Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Images from latest Sony E-mount lenses on NEX-6

By dpreview staff on Oct 11, 2012 at 21:50 GMT

Just Posted: Sony E-mount 10-18mm F4, 35mm F1.8 and 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 Power Zoom lens samples on the NEX-6. Our last set of images from the Sony press trip is a series shot with the latest NEX camera and the three E-mount lenses announced at Photokina - E 10-18mm F4 OSS super-wide-angle zoom, the E 35mm F1.8 OSS fast normal prime, and the E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS power zoom. We've selected ten images shot with each lens and compiled a combined gallery. Full-size images are, as ever, available for download.

Sony NEX-6 preview samples - Published 11th October 2012

There are 30 images in the samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. Because our review images are now hosted on the 'galleries' section of dpreview.com, you can enjoy all of the new galleries functionality when browsing these samples.

Comments

Total comments: 127
12
cluening
By cluening (Oct 13, 2012)

Edit: Had a look on the 16-50 full size. It doesnt seem to be worse than an average 18-55 sample, possibly there might be sharper samples later. But surely still is small in size. So ok up to me.

1 upvote
cluening
By cluening (Oct 13, 2012)

To me, the pics look kinda good and normal for the NEX system. You surely have to tweak sharpening setting to +2, contrast and DRO, to get Canon-like results out of box. Same with PP, there is enough headroom.
Never questioned a jpg with standard settings. Do not see sharpening artifacts, so whats the problem?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Tape5
By Tape5 (Oct 13, 2012)

'And God placed the gigantic disc of earth....'

Last time I checked it was a sphere.

1 upvote
kozack
By kozack (Oct 14, 2012)

It looks like disc from cosmos. Anyway, you are at the wrong forum section.

0 upvotes
maxnimo
By maxnimo (Oct 13, 2012)

You know what I think happened here.... most of the test shots were jpeg-compressed at 50% quality instead of 98% quality, either accidentally of on purpose.

0 upvotes
jafary
By jafary (Oct 13, 2012)

a look at this gallery: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/8256532860/albums/sony-nex-6-images
gives a better impression about the new 16-50. Basically any image with a focal length different than 50, 30 and 24 is taken with this lens. The quality is much better than in the pics posted by dpreview tester, even at high ISO. Is that due to a sample (big) variation? or because of a proper setting of the camera?

1 upvote
naththo
By naththo (Oct 13, 2012)

Jafary, it is not a test....it was a pre production demonstration they were given permission by Sony for those quick sample. They haven't started review or test the lens properly yet. They were told what to do and what not to do.

1 upvote
jafary
By jafary (Oct 12, 2012)

How come so many people throwing definitive judgement based on one set of snapshots from one tester that used the camera for a few hours, possibly on a pre-production sample? Other pics posted on this forum (by webgeek) and on other websites shows better results for the 16-50. I ordered this camera with the kit lens and I will calmly wait for other serious reviews and my own tests when it arrives. Only then I will decide if it satisfies me (compared to an APS-C DSLR) or if I will simply return it and look for other options.

6 upvotes
iudex
By iudex (Oct 12, 2012)

Because it is a tester that has tested dozens of other cameras and lenses, did similar samples many times before and is aware that he is shooting first pistures that will be thoroughly evaluated and judged. So these samples have some value and if they are not on par with competitors (pictures shot by the same person and under similar circumstances), something is wrong and you cannot just deny the bad outcome.
On the other hand it may be a lens variation, that especially the lens that dpreview had for testing was wrong.
I know it from personal experience, I have just bought a lens that showed very weak performance; asked for a new one and the other one (I received only yesterday and am just testing it) is much better. So if I judged according the first lens I would say the XY lens is awful; considering the second lens it is perfectly OK.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Cane
By Cane (Oct 13, 2012)

Because that what old men on camera forums do. They do it to every sample set, from the best cameras to the worst. This is what you do when your only company is a cat.

3 upvotes
Phil_MI
By Phil_MI (Oct 12, 2012)

I thought it was a good sampling of various subject matter. I wouldn't mind having a chance at "test driving" the latest photo gear offerings from any of the manufacturers. :)

phil

0 upvotes
jonikon
By jonikon (Oct 12, 2012)

The worst of the lot by far is the E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS, which does not even come close to doing an APS-C sensor justice. Only the very center is reasonably sharp and it quickly gets softer going out from there. I was surprised how much distortion the E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS has, even at 50mm. I have pocket cameras that have better lenses than that!

1 upvote
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (Oct 12, 2012)

And you got that from these pics???

3 upvotes
jonikon
By jonikon (Oct 12, 2012)

Yep, the distortion is very obvious even without downloading the originals,(which I also did to check for sharpness). Just look at the photo of the guy in the red shirt holding the wine glass. Now look at the vertical elements in the scene and you will see the high degree of distortion even here at 50mm. Given a decent lens, there should be very little or no discernible distortion in at 50mm on an APS-C senso.. Also in the window sill there is a lot of veiling flare, which reminds me of the problem of using my old Minolta lenses on the a700. Not a very good performance for this particular Sony lens, I'm afraid.
Sony needs to do a lot of work to improve their NEX lens quality.

1 upvote
Mike Sandman
By Mike Sandman (Oct 12, 2012)

With all due respect, I downloaded that image, displayed the grid in Photoshop and carefully rotated the image to align the window frame, inside shutter and pool cue with the grid. I did that because it's hard to judge distortion when the straight lines are at a slight angle due to rotation of the image. The lines of those vertical elements are straight, not distorted. Take the time to try it yourself and you may change your mind.

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
ZeevK
By ZeevK (Oct 13, 2012)

Distortion? I do not see any reasonable distortion problem at any of the 16-50 samples, definitely not around the 50mm end. Look at 21 sample -there are plenty of straight lines very close to frame edge with only a minimal degree of visible distortion, IMHO indeed very low distortion regarding the type of lens we are talking about.

It looks to me that beside these samples being quite poorly shot, mot people are just carried away with the flood of negativity....

0 upvotes
SunnyFlorida
By SunnyFlorida (Oct 15, 2012)

Jonikon recently purchased a discontinued Nikon V1 and he is trying to validate his purchasing decission by thrashing other mirrorless sytems

0 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (Oct 12, 2012)

People stop being so negative. Im sure the RAW output is great. We arent talking about a Fuji X camera here. These Jpegs arent the best. Atleast with this camera the RAW output will be extremely malleable, unlike the Fuji's. Pull the shadows +3EV....no problem...

The 16-50 looks good. All of the rest, the NR is too strong to really tell.

Ive seen other samples of the 16-50 though. It looks to be an EXTREMELY useful lens. Its small and has a great range with a true wide angle. Doesnt get any better then that. Its atleast as good as the 18-55.

The 16-50 with the 24 and 50 or the 35 and....hopefully coming 85mm F2/2.8 and your good to go.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Mike Sandman
By Mike Sandman (Oct 12, 2012)

Thanks for posting these. I've ordered the NEX-6 hoping that the 16-50 lens would be better than the 18-55, and despite the complaints here, the shots are useful and I'm somewhat encouraged about the 16-50.

Comment edited 10 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Colin Dutton
By Colin Dutton (Oct 12, 2012)

At last a voice of reason! I found them useful too and am also encouraged. I was worried after looking at the 'official' shots from Alaska but these show more promise.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 13, 2012)

Not sure where you got that from but raw files from the X-Pro1 are every bit as malleable as my Pentax K-30 (16 mp exmor sensor). Compared to NEFs from my D800, the X-Pro1 files have not quite the ability to push and pull highlights and shadows, but they are not too far off.

But fine detail is much crisper than what I'm seeing here. It may be the lack of AA-filter in the X-Pro1, and the quality of the lenses, but my goodness they are sharp and detailed without looking brittle like Foveon images have the tendency look.

0 upvotes
pete24
By pete24 (Oct 12, 2012)

Dpreview is a great site,
The Nex-6 and some of the lenses just seem to be totaly lousy..
The NR seems to be quite stronger then the one of the Nex-5N.

3 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (Oct 12, 2012)

Well knowing the NR setting would be helpful. Im sure the RAW output is 10x better. It would be better to wait for the full review before making any judgements.

I do agree with the NR on these particular shots though.

0 upvotes
Paul_B Midlands UK
By Paul_B Midlands UK (Oct 12, 2012)

wow, so much negativity - working at DP Review you must continuously be having to take serious amounts of anti-depressants and have some take a suicide watch over you's ... I love my NEX 5N, for now maybe I better stick with it.

7 upvotes
Tape5
By Tape5 (Oct 13, 2012)

I thought only the Australian utility van drivers make YOU plural by adding S.

0 upvotes
Leiduowen
By Leiduowen (Oct 18, 2012)

In addition to reviewing photographic equipment this has recently been my favorite site to study English - esp. the discussion section :)

0 upvotes
zeniu17
By zeniu17 (Oct 12, 2012)

I was hoping to see more F1.8 shots done with the 35mm lens. That's the main reason anybody would buy this lens.

0 upvotes
TonyC5D
By TonyC5D (Oct 12, 2012)

Sorry guys but, yet again, a very poor set of pictures. Lots of out of focus or blurry shots, and why the very high ISO samples, or is this a joint test of camera and lens. If so I think it would be much better to do these separately. Many shots are at low shutter speeds which will not help unless you were using a very sturdy tripod. This is supposedly the best review site on the web and your technical write ups are excellent but you do keep letting things down with poor quality galleries. Sorry but more attention needed I think. Having worked for camera manufacturers for many years I would feel rather aggrieved with the apparent lack of effort and technical skill put into the gallery shots.

1 upvote
Simon Joinson
By Simon Joinson (Oct 12, 2012)

It's not a test. It's not a review. It's a quick gallery of images. It's an attempt to grab a ton of shots in a very short time with a bunch of lens and camera combinations at a press event. We had no control of when or where these were taken. This is the only way we could get access to usable cameras. There will be more, more considered shots to follow. Just to reiterate, this was NOT a test of either lens or body.

8 upvotes
jonikon
By jonikon (Oct 12, 2012)

Some nice artsy pics, but it would be more informative if your photographers selected scenes that allow comparison between center sharpness and edge sharpness. Lots of lenses are sharp dead center these days, but it's how they perform across the frame that separates the good from the ugly.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (Oct 12, 2012)

NEX-6 runs without AA filter too, like NEX-7 and RX 1. Look the picture 2264079 in full size, and look how many moire pattern you find in the curbs of the leafs of the Pampa grass. They are all excellent cameras, but they have all that problem, same as D800E from Nikon.

0 upvotes
NektonFi
By NektonFi (Oct 12, 2012)

I was unable to locate any moire on this:
http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/2264079.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1350053693&Signature=sOKR0AUXqaTvdziUBcTtM5pfnUg%3d

secondly, NEX-6, NEX-7 and RX-1 do have AA-filters.

3 upvotes
Ryan_Valiente
By Ryan_Valiente (Oct 12, 2012)

Currently all Sony cameras have AA Filter man.

4 upvotes
jonikon
By jonikon (Oct 12, 2012)

I think what you are seeing is not moire, but rather the affects of processing high levels of CA out of the image.

0 upvotes
tex
By tex (Oct 12, 2012)

Ummmm....not a super helpful gallery, imo. I have no real sense of how that 10-18 is performing at all. Please just let's have some dull, but instructive, test shots at all apertures. They don't have to be bench quality at this stage, but something more than this, surely. No offense or disrespect intended.

2 upvotes
Joel Benford
By Joel Benford (Oct 12, 2012)

Every sample from the 10-18 I've seen felt miserable, but then every sample I've seen was in miserable weather. I am a very emotional lens evaluator, I guess.

For general character and intuitive like/dislike reaction, the 35 and the standard zoom seem alright. Can't say about the peeping aspects.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
jenbenn
By jenbenn (Oct 12, 2012)

Hm most of the samples are good, except for the last ones of the 16-50mm lens. The shots taken at 49 and50mm are either comletly out of focus or have been smoothed tremendously by Noise reduction ( not likley, since they were taken at ISO 100).
DPReview please check, these last two pics are so soft, it cant be duie to bad lens quality.
Also, most people buy a UWA lens to use it at its widest setting. I think you should at least provide a few test shots at 10mm fromthat lens. If I wanted to shoot at 16mm or longer I'd go for a cheper lens.

0 upvotes
samuelkwok
By samuelkwok (Oct 12, 2012)

Are you sure that the UWA lens can be used on 16-50mm lens?
OR there will be a new UWA adapter for the new lens?

0 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (Oct 12, 2012)

The last shot is with 2x clear image zoom.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Oct 12, 2012)

Are those straight OOC JPEGs or processed?

0 upvotes
SirSeth
By SirSeth (Oct 12, 2012)

I'm surprised that at web sizes these pictures suffer. I suspect it will be a case of "shoot RAW to get the best out of the NEX6 because JPG is smearing each shot to smitherines." But what is up with the metering? Many shots underexposed. Is it user error, the gray day, or does NEX need positive compensation? Time will tell, and this is only one look.

0 upvotes
samuelkwok
By samuelkwok (Oct 12, 2012)

I am a NEX 5, C3 and 5N user.
Most of my photos are underexposed at around -0.3EV..
I believe NEX has a tendency to produce underexposed pictures... I usually apply a +0.3EV for my shots...

0 upvotes
Roland Schulz
By Roland Schulz (Oct 12, 2012)

In respect to the price of the 10-18 4.0 I had expected more. From what I see here I´m very disapointed.
I do not expect Nikon 14-24 2.8 (best UWW on earth in my eyes) quality, but the samples here a pretty soft.
I really hope the 12mm CZ will be BETTER.

0 upvotes
onkelboffen
By onkelboffen (Oct 12, 2012)

The samples over at Steve Huffs site are better.

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
a-flying-wuss
By a-flying-wuss (Oct 12, 2012)

Most of which are heavily processed, even over-processed considering the level of noise in some of his low-iso shots. Not that useful for evaluating a sensor/lens performance...

2 upvotes
Todor Bodurov
By Todor Bodurov (Oct 12, 2012)

Shooting at random places, at random directions with random settings would produce photos about as useful as those here. Isn't there, at DP Review, anybody who knows how to take sample photos? Or are you intending to discredit Sony? But, whatever you are doing, thanks for trying.

1 upvote
spidermoon
By spidermoon (Oct 12, 2012)

This is exactly what usualy people do, they put the default lense, use the green mode and take photo, "real" photographer who knows rule of third, how and when to switch in advanced mode or change white balance are a minority ;)

0 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Oct 12, 2012)

You're describing 'real world' samples. And believe it or not you're supposed to actually use the various available settings in the real word. Sure they aren't works of art and the weather didn't help either. But studio samples will be here later i'm sure, don't worry.

0 upvotes
mikeydread
By mikeydread (Oct 12, 2012)

Oh NO!These are shockingly BAD - really soft, lacking in colour and contrast and full of artifacts and smoothing. Even at low ISO. Unbelievably bad. I have been holding out for this but these have completely made up my mind, I couldn't put up with quality this low.

1 upvote
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Oct 12, 2012)

I think you guys are doing it all wrong, instead of blowing the pic up and expecting perfection you should look at them at the sort of size you would print/post at. They actually aren't bad at all, much better than my D40 and I get nothing but compliments for my shots. And that is the thing about photography, a good photo is a good photo, no-one gives a damn if the low level shadows are smeared, they won't even notice if the pic is good enough.

You guys should get out more and take some pics rather than worrying about the pixels. a good camera is the one that doesn't get in the way of what you want to do.

5 upvotes
le_alain
By le_alain (Oct 12, 2012)

Hugo, buy glasses, at every size the landscape are SO bad !
and if you go on a hardware forum it's to inquire about hardware.
no complain about the photographers who take tehes pics or creativity, but only on the results

DPREVIEW helped me make my choice since 11 years
Thanks for your job

0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (Oct 12, 2012)

Yeah Hugo you are right really. Pixel peep sounds silly though really. Its all camera can do best at high iso. Also reminds me that monitor cannot render picture well if it is higher pixel than the monitor display is set to. It may look interpolated on your screen for example you have 1920 x 1080 set on but image is bigger than that it may look ugly as monitor had to resample it to try make it look best but not that perfect to see it though. Best to view bit smaller than your screen set at and it looks better. Remember film is the same, it will look awful if you blow up on screen to 100% actual pixel after you scan. It looks like millions dots of blue/green/red dots not picture. It looks fine when I look at just smaller than screen size of those sony sample pic nothing wrong really. It looks good in sharpness and good colours. Maybe a tad bit mushy but not that bad at all really. It is not perfect in high iso anyway. My 7D isn't perfect in high iso as well, same boat to Sony.

1 upvote
naththo
By naththo (Oct 12, 2012)

I should perhap show off sample of high iso in JPG with noise reduction apply. I am sure it will be nearly same as Sony no doubt.

0 upvotes
spidermoon
By spidermoon (Oct 12, 2012)

The only very bad is the last one, 50mm and landscape. Other are good to very good. The 35mm seems a great lense, perphaps a little soft/out of focus in corner. The Sony13_35_DSC038 is very good to me, you can almost count every single blade of grass, there is detail in shadow and few clipped highlight.
The kit zoom is better than i thougt, like the Sony28_16-50_DSC012, red cover are not oversaturated, and you can see cover texture, not bad for a 3200 jpeg.

2 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (Oct 12, 2012)

Yes that is amazing though is it? I don't find many lens kits are good as these but some lens kits can be really good.

0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Oct 12, 2012)

What I do with test shots on DPreview is download them to my HD then have a look next to some of mine at the sort of size I look at pics. Blowing them up full size can be revealing but no-one except commercial photographers does that to show other people and these camera aren't meant for massive exhibition shots anyway so it's pointless getting upset if they don't look as good as a FF with primes on a tripod.

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
1 upvote
naththo
By naththo (Oct 12, 2012)

I have hint for you. If you want to compare the sensor noise. Go to studio comparison tool under menu of sample, compare Sony A57 with Canon 7D. Both are on par in ISO 12800 in JPEG but Canon 7D beats Sony by a bit less noise than Sony at RAW ISO 12800. You will see the difference a bit. But overall can't see much difference. Also this one on
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-slt-a57/11 < This page you can try that too as a difference in noise using both JPEG and RAW. They are close each other.

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Oct 12, 2012)

I don't want to criticize the creativity of the shots. This is useless, because Amadou was at an event and had to shoot several combinations of bodies and lenses in probably a short time. I want to see all the criticizers here do better in such a situation...

I worry, though, about the exposure. Is it me, or do many of the pictures seem to be quite underexposed?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
iudex
By iudex (Oct 12, 2012)

Itś not only you, I noticed that as well; the pictures look dim.

0 upvotes
burnymeister
By burnymeister (Oct 12, 2012)

Huff's are also dark. All the reviewers are being wined and dined at an expensive resort on Sony's dime. Is it any surprise that Steve is singing the praises of the new gear ("NEX-6 is WAY better than NEX-7" - Really??) and of course posting links to BH all over his site? At least DP seems to maintain some objectivity.

2 upvotes
Tord S Eriksson
By Tord S Eriksson (Oct 12, 2012)

The last two shots are taken at 49mm and 50mm, but differ radically - how is that possible?!

0 upvotes
deep7
By deep7 (Oct 12, 2012)

Probably using digital "zoom"?

0 upvotes
iudex
By iudex (Oct 12, 2012)

I am a bit dissapointed. I admit the weather was not ideal, but the pics generally look matt/dull, unsharp. Expecting the Sony sensor to be traditionally good, it must be the lenses. Basically most of the competition showed here recently seems to be better. On the other hand it s no tragedy, just average, but I have expected more from newest Sony camera+lenses than average.

0 upvotes
fras23
By fras23 (Oct 12, 2012)

i've been waiting for 16-50 samples before ordering. I wasn't expecting top end performance but it's just no where near good enough. A real shame.

3 upvotes
abi170845
By abi170845 (Oct 12, 2012)

Looking pretty good. Is it me or my 10EFS is still irreplaceabe? Really interested in going smaller NEX7 with this lens, but by looking at the photos, I still like my 10mmEFS on my 7D.

0 upvotes
wepwawet
By wepwawet (Oct 12, 2012)

Corner sharpness of the 10-18 seems OK at f4 and good at f5. Finally a good UWA option on the NEX? I feel weak in the knees ;-)

DPR team: please try to give us more useful test shots next time - brick walls, regular patterns, and the like...

0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Oct 12, 2012)

My guess is that they take shots like this to reflect the sort of things people actually take photos of. Unless you are a professional brick wall photographer of course, in which case you can wait for the studio tests.

0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (Oct 12, 2012)

Looks okay to me seems not interest me in these picture are boring. Come on, show us better picture. Sony noise reduction is a bit too harsh though but I believed they used the luminance noise reduction that cause to look mushy. I would only care about noise reduction is colour noise as it doesn't degrade the picture much. Canon mostly still on the lead with the best lowest noise on the planet. I think Sony and Fuji are both similar though in noise problem except the more expensive fuji camera the noise was pretty low though.

0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (Oct 12, 2012)

Please disregard this post since I found that moderator of Dpreview had said that this was not a review/test images. So it was just a pre production sample image. So thats understandable this time.

0 upvotes
plamens
By plamens (Oct 12, 2012)

Super meaningless test footages(as usual), i can't get an idea of ​​the quality of any of the lenses!
35/1.8 is portrait lens, give us photos of people on f1.8
10-18/4 is super wide, give us photos of buildings, streets

Pleaese, make useful pictures!

3 upvotes
iudex
By iudex (Oct 12, 2012)

35 mm a portrait lens? Maybe on Nikon 1. ;-)
Anyhow I agree the test pictures could have been better.

3 upvotes
QuazyLogic
By QuazyLogic (Oct 12, 2012)

I think, these pics are jpegs,not raws. All jpegs are mushy and relatively low quality. Well there are some cameras with better, some worse jpeg engine. I dont care about jpeg output, only raw interests me.

2 upvotes
Ryan_Valiente
By Ryan_Valiente (Oct 12, 2012)

Very uninteresting shots you got there DPReview. Pretty much degrades the lenses.

I bet even if you guys use a Zeiss or a Leica it will still be the same.

3 upvotes
Todor Bodurov
By Todor Bodurov (Oct 12, 2012)

It's hard to believe that DP Review would post such useless sample photos.

6 upvotes
CosmoZooo
By CosmoZooo (Oct 12, 2012)

How come none of the 16-50 shots show depth of field. This is boring like others said. One should take photos that differentiate such camera from point and shoot. I think these pictures didn't do the camera any justice.

6 upvotes
Digital Suicide
By Digital Suicide (Oct 12, 2012)

Whose girlfriend (wife) was taking pictures this time? :)

6 upvotes
lifeispixels
By lifeispixels (Oct 12, 2012)

engadget just posted their sample photos of A99 and to my surprise... how come the tech geek website can do a better/ more interesting photos than dpreview.. this is beyond my comprehension...
http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/11/sony-alpha-a99-dslr-sample-shots/

4 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Oct 12, 2012)

These all look really good to me, what's everyone whininh about? It's only a camera/phone hybrid anyway, you wouldn't use it for anything other than snapshots. These more than pass muster, might even get one for the wife.

1 upvote
Ryan_Valiente
By Ryan_Valiente (Oct 12, 2012)

Hey Hugo, I think you'll perfectly fit to be a tester here in DPR!

4 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Oct 12, 2012)

Fuji XE1 will be much better in terms of IQ...

1 upvote
Vlad4D
By Vlad4D (Oct 12, 2012)

Even pro version of Fuji - X-PRO1 was not better, why XE1 should be better?

0 upvotes
Deeso
By Deeso (Oct 12, 2012)

And more expensive. Yeah

0 upvotes
Zamac
By Zamac (Oct 12, 2012)

Original size images are much better than the resized.

1 upvote
Ariston
By Ariston (Oct 12, 2012)

are there any better samples ? the photo quality looks underwhelming.

3 upvotes
mu55
By mu55 (Oct 12, 2012)

Did Sony specifically ask you not to take any photos at 10mm of a subject where people would expect to see sharp corners?

2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Oct 12, 2012)

No. We never publish galleries in which we're told what we can and can't publish.

6 upvotes
worldcup1982
By worldcup1982 (Oct 12, 2012)

Question, is it possible to know which flenght you are using? thanks.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 12, 2012)

It great that Sony is expanding their lens line-up, and the 35 1.8 and the UWA zoom look interesting. Based on a few of the jpegs I'd say raw (or at least raw + jpeg) is more or less a requirement. Of course I have no idea is NR can be dialed down. If so, jpegs could possible be quite usable.

Still, the most interesting new mirror-less camera for me IQ-wise is the Fuji X-E1.

But for HDSLR video shooters, and for someone who want to buy into the highly adaptable E-mount system, the NEX-6 looks like a fine camera.

4 upvotes
Sosua
By Sosua (Oct 12, 2012)

I agree on the proviso LR / ACR get the kinks out or processing...

1 upvote
codeNsnap
By codeNsnap (Oct 12, 2012)

Ditto for XE-1. Looking forward for Fujifilm's 10-24 f/4

1 upvote
thx1138
By thx1138 (Oct 12, 2012)

The ISO 6400 is really mushy at least as a jpg. I would hope the RAW are vastly better.

2 upvotes
sadwitch
By sadwitch (Oct 12, 2012)

Try printing it out. It may just surprise you

3 upvotes
gianstam
By gianstam (Oct 12, 2012)

Yes, it's the first thing I do when I saw samples like those here. I tried a 3200ISO printed ona laser printer. I asked from FastStone to print 1.2m X 0.8m and the A3 crop was amazing

0 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (Oct 12, 2012)

I assume you will making a small print which has the same effect as downsizing the full image and dramatically improving noise. Defeats the purpose of 16MP to start with if you need to print small. If I printed the image as shown at A4+ it would reveal the mushiness clearly.

The IQ of the jpg is plain terrible no doubt due to Sony's overly aggressive in-camera settings. So again I await RAW samples and the chance to do my own processing.

0 upvotes
sadwitch
By sadwitch (Oct 12, 2012)

I think it's the reverse, its the whole purpose of 16MP. Say if you normally print 4R or 5R sizes would you prefer a 5MP image with noise or 16MP with same noise?

0 upvotes
sadwitch
By sadwitch (Oct 12, 2012)

I think it's more important to have detailed, sharp, good colour depth photos in lower iso up to 800 than to have mushy looking hi-iso 'performance' with little noise.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
wislana2
By wislana2 (Oct 12, 2012)

For those not satisfied with posted samples i recommend excellent samples in this thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3280861

7 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (Oct 12, 2012)

Hey wislana, I love your pic! These looks great and rather interesting too! A big A+ to you. By the way I was shocked to see Nex 6 ISO noise have improved over the older Nex. I guess Sony must have got the message to fix the iso noise issue problem.

1 upvote
Sergey Borachev
By Sergey Borachev (Oct 12, 2012)

I would consider the NEX-6 and the 16-50mm for a handy little camera that has every important feature built in (EVF, flash, tiltable screen, WiFi), to take everywhere in a jacket pocket. I won't buy any other lens for it and just treat it like an advanced fixed lens compact. With the typical high ISO performance of Sony sensors, it should be fine for most impromptu situations and cope reasonably well. I don't think that there is any other camera with an equivalents size that has the same combination of IQ and convenience. The E-PL5 comes closest as a small all-in-one high-performance camera but has neither a built-in EVF nor built-in flash.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
deep7
By deep7 (Oct 12, 2012)

Canon G1X would do the job better. Different dimensions but compact where it counts, better lens, similar sensor quality.

2 upvotes
Michael
By Michael (Oct 12, 2012)

G1X relatively slow AF

4 upvotes
deep7
By deep7 (Oct 12, 2012)

I keep reading that. Luckily, my G1X can't read and therefore focuses quickly and reliably!

0 upvotes
Dennishh
By Dennishh (Oct 12, 2012)

Just what I thought after seeing the first tests in Europe, not very exciting lenses. Just average at best not worth the $800 for the 10-18. The 16-50 might be as good as the existing 16mm at f8. I will cancel my pre-orders at Amazon. Sony just can't make quality lenses which isn't surprising for an electronics company. This is disappointing I was looking forward to these.

3 upvotes
The Lotus Eater
By The Lotus Eater (Oct 12, 2012)

How can you cancel a pre-order if you didn't actually pre-order?

At least TRY to sound convincing.

12 upvotes
Ryan_Valiente
By Ryan_Valiente (Oct 12, 2012)

Burn!

0 upvotes
win39
By win39 (Oct 11, 2012)

This is wonderful. Thanks. A lot of us with NEX-7 models have been looking forward to a new lens or two for some time. Considering how cranky the 24 MP sensor is with some lenses do you think it would be possible to also make some samples with these lenses and the NEX 7? Many of us have lusting after a 16-50 which will fulfill the compact promise of the NEX.

0 upvotes
Rooru S
By Rooru S (Oct 12, 2012)

The 24 MP sensor requires lenses that can handle that resolution...so far, the only one I can think will handle that is the 35mm f/1.8 being a prime... look at the comment of dbo below.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 127
12