After 3 weeks & thousands of shots: NEX-6 + Sony lenses are SUPERB!

[Mel Snyder]

I am coming to the end of 3 weeks shooting 500-700 shots a day with my NEX-6, 16-50PZ, 55-210mm zoom, 16mm + UWA and Rokinon 8mm, I have concluded that those who can't get great images with this camera and these lenses have photographic, not camera/lens issues.

And I began to realize just how pernicious the negative attitudes and information here really is. Even if your experience defies what you read here, it influences your shooting.

You actually believe that the 16-50 is a just so-so lens, and you don't use it unless pressed to do so. You don't shoot it wide open at any focal length...but when you do, the results prove the naysayers are wrong.

You actually believe the 55-210 is soft wide open at f6.3, even if your results defy that judgment...until pressed to shoot there, and results defy the naysayers again.

The smartest acquisition I made was the 16mm + UWA just before I left. In real-world travel shooting, the combination is spectacular, even wide open. Yes, the corners can be soft and distorted, as pre-trip tests showed me. But in real world shooting, there is rarely important information there. I would guess close to half my shots were with the 16+UWA. When you go into a magnificent house of worship like St. James in Prague or the Great Synagogue in Budapest, a 50mm legacy lens is as useless as a 500mm mirror:







Gad, the crap you read here about slow, inaccurate focusing and hunting here - and sure enough, it's there. But it's rarely of any importance in real-world shooting. Time after time, I would challenge focus by pressing the shutter when I knew the camera wasn't yet green-ball ready - and yet, time after time, in the microseconds between press and fire, the camera got the focus on.

And the stabilization? Wow, it has made me a believer. It is vastly better than that of my Nikon VR lenses. I shot repeatedly at 210mm f6.3 at 1/6th second - and got amazing images. Sure, if people are moving, that stabilization wasn't enough. But - for example - I came upon a Russian Orthodox ceremony in the Saint George chapel in Prague. I was way too far away to use anything but the 210mm wide open at 1/10th-1/6th and ISO 800-1600, complicated by severe backlighting from a setting sun - the faces were lit just by candlelight. The priests were rocking back and forth as they prayed, and the congregation was in constant movement as they came to communion afterwards - and yet, I still got about 1 out of 3-4 shots just fine.











Now, those who pixel-peep their lens charts and backyard petunia bokeh would be unhappy with these shots. all edited just on the iPad, no correction of any kind. But this is real world shooting. And when the light is half decent, as in this late afternoon shot of the priest at St. Stephen's in Vienna blessing pets, Sony lenses are spectacular:



I carried 3 Leica M lenses with me, and used them for less than a dozen shots. They spent most of the last 3 weeks in my B&Bs. I carried a Nikon D7000 and 2 zooms in my backpack as backup in case the NEX-6 or key lenses failed. I saw hundreds, perhaps thousands of tourists struggling with DSLRs, both FF and APS-C. Met a few with NEXes, and we'd exchange smiles and pitying glances at the DSLR toters.

One more day in Vienna, 2-1/2 in Salzburg, and then home.

My conclusion about this forum? - there are a few very knowledgeable techies here whose advice I treasure, and I will look for their postings and learn.

But most of what's put here is just background static, and it's corrosive as hell to those who actually shoot in the real world.

 

[dquangt]

I agree with you whole heartedly. you mention the 16-50, and while I don't think it's a great lens, I do feel it's more than good for most situations. my only criticism is images are a little flat color wise, but that also probably because I shoot the 24mm zeiss most of the time.

anyway, you are absolutely correct with your feelings about the complaining in this forum. bad photos usually are due to user, not equipment.

 

[Mel Snyder]

dquangt wrote:

I agree with you whole heartedly. you mention the 16-50, and while I don't think it's a great lens, I do feel it's more than good for most situations. my only criticism is images are a little flat color wise, but that also probably because I shoot the 24mm zeiss most of the time.

anyway, you are absolutely correct with your feelings about the complaining in this forum. bad photos usually are due to user, not equipment.

There are so many wonderful things one can do with a camera - any camera - and just jawboning here about their supposed defects doesn't come close to learning how to shoot around limitations.

Example: The corners of my 16+UWA distort pretty badly, although you rarely notice unless you get people in those corners, and you are really, really close:





Look at the head of the priest and the guy at the extreme right - the priest is about 2-1/2 feet away and the guy at left, about 4 feet. The 16+UWA is a 12mm optical system that costs new about half what my 11-16 Tokina for the Nikon costs. And the Tokina has the same corner distortion, at 2-1/2 to 3x the weight of the 16+UWA.

Lesson: Don't shoot people close with superwides. And if you must, tolerate what you get! I was competing for position with Vienna newspaper pros for position, so my only chance was to get closer than they could with their FF Nikons and Canons...which I did.

And when you must shoot people close, like below, put them center frame. And get a shot like this of a charming old woman proud of her cat, whose photo she wanted the priest to bless! (the guy with the photo of the priest lessing his dog was there to ask the priest to bless the memory of his pet, who died since the previous year)



SHOOT PEOPLE NOT PETUNIAS! They are the most wondrous of God's creations!

 

[nzmacro]

No doubt about it Mel. Excellent handling of the lighting conditions and also love the details and colours mate.

All the best Mel.

Danny.

 

[wictred]

Mel Snyder wrote:

Example: The corners of my 16+UWA distort pretty badly, although you rarely notice unless you get people in those corners, and you are really, really close:

It's similar with the 16-50mm lens. The corners are not an issue in most cases. Still some people seem to prefer prime lens performance from a kit zoom. Of course, prime lenses should be better (have you compared the 16m f2.8 with the PZ btw?) but then again, I would expect the same with any other kit zoom lens.

Seems you just got the last bit of sunlight in Vienna yesterday ... (the weather should get better tomorrow actually, also in Salzburg)

I mentioned the Westlicht gallery in your thread about Switzerland/Austria. I noticed that the Westlicht gallery currently hosts the World Press Photo 13 Exhibition, so if you're interested in such things, this might be something for a rainy day ...
(Not necessarily something that one might want to spend time for when being in Europe, I know - but just in case)

 

[SimonOL]

'Corrosive' - I like it! Perfectly describes the attitudes on display in one particular thread on here - can you guess which one ;-)

Seems to me that a fixation on the negatives (and subsequent endless hypothesizing) just spoils enjoyment of what is, for most, a hobby. It's supposed to be fun and we have some very versatile tools for the job!!

Nice shots Mel! Hope you plan on sharing a few more - maybe it will start a positivity revolution. Bring it on :-D

 

[steveleica]

Nice to read your positive comments here Mel. I bought a zeiss 1670 and although probably overpriced to me the iq was great in my eyes (I am no pro or expert but just wanted the best and versatility) . However after reading all the negative comments on this forum about corner performance etc etc I starting thinking maybe I should return it. Your comments may well have changed my mind and just be happy with my expectations rather than others.

 

[joger]

Mel Snyder wrote:

. . . . The smartest acquisition I made was the 16mm + UWA just before I left. In real-world travel shooting, the combination is spectacular, even wide open. Yes, the corners can be soft and distorted, as pre-trip tests showed me. But in real world shooting, there is rarely important information there. I would guess close to half my shots were with the 16+UWA. When you go into a magnificent house of worship like St. James in Prague or the Great Synagogue in Budapest, a 50mm legacy lens is as useless as a 500mm mirror:

oh sure - just a bit noisy and underexposed and a bit to narrow for my taste - Participated tih the FF NEX discussion and this is an example where FF and a TS-E 17 from Canon would do the job quite nicely ;-)

















I am really looking forward to a FF NEX with > 36 Mpixel and some of my favorite lenses like the TS-E 17 and TS-E 90





--
__________________________________
isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein
don't feed trolls - ignore them

 

[Mel Snyder]

Mel Snyder wrote:

. . . . The smartest acquisition I made was the 16mm + UWA just before I left. In real-world travel shooting, the combination is spectacular, even wide open. Yes, the corners can be soft and distorted, as pre-trip tests showed me. But in real world shooting, there is rarely important information there. I would guess close to half my shots were with the 16+UWA. When you go into a magnificent house of worship like St. James in Prague or the Great Synagogue in Budapest, a 50mm legacy lens is as useless as a 500mm mirror:

oh sure - just a bit noisy and underexposed and a bit to narrow for my taste - Participated tih the FF NEX discussion and this is an example where FF and a TS-E 17 from Canon would do the job quite nicely ;-)

















I am really looking forward to a FF NEX with > 36 Mpixel and some of my favorite lenses like the TS-E 17 and TS-E 90





--
__________________________________
isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein
don't feed trolls - ignore them

Wait till I get home and can do more than grab a few random shots from my SD cards, and get Lightroom running. A 64gb iPad has limited space - and I'm spending time shooting, not editing.

Unless you're shooting covers for Elle or National geographic, FF is overkill. For what? -bragging rights on the forum? Most of us would rather take the difference in price between an NEX-6 and any FF, and head for some exciting destination far from our homes.

 

[Mel Snyder]

Mel Snyder wrote:

Example: The corners of my 16+UWA distort pretty badly, although you rarely notice unless you get people in those corners, and you are really, really close:

It's similar with the 16-50mm lens. The corners are not an issue in most cases. Still some people seem to prefer prime lens performance from a kit zoom. Of course, prime lenses should be better (have you compared the 16m f2.8 with the PZ btw?) but then again, I would expect the same with any other kit zoom lens.

Seems you just got the last bit of sunlight in Vienna yesterday ... (the weather should get better tomorrow actually, also in Salzburg)

I mentioned the Westlicht gallery in your thread about Switzerland/Austria. I noticed that the Westlicht gallery currently hosts the World Press Photo 13 Exhibition, so if you're interested in such things, this might be something for a rainy day ...
(Not necessarily something that one might want to spend time for when being in Europe, I know - but just in case)

Thanks for the tip re World Press - I passed posters for it in Budapest but the weather was too good to spend in museums or galleries. But the show is open till 7pm tonight, their web site says - we're staying near Muzeumstrasse, so that's VERY interesting.

I take it you're in Vienna? Where?

 

[joger]

Mel Snyder wrote:

Mel Snyder wrote:

. . . . The smartest acquisition I made was the 16mm + UWA just before I left. In real-world travel shooting, the combination is spectacular, even wide open. Yes, the corners can be soft and distorted, as pre-trip tests showed me. But in real world shooting, there is rarely important information there. I would guess close to half my shots were with the 16+UWA. When you go into a magnificent house of worship like St. James in Prague or the Great Synagogue in Budapest, a 50mm legacy lens is as useless as a 500mm mirror:

oh sure - just a bit noisy and underexposed and a bit to narrow for my taste - Participated tih the FF NEX discussion and this is an example where FF and a TS-E 17 from Canon would do the job quite nicely ;-)







I am really looking forward to a FF NEX with > 36 Mpixel and some of my favorite lenses like the TS-E 17 and TS-E 90

Wait till I get home and can do more than grab a few random shots from my SD cards, and get Lightroom running. A 64gb iPad has limited space - and I'm spending time shooting, not editing.

Unless you're shooting covers for Elle or National geographic, FF is overkill. For what? -bragging rights on the forum? Most of us would rather take the difference in price between an NEX-6 and any FF, and head for some exciting destination far from our homes.

see - I was there too - it is not about bragging - it is about enjoying what you do - and my Mac Book Air is hardly heavier then your tablet and works fine on tour for my images - I spend almost no time on image processing - LR does a fantastic job in almost no time - all above images have got only very limited processing time - maybe a few seconds.

I look forward to the FF NEX - >36 Mpixel plus my beloved lenses.



and btw - I don't need a crop sized camera too - my 8 MPixel iPhone does a very nice job for travel purpose - that's as much as I need for travel purposes




iphone (single shot)



--
__________________________________
isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein
don't feed trolls - ignore them

 

[Ralph46]

Mel,

You are so right once more. Can you imagine the great photographers of the past examining the corners of their best images with magnifying glasses to see if the details are pin-sharp. Certain posters just are to be pitied if this is their only criteria for a good photo. I am using my legacy primes less because the supposed definition superiority seems less and less important compared to the message of the photo.

A certain quality minimum is necesssary for acceptable pictures, and I feel this is more than given by the 16-50PZ and 55-210mm. Those are my travel lenses and I am more than happy with them (after many years of Canons and $800 lenses. Photography is about enjoying your experiences and not being a pack slave. With the NEX system I have achieved my ideal for holidays and longer trips. My legacy lenses will still be used close to home, but the value of the picture is the content and not if it has 1300 lpm in the extreme edges.

I could have been tempted by the Zeiss 16-70 but you dont hear many good things about it for about a grand. So I will be staying with my 16-50 and 55-210 for a while.(Same weight anyway)

P.S put a twin lens achromat of +2 or +3 on the 55-210mm and you have a killer macro down to 1:1 if you stop down to about f/8 (which you will do for DOF anyway.

Keeep up the good work Mel,

you know what real photography is about.

Cheers,

Ralph

 

[joger]

Ralph46 wrote:

. . . A certain quality minimum is necesssary for acceptable pictures . . .

but where to start and where to end?



If you would have asked Ansel Adams, Andreas Feininger or Edward Weston . . . you might get an interesting answer



the iPhone is good enough already for most travel purposes - very IMHO of course



beyond that it's all a question about personal taste - as long as you don't have photography as you profession - if it is you profession the only questions is what you client is willing to pay.



another shot with my iPhone (maybe 20 seconds treatment in LR)




iPhone panoramic shot in one go - no further geometric treatment later on



--
__________________________________
isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein
don't feed trolls - ignore them

 

[Dave Lively]

Superb is a relative term. If that describes the 55-210 what currently produced lens would you call mediocre?

There seems to be more than the usual amount of variation with how the 55-210 performs but soft wide open at 210 is the rule, not the exception.

As an unashamed gearhead over the past 8 years I have experimented with or used 4 different camera systems over the past 8 years. Even if I am just curious about a system I buy the camera with the standard and telephoto zooms. So I have first hand experience with both the m43 and 43 Olympus 40-150, the Olympus 43 70-300 and the Nikon 70-300. When it comes to optical performance the Olympus 70-300 and Sony 55-210 are at the bottom of this group. When it comes to price only the Nikon 70-300 cost more than the 55-210. In terms of image stabilization I would rate the Nikon 70-300 and Sony 55-210 about the same. I cannot think of a single area where I would rate the 55-210 as the top performer. That does not make the 55-210 a bad lens but it falls far short of superb.

In addition to the 55-210 I also own a manual focus Canon 300mm f4 L lens. If the 55-210 is superb we are going to have to invent an new adjective to describe the optical performance of that lens. There are modern lenses for other systems that perform even better and have autofocus and IS. They are going to need a new adjective too.

I am not going to sell my 55-210. It is light, compact, has autofocus, good IS and once stopped down has adequate image quality. It gets used more than my Canon 300mm f4. But I am keeping it because there are currently no better alternatives, not because I think it is a great lens. If I did not own one I would describe it as mediocre. Since I do own one I tend to defend my choice by calling it adequate.

 

[Amamba]

16/2.8 and 16-50 are stunning examples of exceptional optical design and uncanny quality control.

You just need a lifetime of professional photography experience before you can utilize their superior quality.

Ideal shooting conditions would help, too.

All those other lenses are for wimps.

(Just pulling your leg here Mel )

 

[bill hansen]

Mel - Thanks for posting these inspiring images. Regardless of what lens or camera was used, these are the sort of things most of us aspire to when we use our own cameras.

Can you tell us the EXIF of the cathedral shot? That's an especially arresting one - though the "blessing" images are just as wonderful.

As for separating those who post to DPR into the elite few who are technologically expert, and the rest of us who are (your post implies) ignorant complainers, I think a little tolerance and understanding are in order. Most people are average. Most photographers are average. People new to an activity are very rarely experts, and as such they have lots of misunderstandings, and lots of questions, which can annoy those elite technocrats - if the elite technocrats aren't interested in spreading the good word, aren't interested in teaching. Keeping in mind that this is a public forum and that many (most?) of those who post here are relatively new to photography, not to mention new to the NEX and its lenses, I don't think we should be surprised that some of the more expert people can get results which the rest of us can only envy.

I don't mean to complain about your post. I agree with almost everything you wrote. I only want us all to keep open minds, to remember that DPR is primarily a gear-head oriented site rather than an artistically oriented one, and that there's a wide spectrum of expertise permitted and encouraged. Those of us who are inexpert and of less than average artistic ability *are* entitled to enjoy our hobby and to express our opinions and results with the equipment we use.

 

[t5miami]

joger wrote:

Ralph46 wrote:

. . . A certain quality minimum is necesssary for acceptable pictures . . .

the iPhone is good enough already for most travel purposes - very IMHO of course

another shot with my iPhone (maybe 20 seconds treatment in LR)


iPhone panoramic shot in one go - no further geometric treatment later on

The iPhone certainly works as you have shown. I just processed a pano for a friend from his i5 and he is kicking himself for not having a bigger sensor with him. He wants to hang it on the wall and realizes the limits of the small sensor size for enlarging it. Thats his opinion. You can only do so much with the jpegs ooc (phone).

--
t5

 

[Mel Snyder]

Nice to read your positive comments here Mel. I bought a zeiss 1670 and although probably overpriced to me the iq was great in my eyes (I am no pro or expert but just wanted the best and versatility) . However after reading all the negative comments on this forum about corner performance etc etc I starting thinking maybe I should return it. Your comments may well have changed my mind and just be happy with my expectations rather than others.

I haven't studied the new 16-70, but its a very interesting range. I am waiting to see what an updated NEX-7 might offer before committing more money to E mount lenses. If it has a pro mic input, I'll likely buy it and sell my D7000s and associated lenses - and then spring for the 10-18, then the 16-70.

You have the right attitude - just shoot what you own!

 

[Mel Snyder]

A mediocre lens is one that, despite its optical characteristics, is too heavy to carry with you all the time.

A mediocre lens is one you cannot afford, and you regret so much not owning it that you don't aggressively shoot with what you DO own.

A mediocre lens is one that is so expensive you must sacrifice more important things in your life in order to own it.

A mediocre lens is one everyone on the forum says is great, but after acquiring it, you can't see the difference it makes in your photography, and you begin to doubt your abilities as a photographer.

A mediocre lens is one you never shoot enough to learn its strengths and weaknesses - how to make the most of one, and minimize the effects of the other.

A mediocre lens is one you are ashamed to admit you own, one whose images you compromise by your negative attitude.

A mediocre lens is one that you used to think was great simply because you got nice photos with it, and then Photozone or DPREVIEW or some crepe-hanger with a test chart on the forum said it sucked compared to brand X on a brand Y camera, and it became mediocre.

Those are a few explanations of what I consider general descriptions of mediocre lenses, Dave. I know good lenses - I have a 35mm f1.4 Summilux, a 50mm f2 Summicron and a 90mm f2.8 Tele-Elmarit not 5 feet from me now. And yes, I can tell the difference in some shots between those made with them vs. the Sony lenses. But none is wide, and all would take more time to switch lenses and manually focus than the Sonys.

So that makes them "mediocre" in my book.

Dave Lively wrote:

Superb is a relative term. If that describes the 55-210 what currently produced lens would you call mediocre?

There seems to be more than the usual amount of variation with how the 55-210 performs but soft wide open at 210 is the rule, not the exception.

As an unashamed gearhead over the past 8 years I have experimented with or used 4 different camera systems over the past 8 years. Even if I am just curious about a system I buy the camera with the standard and telephoto zooms. So I have first hand experience with both the m43 and 43 Olympus 40-150, the Olympus 43 70-300 and the Nikon 70-300. When it comes to optical performance the Olympus 70-300 and Sony 55-210 are at the bottom of this group. When it comes to price only the Nikon 70-300 cost more than the 55-210. In terms of image stabilization I would rate the Nikon 70-300 and Sony 55-210 about the same. I cannot think of a single area where I would rate the 55-210 as the top performer. That does not make the 55-210 a bad lens but it falls far short of superb.

In addition to the 55-210 I also own a manual focus Canon 300mm f4 L lens. If the 55-210 is superb we are going to have to invent an new adjective to describe the optical performance of that lens. There are modern lenses for other systems that perform even better and have autofocus and IS. They are going to need a new adjective too.

I am not going to sell my 55-210. It is light, compact, has autofocus, good IS and once stopped down has adequate image quality. It gets used more than my Canon 300mm f4. But I am keeping it because there are currently no better alternatives, not because I think it is a great lens. If I did not own one I would describe it as mediocre. Since I do own one I tend to defend my choice by calling it adequate.

 

[BartjeVanIlse]

Loved reading this