I am going back to the bulky DSLRs-Nex too expensive for me now!

Started Dec 8, 2011 | Discussions thread
Tom Bird
Regular MemberPosts: 199
Like?
Re: silly to say there are "170" lenses available for Canon
In reply to RussellInCincinnati, Dec 8, 2011

long post, and then this snapshot at the end
any ricoh snapshot-camera would do ...

RussellInCincinnati wrote:

xxbluejay: I wouldn't consider a 5N to be a DSLR replacement. Maybe the 7.

You apparently define a DSLR replacement camera as one with a built-in EVF, plus more manual control buttons than the Nex 3-5 series. Thus those of us who are awash in abandoned DSLRs, and like the size and weight savings of the non-EVF Nex cams, and like the lack of unnecessary buttons, might not agree with your feeling that the 5n can't "replace a DSLR".

xxbluejay: But even then the bad AF

Ah, the Nex is a bad replacement for someone who (a) uses autofocus, and (b) prefers the calibration-sensitive, faster phase detect autofocus of DSLRs to the slower, uncalibrated-agnostic contrast detection autofocus of the Nex and (c) doesn't want to go for the $330 dollar or whatever LAEA2 DSLR-autofocusing-style Nex-to-Alpha adapter.

xxbluejay: and limited lenses (9 lenses vs 170 for canon)

Do you have any documentation of that canon lens count? On this page Canon USA shows some 87 lenses:

http://usa.canon.com/cusa/categorySiteMap.action?pageKeyCode=categorySiteMap&nodeCid=0901e02480069f71&expanded=true

And simplistically comparing numbers does not account for how many of those attractive-to-you Canon lenses would be found by many of us to be meaningless, or ridiculously expensive or bulky or heavy. If you're going to quote every Canon lens makes as reasons to not have a Nex, let me point out that there is probably not a Nex user in the world who thinks it's a shame that their Nex won't let them make full use of the Canon 12 pound, $10000 dollar 600mm/F4 lens

Thus though there may be 87 lenses available for Canon cameras, for many of us there are not 87 that we'd consider using. Too, that 87 number is puffed up with things like the 14mm F2.8 L lens, and the 14mm F2.8 L model II lens, the 300 L and 300 L II lenses, lots of different 400mm lenses both L and L II, 85mm L and LII, three different cheap 18-55 kit zooms all of the same aperture range, etc.

Of course it's also true that most other cameras need to have a lot more lenses available for enthusiast users, because they are not almost universally compatible with all kinds of lenses (except for current Canon EF) the way the Nex cams are.

Maybe if you owned some other kind of DSLR besides a Canon you'd like the Nex more, because you can make more use of non-Canon DSLR lenses on the Nex.

xxbluejay: make it a hard trade-off.

For the minority of folks who'd welcome a much larger camera that has access to a bunch of own-brand lenses (but access to far fewer other-brand lenses), that most Nex users wouldn't care about anyway.

xxbluejay: The NEX 7 with some good lenses (though extremely limited) can easily go up to 3000+ dollars. You want good autofocus? You'll have to dish out 400 more on an adapter and spend more money on huge alpha lenses.

The adapter that's just been marked down to $330 dollars? Will note that the type and size of lenses that are great for Canon users (and uncriticized by you) are suddenly described as "huge" when they're used on a Nex. Even when the Alpha Easy Choice lenses are 2 inches long and weigh 170 grams, they are huge now.

xxbluejay: For enthusiasts and semi-pros, money probably isn't that big of an issue.
But those are the main people who would care about a big lens lineup.

xxbluejay: But 90% of the people out there who are interested in cameras are probably just consumers. They want most bang for their buck.

And that 90% is probably perfectly happy with the Nex lens lineup, which is why the Nex has rapidly become one of the top-selling lines of cameras out of Japan.

xxbluejay: I think the size difference is greatly exaggerated.

Yes, and you also don't think that the adequacy of the Nex lens line for the vast majority of users is worth mentioning.

xxbluejay: With the kit lens, you can't fit the NEX into your pocket.

So the Nex cameras aren't really smaller than DSLRs, because you can think of something that they're not small enough to do.

xxbluejay: Heck, even with the pancake lens, it's uncomfortable in your pants pocket. And the NEX 7 with its kit lens is 20oz vs 25oz on the t2i with it's kit lens. Not that big of a difference.

Not sure why are we hearing technical details about other, far bulkier cameras on a Nex forum.

xxbluejay: I think the simplest way to put it is this: Get the 7 if you're rich, and if not, then focus on getting the cheapest thing you can find that's still good quality. I think the biggest bang for your buck DSLR on the market right now is the t2i. Hugely popular.
And huge, to boot.

xxbluejay: Cheaper than the 5N even without the EVF. More/cheaper lens selections. It comes down to preference, but I do think that the NEX's are overpriced.

Wonder why you would write about this particular point on a Nex forum. If it's a good idea to do so, then it would also be a good idea for us Nex owners to go posting on the Canon forum that we think Canon cameras are oversized?

xxbluejay: I wonder how much more it costs to make a NEX 5N body than it does to make a P&S camera.

Not sure what the utility would be of having a perfect answer to that question, especially since am sure you are not intending to include the cost of imagining, designing, perfecting and marketing a camera body that is almost the size of a Point and Shoot, costing little more than a Canon S100 point and shoot by the way, but with far greater image quality potential.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow