 |
darkref
Lives in
United Kingdom
Works as a
Student, Mathematics.
Joined on
Dec 25, 2010
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
Griffo 155: A 20mm f2.8 lens about a 34mm f4 ish, then at full frame, at $350 (about £250) thats a lot of money for that type of lens - Can Sony warrant that price?
I dont think so...
When you compare the Nikon 1 lenses (in this case 10mm f2.8 @ £179) which are sharper and probably better made, the Nikon 1 range is beginning to look like a viable product... In addition to that the resulting images from the Nikon 1 are better than that of the Sony Nex range despite having a smaller sensor sizes....
All in all Nikon have got the market right no interference on their Dx range...
Here is a better comparison for you then. http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6996435336/photos/2403752/comparison2 . Raw filed, 0 sharpening exported to the same dimensions (in favour of the Nikon). It is completely undeniable that the quality does not compare. Aqua skies is a subjective thing.
Griffo 155: A 20mm f2.8 lens about a 34mm f4 ish, then at full frame, at $350 (about £250) thats a lot of money for that type of lens - Can Sony warrant that price?
I dont think so...
When you compare the Nikon 1 lenses (in this case 10mm f2.8 @ £179) which are sharper and probably better made, the Nikon 1 range is beginning to look like a viable product... In addition to that the resulting images from the Nikon 1 are better than that of the Sony Nex range despite having a smaller sensor sizes....
All in all Nikon have got the market right no interference on their Dx range...
Yeh look at that awesome image quality http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6996435336/photos/2402648/comparison.
Also, mirrorless will NEVER catch up with full frame.
poorfatjames: I'm a layperson, but I don't get it. Why go through the trouble of making another pancake f2.8 when they already have the 16mm? Unless it has much better image quality.
it does apparently, although I would still bet the 19mm from sigma is much better
Benarm: Another 18-200? Why? Something like 16-80/F3.5-4.5 would be so much better for the NEX line (yes, the NEX version of SAL-1680Z).
There is a high quality zoom on the way.
wakaba: It has less than 50% capabilites of a Nikkor Nikon 35mm f/1.8G DX AF-S Nikkor, is 50% more expensive and goes on a camera that cannot keep up with a 8 year old Nikon D50.
Who buys this crap?
Nex sensors are on par or better to most other cameras. You can look at studio comparison tool, or dxo mark. That's why people but it. Because smart people can use smart sensors to make great photos. Smart people also do not buy age old cameras with terrible sensors in comparison. The lens capabilities of the any mirror less camera completely dwarfs any SLR.
You would have to be clinically insane to buy an old SLR over a new mirrorless camera.
Sam Carriere: Sony is a company that deserves to fail.
What do you suppose the ETA for this thing now is? 2017?
RIP Olympus.
why do they deserve to fail?
Younes B: I wander what thought process lead to review this bag rather than the numerous other similar bags on the market?
It makes sense to review these bags, as they are new on the market, not like lowepro who have been around for a while and their bags are already mostly great as everyone knows. This is the alternative.
I bought a smaller version of this bag (Manfrotto solo II), and I do not like it (I had no choice, it was the only bag big and small enough). The metal buckler is pointless, it weighs the bag down (it can't stay up on its own) and can scratch anything as you pull your camera out. On the smaller versions at least, one side of the neck strap is sewn to the bag, so it is not removable. There is no padding on the bottom, the zip line is not on a horizontal plane, which makes unzipping and zipping needlessly tricky. Good quality, and looks great.
Alan Brown: was it a Billion dollars to send this to Mars? (vaguely remember this figure in a news broadcast.. might be a whole lot more. )
Great inovations and technical skills to get it there .. no doubt abut that. But you can't walk here on Earth in the daytime and feel 100% safe.
begs the question....
oh, did you want that 1 billion to be put in to the US military budget which costs around $700 billion a year?
Paul Farace: Looks very nice, except it lacks a viewfinder (optical), a hotshoe (geezundheit!), and it's rather pricey! Come on Sony, you did it back in 2003/4... :o)
a viewfinder would be completely worthless, it would add size and viewfinders of that size are usually terrible and would only be used as a last resort
why are there comments praising the camera? am I still on d-preview?
nicolaiecostel: Absolute, 100% sharpness. Perfect BW look, great looking grain, perfectly usable high ISO's. What Leica is doing with this camera is what other manufacturess only dream that they could have the courage to do. This is the esence of photography, no VR, no AF, no silly nanny-state between you and creation.
This is a punch in the throat to a world that thinks in megapixels, video mode features and frames per second, a world that ushers in a new generation of cameras every year, each manufacturer competing for the bells and whistles award. But is thia photograpy all about ? Leica has been about that decisive moment, anticipated and prepared, not machinegunned at 10 fps. If Leica will go down after this, if these really are it's last decisions before it is consigned to the history books, it will go down with one last show, like Zidane headbutting Materazzi in the chest, in the World Cup final. They may have lost the game, but he defended his honor.
"£6,120"
darkref: I wish I had enough money to buy both nex-7 and e-m5 :(
because I found it almost impossible to choose between them :)
I wish I had enough money to buy both nex-7 and e-m5 :(
looks good
Then4: How can Olympus OM-D E-M5 jpeg iso 100 be 9.4mb compare to Nex-5n 5.3 mb. Same sensor size. Feel like a cheat in compression or?
5n and em-5 do not have the same sensor size (4/3 vs apsc)
bajanexile: "OneGuy has not uploaded any photos to their gallery yet.". So many opinions from so many people, yet not a single image posted and this seems to be true for most of the people contributing to these posts. It would be interesting to see some images from you all. We might take your comments a bit more seriously. I value opinions from people who can actually take a half-decent picture. As it stands, this is open to debate. The way to overcome doubt is to supply proof. Any salesman will confirm this. Let's see some of your pictures on line.
@OneGuy, your decision on buying a camera is based on (and I quote) "one look at the hair next to a blue clock "? Dpreview spent time writing a very thorough review and your opinion is based on a very specific part of the comparison tool at a certain ISO?
I would agree the clock (and the hair next to it) looks bad at all ISOs in JPEG and RAW, so I'm not sure what's wrong here, but in many other places (and most, in my eyes) the Nex 7 is very good (comparing to the d7000 which everyone seems to be doing). But I'm not going to buy the camera because of this, and I'm not going to not buy it because the hair next to the blue clock looks bad. (damn typos)
powerbook duo: Anyone else wishing for this body with 5n's sensor with the price somewhere inbetween?
the price increase does not come from the sensor so this will not happen.
miketala: It's odd to compare this with cameras that cost--at most--1/2 the price. I get that it's mirrorless, but with lenses it's simply not as compact as m43, and at least one of the adapters appears to be as large as the camera itself.
A comparison with a similarly priced camera using a similar sized sensor, e.g. the D7000, is highly warranted and it's simply silly and unprofessional that DPR failed to do this.
Comparing it with the best pana/oylmpus have to offer, they cost about £850 w/14-42 and the nex7 is £1130 (in the UK at least). I think it's more sensible to compare it to them than to the d7000. How many people are going to choose between a nex7 and a d7000?
BackInTheGame: However, like other cameras that rely on contrast-detection autofocus, it doesn't have continuous AF performance to match.
How does this very short comment with huge ramifications get buried so deeply? Why wasn't it mentioned on the first page? How did it not make it to the CONS list? How is it not the first item in the list? Is it primarily a manual focus camera? I have no stake in the camera, but when a camera costing this much money has a suspect AF system it calls into question exactly what the agenda is with your ratings. Just saying....
I don't really agree, some macbooks cost the same price, but you can't compare, they are different products. If I wanted a camera with a mirror, I would probably get a d7000. But I don't. Of course, this camera is not brilliant for shooting fast action, but neither are the other mirrorless cameras (with the exception of the nikon, but as dpreview said, that camera has a completely different audience).
The adapter does seem big. But it's not meant to be attatched to the camera all the time, it's just for people who want to use their existing lenses.
Everyone keeps saying how big the nex camera are when they have their lenses attatched. Once you have used one though, especially in travel, it's hard to go back.
But I am confused to why Sony can't make an autofocus system similar to the nikons. It doesn't hold the camera back though, at least until canon/pana/olympus/fuji come up with something similar to the nex with fast autofocus.