[quote name='you2' timestamp='1312302615' post='10349']
...
As you mentioned the lens option is slim. Also at 24mp i noise will be as bad as 4/3 ?
[/quote]
I don't think 24mp will be noisier than the m4/3 sensors (given that it will be used on A77, it must have a decent performance in that respect).
OTOH, I personally believe that a 24mp on a cropped sensor is only plausible if it gives the same (or better) performance compared to the one that would have e.g. 16mp.
I guess increasing the pixel density on a same sensor size is not so much costly for the manufacturers. And the base costs (sensor quantity per wafer) are still the king.
Serkan
[quote name='Sylvain' timestamp='1312310773' post='10352']
Wow...
But the lenses aren't terribly reassuring... [/quote]
That´s a rather good summary!
How is out of camera jpg on the sony (compared to olympus). Also does the nex7 include ibis and decent anti dust solution? From the picture I don't see the evf; is it an add on like the olympus and does it auto zoom when manual focusing? I guess some of these are newbie like question I've just not seem many description of the usability of the nex. Oh well I guess I have a year or so to track the nex-7 and ep-3.
[quote name='you2' timestamp='1312373631' post='10361']
How is out of camera jpg on the sony (compared to olympus). Also does the nex7 include ibis and decent anti dust solution? From the picture I don't see the evf; is it an add on like the olympus and does it auto zoom when manual focusing? I guess some of these are newbie like question I've just not seem many description of the usability of the nex. Oh well I guess I have a year or so to track the nex-7 and ep-3.
[/quote]
I believe it's the EVF's eyepiece protruding on the upper rear corner of the NEX-7 in the image above.
/Dave
http://dave9t5.zenfolio.com
[quote name='you2' timestamp='1312373631' post='10361']
How is out of camera jpg on the sony (compared to olympus). Also does the nex7 include ibis and decent anti dust solution? From the picture I don't see the evf; is it an add on like the olympus and does it auto zoom when manual focusing? I guess some of these are newbie like question I've just not seem many description of the usability of the nex. Oh well I guess I have a year or so to track the nex-7 and ep-3.
[/quote]
I will publish a NEX review with native JPEG samples in the next couple of days. I accidentally forgot to switch to RAW.
It looks quite fine to me actually.
I would be really glad to use a "under designed" pancake and not this 24mm "monster". ;-) I don't care about the extreme corners but about the size. The Nex 7 is bigger as the Nex 5 so it must be really big, much bigger than the kit lense which is already to big for me. For example the 30/2 from Samsung is much smaller than the 30/2.8 from Sony for the A-Mount. Maybe it is not that good but it would be really good enough for me. Hopefully a 24/2,4 pancake would be possible.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1312358335' post='10354']
I think there's also a bit of a misconception here regarding the potential sizing.
MFT lenses are not really smaller than their FT counterparts. Just take the
Olympus 14-42mm (classic) vs Panasonic 14-42mm
Olympus 40-150mm (classic) vs Olympus 40-150mm
Even the Oly 70-300 (classic, a relabeled Sigma full format lens) is not any bigger than the Pana 100-300mm.
Those MFT lenses that are substantially smaller are either pancakes or smaller because they are underdesigned.
Consequently NEX lenses will barely be smaller that conventional Alpha DT lenses.
Or in other words - NEX lenses will always be bigger than MFT lenses anyway (exceptions apply, of course).
The latter isn't even 100% correct - assuming you got lenses with the same depth-of-field potential the size will be the same. Thus you'd think of the Zeiss 24/1.8 as a MFT 18mm f/1.2. Frankly I doubt that this one would be any smaller. Just think of the Voigtlander 25/0.95 (equiv. to a 33mm f/1.3 - take the Sigma 30/1.4 DC as a reference).
[/quote]
Klaus, I fully understand the trade-offs being made but at the end of the day, manufacturers still miss my sweetspot on quality/price. Aiming either too cheap or too expensive (I'd say the 20mm f/1.7 & Olympus 9-18 are notable exceptions in terms of size/performance/price but a tad low on build quality and still a tiny bit too expensive).
The sony 16mm f/2.8 could have been that tiny bit larger to get better performance.
The panasonic 14mm f/2.5 is plain uninteresting as it's too compromised on perfs and 14mm is overlapped by a million mft lenses with no decisive speed advantage. Could have been a tad bigger, the 20mm size wouldn't have been a shocker but they decided to make this lens a statement for the GF2.
The Sony 24mm... well, it's too early, but definitely looks big.
But there is hope as it seems that both the 12mm f/2 & 45mm f/1.8 are finally getting there : not overly small but still very compact (no, it doesn't have to be a pancake! it's still too big to fit in a pocket), likely higher build quality, likely high image quality but at an "exclusive" premium for the 12mm, also being made a statement for the "classy" e-p3... I wish brands wouldn't play this fashionista tune so much.
Hopefully Sony will find converge towards that balance.
Just my 2 cents.
-S
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1312383082' post='10369']
I will publish a NEX review with native JPEG samples in the next couple of days. I accidentally forgot to switch to RAW.
It looks quite fine to me actually.
[/quote]
As for me, camera JPEG is unusable on Sony.
Several years ago I tried to do without RAW on the A100. The verdict: (1) dynamic range is too narrow compared to RAW; (2) the file is too small (over-compressed).
The new A55 _maybe_ added another issue: high ISO NR cannot be switched off. On its "weak" setting it's so strong that you cannot even verify the focus. You need to open RAW converter and switch it off there manually. I said "maybe" because I didn't look at actual JPEGs; what I describe occurs with RAW. You get your RAW with NR set to "Auto" by default. Observed on ISO 1600 (which is identical to ISO 800 on the A100 sensitivity-wise).
[quote name='olegk' timestamp='1312397288' post='10376']
As for me, camera JPEG is unusable on Sony.
Several years ago I tried to do without RAW on the A100. The verdict: (1) dynamic range is too narrow compared to RAW; (2) the file is too small (over-compressed).
The new A55 _maybe_ added another issue: high ISO NR cannot be switched off. On its "weak" setting it's so strong that you cannot even verify the focus. You need to open RAW converter and switch it off there manually. I said "maybe" because I didn't look at actual JPEGs; what I describe occurs with RAW. You get your RAW with NR set to "Auto" by default. Observed on ISO 1600 (which is identical to ISO 800 on the A100 sensitivity-wise).
[/quote]
There is no doubt that high ISO Jpegs suck across the board. That's also true beyond Sony though.
' />