Bodies, bodies everywhere, not a lens in sight.

Started Aug 25, 2012 | Discussions thread
Kabe Luna
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,328Gear list
Like?
Re: agreed, lightweight Nex lenses=not shallow depth of field
In reply to RussellInCincinnati, Aug 29, 2012

RussellInCincinnati wrote:

[Kabe Luna: lackluster Nex lenses]

RussellInCincinnati: [showing adequate resolution photos]

Kabe Luna: ...your mistake is assuming "lackluster" means, in the case of lenses, "not sharp."...At the moderate aperture of f/5.6, and in the middle of its range–as per your example–of course the Sony kit lens is sharp.

Ah, I get it. So what if the cheap, light, convenenient, often stabilized Nex lenses make sharp photos? How could that get in the way of them being lackluster.

Lenses contribute more to the style and quality of a picture than any other component of the imaging chain. Thus, Sony's lenses are "lackluster" because their resolutely ordinary specification results in image quality that is quite ordinary. One cheap, convenience–oriented kit zoom is unlikely to distinguish itself from the next.

Kabe Luna: No, by "lackluster," I mean the Sony system of lenses for the NEX cameras is inadequate to allow a broader range of creative expression than the dull (i.e., "lackluster")–and unimaginatively composed, I might add

Lens test shot demonstrating breezily-achievable 100% crop resolution , I might add. But let's stay on topic, which is hardware...

This is where we see things differently. My primary concern in selecting any photo gear is the look I can achieve with it; that's what is most important to me. I'm only concerned with gear because it takes certain kinds of gear to get the look I want. Convenience and portability are secondary considerations. You, on the other hand, come across as being primarily concerned with the convenience and portability of a system–let the imaging characteristics be whatever they need to be to get the camera and lenses as small as they can be without compromising some basic capabilities.

Different priorities, different perspectives, different opinions about the NEX system.

Kabe Luna: –snapshot you so proudly offer as proof of the "luster" of the Sony kit lens. It's a statement I stand behind because there is only one NEX lens–the 50/1.8, that will get me even close to this degree of subject isolation: ["proudly" shows nice shallow depth of field examples, including one from a smaller-sensor camera that wouldn't meet many a Nex user's quality standards]

Ah, the relatively small-max-aperture Nex lenses like all light weight, compact lenses, don't give you the shallow depth of field you want . Of course, isn't that more of a function of tiny, light weight Nex users wanting kinda slim, light weight, inexpensive zoom lenses for their cameras? Your broad brush of the Nex lenses as "lackluster" seems to me to boil down to you not wanting to use a really light weight, compact, inexpensive camera rig . That's great, you're not into the lightweight/Nex deal with its inherent limitations, we get it.

Ah, but you're wrong. I don't expected FF background blur from APS-C-and-smaller sensors and lenses at normal working distances. However, I would like more capability in this regard from Sony. After all, the m3/4 crowd has more than a few wide aperture options.

But save your description of $250 dollar used Nex's (e.g. kit zoom) line of work and freedom from heavy and/or expensive camera gear that's not your priority as "lackluster" in some way ,for some other forum. (Your "lackluster" is my "affordable to so many--itself a boon to creativity--and available on my hip 12 hours a day, and not as burdensome and large-aperture capable as some bigger and/or more expensive iron") .

I'll decide where and when I'll contribute amongst these fora, thank you. If you don't like what I have to say, use the "Ignore" button or simply don't respond. And please don't strain logic by contending affordability is essential to Sony's NEX strategy or the reason that anyone choses the NEX system when the flagship NEX-7 is a $1200 body and m4/3 is, overall, a potentially cheaper yet more versatile system.

No, like most things, it's down to preference, and I would prefer to have Sony's exceptional sensor paired with exceptional lenses, even if it means a bit more weight and less portability. On this we can agree to disagree.

-- hide signature --
 Kabe Luna's gear list:Kabe Luna's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon Df Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G +7 more
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