Why is my NEX not as good as RX100 or even LX5?

Started Jun 25, 2013 | Discussions
telefunk
Regular MemberPosts: 421
Like?
Re: OP is useless speculation
In reply to kam_wa, Jul 6, 2013

Aha, this is the crux of the problem. My Nex 3n with kit lens is SLIGHTLY better than my LX5 up to 400 iso. The RX100 is miles ahead of both, right into Nex 7 territory. Of course the Nex 3n would perform much better with a good lens, but I can't find a good 16mm (24mm equiv FF) as I stated before.

Want some real pictures and not a screenshot? OK, I'll show you a more extreme comparison. Nex7 (with crappy 16-50 kitzoom) vs LX5 at midnight. The Nex7 is better, but not earth-shatteringly so. I mean: the Nex 7 is supposed to be the ultimate machine, the LX5 a good P&S with a shitty little sensor, right? When I forked out many rubles to purchase the Nex7, I expected it to completely grind my old LX5 into the dust. Well it wasn't that clear to me... so here goes folks:

Nex 7

and here the LX5

LX5

With that kind of huge sensor & megapixel count, I expected an improvement in the magnitude of a Sigma DP2Merill. But it is nowhere near a huge improvement in noise or definition. But the Nex3N I bought afterwards makes even less of a difference. Hence the suggestion that the RX100 provides the best bang for your ruble, except it doesn't have a wide enough angle lens for my needs :-(.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
lenshoarder
Contributing MemberPosts: 601
Like?
Re: OP is useless speculation
In reply to telefunk, Jul 6, 2013

telefunk wrote:

Aha, this is the crux of the problem. My Nex 3n with kit lens is SLIGHTLY better than my LX5 up to 400 iso. The RX100 is miles ahead of both, right into Nex 7 territory. Of course the Nex 3n would perform much better with a good lens, but I can't find a good 16mm (24mm equiv FF) as I stated before.

Want some real pictures and not a screenshot? OK, I'll show you a more extreme comparison. Nex7 (with crappy 16-50 kitzoom) vs LX5 at midnight. The Nex7 is better, but not earth-shatteringly so. I mean: the Nex 7 is supposed to be the ultimate machine, the LX5 a good P&S with a shitty little sensor, right? When I forked out many rubles to purchase the Nex7, I expected it to completely grind my old LX5 into the dust. Well it wasn't that clear to me... so here goes folks:

and here the LX5

With that kind of huge sensor & megapixel count, I expected an improvement in the magnitude of a Sigma DP2Merill. But it is nowhere near a huge improvement in noise or definition. But the Nex3N I bought afterwards makes even less of a difference. Hence the suggestion that the RX100 provides the best bang for your ruble, except it doesn't have a wide enough angle lens for my needs :-(.

As with your first post, I don't see what you are seeing in this post.  A few problems.

1) They aren't at the same FOV.

2) They aren't at the same exposure.  ISO 1600 for the NEX.  ISO 400 for the LX5.

3) They weren't taken at the same time/date.  Was the moon out one night?  Was it not the other?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
telefunk
Regular MemberPosts: 421
Like?
Re: OP is useless speculation
In reply to lenshoarder, Jul 6, 2013

Agreed. Not all parameters were the same, but the night was dark, the LX5 was content with 400iso... do you need to split hairs endlessly?

The point I'm trying to make, or find out what is going on, is in the title of this thread;;;;

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
S3ZAi
Contributing MemberPosts: 767Gear list
Like?
Re: OP is useless speculation
In reply to telefunk, Jul 6, 2013

telefunk wrote:

Agreed. Not all parameters were the same, but the night was dark, the LX5 was content with 400iso... do you need to split hairs endlessly?

The point I'm trying to make, or find out what is going on, is in the title of this thread;;;;

Actually, those hairs people are splitting as you call it is what it is all about. Especially at night even a little change could make a great difference.

I get the feeling that you weren't asking a question in the title of this thread, as you don't seem to be open to any answers. Any camera has good and bad sides, for example nex7 shines when it comes to dynamic range, when it comes to high iso, it's still quite good, but not exceptionally so.

If you would shoot nex7 with a decent fast lens, for example the sel50 or sel35 or one of the zeiss lenses or a vintage lens and keep it down to say iso 400, it would give much much better results at night. I did just that many times and can speak from experience.

Here is the answer: if you are not willing to put a little work towards getting the best of ANY camera, then why whine that it doesn't outperform another one? It seems like the lx5 had the best focal length for you and performed quite well, why not go for the same type of camera? Apparently the nexes aren't your cup of tea. If you would be willing to put some effort into this, for example taking a look at different lenses at different speeds, then I'm sure you would come to very different end results.

 S3ZAi's gear list:S3ZAi's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony Alpha 7R Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS Sony FE 55mm F1.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GaryW
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,249Gear list
Like?
LX5 vs. Nex-7?
In reply to lenshoarder, Jul 7, 2013

lenshoarder wrote:

telefunk wrote:

Aha, this is the crux of the problem. My Nex 3n with kit lens is SLIGHTLY better than my LX5 up to 400 iso. The RX100 is miles ahead of both, right into Nex 7 territory. Of course the Nex 3n would perform much better with a good lens, but I can't find a good 16mm (24mm equiv FF) as I stated before.

What about the Sony 10-18? In the daylight, the 16mm pancake isn't so bad, IMO, but I wouldn't blame someone for wanting more.

Want some real pictures and not a screenshot? OK, I'll show you a more extreme comparison. Nex7 (with crappy 16-50 kitzoom) vs LX5 at midnight. The Nex7 is better, but not earth-shatteringly so. I mean: the Nex 7 is supposed to be the ultimate machine, the LX5 a good P&S with a shitty little sensor, right? When I forked out many rubles to purchase the Nex7, I expected it to completely grind my old LX5 into the dust. Well it wasn't that clear to me... so here goes folks:

and here the LX5

With that kind of huge sensor & megapixel count, I expected an improvement in the magnitude of a Sigma DP2Merill. But it is nowhere near a huge improvement in noise or definition. But the Nex3N I bought afterwards makes even less of a difference.

Your photos just don't seem to make the LX5 look that good to me, though. Downsized, the Nex-7 loses its resolution advantage, but with these photos, the Nex-7 photo has better color. The LX5 one looks washed out, with a bit of a "glow" to the bright areas which seems to me like that isn't an improvement. (Maybe it was simply overexposed due to the darkness in the rest of the frame.) Even without the resolution advantage, the Nex-7 one looks better. What am I missing?

Earlier, the LX5 photos even looked poor, with some sort of pixellation that occurred on the way to posting on the web. I just don't think it's enough to convince Nex owners that the LX5 is about as good.  But, when viewed on a monitor, photos taken in good light with many small-sensor cameras will look good.  The problem comes mostly when light is not quite ideal.  With the case of my newest P&S, I did a comparison in late afternoon light, and by ISO 400, the HX5V used heavy NR and the Nex-5 photo had a ton more low-level detail.  Printed at 4x6 would I tell the difference?  Maybe, but the differences would probably be subtle.  If I only printed at 4x6, or for the web, I think the Nex might be overkill.  Had the RX100 been available several years ago, I'd probably have really been interested.  As it happened, though, while the LX series got accolades, I passed it up for the Nex.  I went to a larger sensor for the improved quality, and I didn't want to go back.  Do I make use of the larger sensor?  My first thought was maybe not often, but then, I do often take photos in lower light, and even at high ISO, it looks fantastic in small prints.  Even "crappy lenses" are going to look fantastic printed small.  I have a couple of larger prints from the 16mm that makes me think that some people are a bit obsessive; yeah, some lenses are better than others, but you should be able to get good results out of the Nex and even the lowly 16mm.

Hence the suggestion that the RX100 provides the best bang for your ruble, except it doesn't have a wide enough angle lens for my needs :-(.

The RX100 compares pretty well with the Nex with a kit lens so it's an option, but I'm not sure that it should help at the moment if you already have the Nex....

As with your first post, I don't see what you are seeing in this post. A few problems.

1) They aren't at the same FOV.

2) They aren't at the same exposure. ISO 1600 for the NEX. ISO 400 for the LX5.

The lenses have different max. apertures, so the ISO needs to be different to get a proper exposure. Even so, ISO 1600 on the Nex should be noticeably superior to 400 on the LX5. I'd be more concerned that the LX5 was allowed to have a faster shutter speed, allowing more light in; if there's an unfair advantage testing with low-light, that would be it.

3) They weren't taken at the same time/date. Was the moon out one night? Was it not the other?

Yeah, you really need to keep parameters the same, otherwise there are too many factors that can come into play.

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX5 +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
zink
Contributing MemberPosts: 500Gear list
Like?
Why blame the NEX?
In reply to S3ZAi, Jul 7, 2013

The NEX-7 with even the "crappy" 16-50mm is capable of getting great pictures in low light situations. When your pictures are not as good as you expect them to be, why would you blame the camera and the lens instead of the person who shot the picture? Because it is easier to blame the equipment?

 zink's gear list:zink's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
telefunk
Regular MemberPosts: 421
Like?
Re: Why is my NEX not as good as RX100 or even LX5?
In reply to captura, Jul 7, 2013

Thanks guys for all your help. Really appreciate it. Would be great to spend an evening discussing these issues with you together with a good bottle of wine.

To sort of formulate a conclusion: I don't want to keep my LX5, the wide-angle lens is great, but the IQ is pretty bad. My Nokia 808 at 8MP is better. And as I mentioned, so is the RX100 and the Nex7. But not better enough!

So where is a good very wide angle lens for the Nex? The question remains unanswered. I guess I'll just have to wait till someone builds it.....

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
lenshoarder
Contributing MemberPosts: 601
Like?
Re: OP is useless speculation
In reply to telefunk, Jul 7, 2013

telefunk wrote:

Agreed. Not all parameters were the same, but the night was dark, the LX5 was content with 400iso... do you need to split hairs endlessly?

The point I'm trying to make, or find out what is going on, is in the title of this thread;;;;

Those hairs you are complaining about splitting have everything to do with the point you say you want to make.

It's not hard to make a fair comparison.  Same ISO, same F stop, same FOV and even taken on the same day.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
NeilJones
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,348Gear list
Like?
Yes, my Nex and 16mm suck big time.
In reply to telefunk, Jul 7, 2013

Hate that cr@ppy cheap good for nothing lens. It makes me so mad. Hate it, hate it, hate it!

-- hide signature --

" All you need is love"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Yes, my Nex and 16mm suck big time.
In reply to NeilJones, Jul 8, 2013

Yes.  I see what you mean.

A real lack of mid-contrast, REAL sharpness and REAL colours.

Perhaps it might be time for you to step up to an SLR or Leica.

Hang in there man and save up.

You'll LOVE the difference.

Bruce

-- hide signature --

Keep the fun real.

 Bruce Granofsky's gear list:Bruce Granofsky's gear list
Sony RX1 Leica M9 Nikon D4 Leica M Typ 240 Sony Alpha 7R +16 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Skipper494
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,245Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is my NEX not as good as RX100 or even LX5?
In reply to telefunk, Jul 8, 2013

You must be joking. With a NEX 7, shoot RAW, convert to tiff and process. The only camera I have with less noise than my NEX 7 is my D700 and of course the NEX 7 has far greater resolution. My Nikon P7000 is as good as your LX5 and a lot more useful, with longer zoom.

1/300, f2.8, ISO 100

100% crop

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
NeilJones
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,348Gear list
Like?
Re: Yes, my Nex and 16mm suck big time.
In reply to Bruce Granofsky, Jul 8, 2013

Bruce Granofsky wrote:

Yes. I see what you mean.

A real lack of mid-contrast, REAL sharpness and REAL colours.

Perhaps it might be time for you to step up to an SLR or Leica.

Hang in there man and save up.

You'll LOVE the difference.

Bruce

-- hide signature --

Keep the fun real.

Looks like the trolls are out early tonight. Watch  ya selfs people.

-- hide signature --

" All you need is love"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GaryW
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,249Gear list
Like?
Re: Yes, my Nex and 16mm suck big time.
In reply to NeilJones, Jul 8, 2013

NeilJones wrote:

Bruce Granofsky wrote:

Yes. I see what you mean.

....

Looks like the trolls are out early tonight. Watch ya selfs people.

No, I think he was agreeing with your sarcasm with more sarcasm.  You guys need to do the winking smiley ( ) or else it's hard to tell sometimes...

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX5 +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
calterg
Regular MemberPosts: 464
Like?
because the 1650 while decent cant compare with the compact lens.
In reply to telefunk, Jul 8, 2013

And i proved it to myself by buying an olympus xz-2. I also shoot with nex6 with the 1650 kitlens.

All i can say is that in good light, the xz2 lens is much sharper all across the zoom range and at all corners than the nex 6.

Better color contrast and micro contrast and detail resolution.

Of course all the above goes down the drain above iso1250.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Valterj
Regular MemberPosts: 214Gear list
Like?
Re: (Nex 6 + Carl Zeiss 24mm) or Sony RX100 ?
In reply to lenshoarder, Jul 8, 2013

Which of the 2 have better image quality: Nex 6 + Carl Zeiss 24mm or Sony RX100 ?

Thanks for your opinions.

-- hide signature --

Cameras: Olympus OM-D E-M5 | Sony SLT-A55V | Sony DSC-H9 | Nikon Coolpix P510
Lenses: Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm f2.8 Macro | Sony SAL-100M28 | Sony SAL-35F18 | Sony VCL-M3358 | Sony VCL-DH1774 | Canon 250D
http://www.flickr.com/photos/valter/

 Valterj's gear list:Valterj's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H9 Nikon Coolpix P510 Sony SLT-A55 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Sony Alpha NEX-6 +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
baltimorecaesar
Regular MemberPosts: 274
Like?
Re: Why is my NEX not as good as RX100 or even LX5?
In reply to telefunk, Jul 8, 2013

The three most important parts of a camera are glass, glass, and glass.  There is a reason why you can find NEX kit lenses on ebay dirt cheap and have to shell out more money for a 30+ year old nifty-fifty legacy lens.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
NeilJones
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,348Gear list
Like?
Re: Yes, my Nex and 16mm suck big time.
In reply to GaryW, Jul 8, 2013

GaryW wrote:

NeilJones wrote:

Bruce Granofsky wrote:

Yes. I see what you mean.

....

Looks like the trolls are out early tonight. Watch ya selfs people.

No, I think he was agreeing with your sarcasm with more sarcasm. You guys need to do the winking smiley ( ) or else it's hard to tell sometimes...

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

No Gary, this guy has had it in for me a while now. He follows me around and attacks. I have the same problem with mosquitos.  Think he's jealous of my work or something. Oh well.

-- hide signature --

" All you need is love"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Yes, my Nex and 16mm suck big time.
In reply to NeilJones, Jul 8, 2013

NeilJones wrote:

No Gary, this guy has had it in for me a while now. He follows me around and attacks. I have the same problem with mosquitos. Think he's jealous of my work or something. Oh well.

-- hide signature --

" All you need is love"

Aw, C'mon Neil.

I'm not following you around, but every once in awhile bump into a your posts.

Lighten up.

Humbly and jealously yours,

Bruce

-- hide signature --

Keep the fun real.

 Bruce Granofsky's gear list:Bruce Granofsky's gear list
Sony RX1 Leica M9 Nikon D4 Leica M Typ 240 Sony Alpha 7R +16 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
telefunk
Regular MemberPosts: 421
Like?
Re: Why is my NEX not as good as RX100 or even LX5?
In reply to telefunk, Aug 10, 2013

A test of the selp1650 on the german site dkamera and it confirmed my experience. They tried this kitlens on the nex 6 and nex 3n: same result as I had: very average sharpness. They mention that a good P&S has better results.

Both nex's have class leading sensors which could resolve much more with a better lens. Also the in-camera jpg sharpening is very conservative.

So, everyone who is so happy with their nex 6 + 1650 lens have never compared their pictures with a good P&S!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GaryW
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,249Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is my NEX not as good as RX100 or even LX5?
In reply to telefunk, Aug 10, 2013

telefunk wrote:

A test of the selp1650 on the german site dkamera and it confirmed my experience. They tried this kitlens on the nex 6 and nex 3n: same result as I had: very average sharpness. They mention that a good P&S has better results.

Well, that's it, I'm ditching the Nex and getting... no, wait, is it really that bad?

Both nex's have class leading sensors which could resolve much more with a better lens. Also the in-camera jpg sharpening is very conservative.

How come I can see visible "halo" artifacts on sharp edges when sharpness is set to zero?  Seems a bit aggressive to me.

So, everyone who is so happy with their nex 6 + 1650 lens have never compared their pictures with a good P&S!

I've never seen a good P&S then.    The RX100 is unusual with its larger sensor, but even with a kit lens on a Nex, the P&S cameras fall short very quickly.  In good light at low ISO, they can do fine.  I'd rather use my Nex most of the time.

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX5 +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads