras. Tell me you like fiddling about with manual focus and a split image rangefinder and I'll quite understand that attraction, but the fact is a Contax G2 will beat you to the shot all day long. I'm not a Leica hater, I admire everything it represents but for me the shortcomings aren't compensated for by the heritage or the undoubted pride of ownership.

As far as comparison between the NEX and the M9 go - they've already been made - at least as far as the Nex 5 is concerned.

Here's one where they were compared using Leica lenses on both cameras...

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/09/10/crazy-comparison-sony-nex-5n-and-leica-m9-image-quality/

and another where the 18-55 kit lens was used on the Nex-5 not doing so well, but form your own opinion of whether the difference is really around 5 or £6Ks worth with a half decent lens.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/08/28/crazy-comparison-leica-m9-vs-sony-nex-5/

Steve Huff is an M9 owner and isn't seeing a big difference between the two cameras. In the first review he makes no bones of the fact that the doesn't see the M8 as a match for the Nex 5
Click to expand...

All I can see is a lens from the 1940s outperforming a modern NEX lens. The M9 simply destroys the NEX. An 18MP sensor with no anti-alias filter versus a crop Sony isn't a contest, even with 70 year old lenses.
 
Harvey_nikon said:
I've only browsed over the 5 pages and seen lots of talk about image quality.

My main concern when travelling is build quality and weather sealing. How well will the NEX-7 stand up to rain, dust, knocks, humidity etc?
Click to expand...

jamesoliverstone said:
The GF1 has been through the same things that my D700 went through and has worked absolutely fine, but I am seriously anal about looking after my equipment.
Click to expand...

I'm not anal about taking care of my gear at all really. I chuck things in my pockets and bags and let them bash and rub against each other. I've done this with my Nex3 and it's held up fine. Only problem I've had is that the antiglare coating started coming off the screen but it's a sticky plastic sheet so peeled that off, replaced with a chopped down iPhone one and put a GGS protector over that to stop it happening again. It's had a fair soaking on a few occasions too and seems to be none the worse for it.
 
ausemmao said:
I'd say it's certainly useful, even with an f2.8 standard zoom on. It's not just pocketability. They're less intimidating to other people (I see the "look less pro" issue as a positive), they leave room for other things, they can be taken into gigs and the like without hassle. You could bring an NEX-7 + any prime up to 85mm or an X100 up to your eye to shoot, and the response from your subject is...different...to a D7000 or D700, and the IQ is indistinguishable until the higher ISOs.

I'm liking the development of these as much for the fact that it will demonstrate the need to downsize "pro" DSLRs as much for their own sake. I'm not small - 6'3", 15 odd stone, but I see no reason to carry unnecessarily large kit. Personally I'd prefer size reduction over weight, but I'll take what's available.
Click to expand...

In those situations though isnt it going to be the lens thats really threatening? even if a mirrorless version of something like the 70-200 2.8 does come out its not likely to be much smaller than the DSLR one.

I agree the real potential with large sensor mirrorless seems to be with prime lenses, both in terms of balance and pocketability.

With zoom lenses though I'd question whether the mirror really needs to be lost. Making the body thinner isnt really going to make the camera much more pocketable and for many I'd say theres going to be a mimimum weight.
 
Moreorless said:
In those situations though isnt it going to be the lens thats really threatening? even if a mirrorless version of something like the 70-200 2.8 does come out its not likely to be much smaller than the DSLR one.

I agree the real potential with large sensor mirrorless seems to be with prime lenses, both in terms of balance and pocketability.

With zoom lenses though I'd question whether the mirror really needs to be lost. Making the body thinner isnt really going to make the camera much more pocketable and for many I'd say theres going to be a mimimum weight.
Click to expand...

The total package will still be smaller, and it'd be more likely paired with primes.
Standard zooms could be made significantly smaller sans mirror. For longer lenses, losing the mirror is still a winning proposition, but not because of size. On sensor PDAF would mean you could have full time AF even through the shot. Burst shooting becomes more accurate, the frame rate can be increased, no viewfinder blackout, no mirror slap for the awkward shutter speeds (1/30 -1/2 sec).

I'm thinking more and more that the only downside a properly implemented (whether mini or current SLR sized) mirrorless camera has is battery drain, and even that can be mitigated (carry a spare that's smaller than most people's phones).
 
menthel said:
Not if you use an adapter and my M fit lenses. It brings it back to where rangefinders excel, small bodies and lenses. So it would interest me! ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, smaller rangefinder lenses would make sense. How is the performance away from the centre? I thought that digital sensors needed the light to hit more directly than film?
 
My 2 pence: I tried the Nex-5 with M-mount lenses (and Nikkors) and it didn't appeal to me. Yes, the combo is tiny, but MF-assist is too slow to get to. Push the button, arrange the magnified area, focus or recompose, etc. Focus peaking is very nice, yet no more accurate than the screen at f/2 or faster. It might be all different with an EVF though.
 
Last edited:
Laudrup said:
All I can see is a lens from the 1940s outperforming a modern NEX lens. The M9 simply destroys the NEX. An 18MP sensor with no anti-alias filter versus a crop Sony isn't a contest, even with 70 year old lenses.
Click to expand...

Well I did say 'form your own opinion' :D So we're talking about the second test then with a Leica lens versus the Sony kit lens? Come on!

Shall we wait and see for the production model, the Zeiss optics and what real world opinion thinks when both cameras are using similar glass?
 
Cistron said:
My 2 pence: I tried the Nex-5 with M-mount lenses (and Nikkors) and it didn't appeal to me. Yes, the combo is tiny, but MF-assist is too slow to get to. Push the button, arrange the magnified area, focus or recompose, etc. Focus peaking is very nice, yet no more accurate than the screen at f/2 or faster. It might be all different with an EVF though.
Click to expand...
I find the manual focus assist pretty much useless on my NEX3, I just use peaking and yeah, it's not great. I'm thinking that the EVF in the 7 will have these things sorted out.
 
Not sure if this has already been mentioned but as a GF1 user this might interest you - there is rumoured to be a GFX1 coming soon which is more of a true successor to the GF1 than the GF2/3. This site apparently has a very strong rep for rumour accuracy....

lumix-gfx1.jpg


It will be rangefinder styled like the Panasonic L1 of 2006 (above, my mock up), with built in EVF. That is 100% confirmed.

The camera is a true Fuji X100 / Sony NEX 7 competitor and is marketed toward GF1 enthusiasts who aren’t satisfied with the GF2 and GF3.

The Leica 25mm F1.4 will be in one of the kit options.

I am also told to expect another Leica prime to be announced alongside it as well as a fast 40mm pancake.
Click to expand...

http://www.eoshd.com/content/4168/high-end-panasonic-mirrorless-will-be-gfx1
 
ausemmao said:
The total package will still be smaller, and it'd be more likely paired with primes.
Standard zooms could be made significantly smaller sans mirror. For longer lenses, losing the mirror is still a winning proposition, but not because of size. On sensor PDAF would mean you could have full time AF even through the shot. Burst shooting becomes more accurate, the frame rate can be increased, no viewfinder blackout, no mirror slap for the awkward shutter speeds (1/30 -1/2 sec).

I'm thinking more and more that the only downside a properly implemented (whether mini or current SLR sized) mirrorless camera has is battery drain, and even that can be mitigated (carry a spare that's smaller than most people's phones).
Click to expand...

Judging by the NEX's zooms I have my doubts mirrorless will really result in much of a lens size decrease for larger sensors. Theres the EVF aswell, its improving but the tiny space involved presents significant challanges and I'd guess many will always preffer an OVF which could be moved towards a hybrid to give any technical advanatges of the EVF.

I suspect that the real effort with large sensor mirrorless over the following years isnt going to be to replace the SLR but rather to provide a pocketable system based on primes that runs along side it. Fuji and Leica(a cheaper system with AF rather than the M8/M9) seem to be going that way and I wouldnt be supprized if Canon followed suit.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Yes, smaller rangefinder lenses would make sense. How is the performance away from the centre? I thought that digital sensors needed the light to hit more directly than film?
Click to expand...

I have no experience personally but looking at the shots of rangefinder forum they look like they acquit themselves rather well. In rare cases lenses need to have their tolerances adjusted to work with the less forgiving digital sensor but most work well, from early screw mounts to the latest asph lenses.
 
The way I look at it is this. Don't be so hung up on the absolute technical details... in the real world they don't really account for a lot.

I shot my ABIPP / ARPS panel with a canon 20D and a Sigma 10-20mm.

I have shot amazing images that are hanging up around the house using a Nikon D70 with sigma glass.

I have absolutely stunning fine art prints that I have sold that I photographed on a D90, 20D, D300 and an old Voigtlander.

I somehow think that the technology in the NEX-7 is rather more advanced than those cameras AND the zeiss glass is going to be somewhat superior to the cheap sigma glass I was using at the time.

Just because I had a D700 means nothing. Its a tool at the end of the day, and the right tool in the right hands will produce amazing images.

Just my 2p. ;)
 
DigitalRelish said:
This is an interesting read ;)

Dear Leica M9...
Click to expand...

Hehehe :D

I sold / gave away my rangefinders and indeed I sold / gave away my film SLR's too. They were lovely things but time has moved on and I decided that although they looked great on the shelf only getting taken off it to be played with once in a while was no existance for a camera and they might as well go to new homes where they'd be used.
 
CT said:
Well I did say 'form your own opinion' :D So we're talking about the second test then with a Leica lens versus the Sony kit lens? Come on!

Shall we wait and see for the production model, the Zeiss optics and what real world opinion thinks when both cameras are using similar glass?
Click to expand...

The Leica sensor and glass is better. The Leica will always win. It's better and fairer to compare the NEX against the competition it actually faces like the Micro 4/3 market etc.
 
menthel said:
I have no experience personally but looking at the shots of rangefinder forum they look like they acquit themselves rather well. In rare cases lenses need to have their tolerances adjusted to work with the less forgiving digital sensor but most work well, from early screw mounts to the latest asph lenses.
Click to expand...

My point was that in t'olden days film was never that flat and it wasn't too bothered about the angle light struck it anyway but these days sensors are much more flat and they do care about the angle at which light hits them.

I don't know if it's a real world worry as I've never used a Leica lens or any other rangefinder type lens on a DSLR. I just wondered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top