Am I right...

in thinking that most people are missing a lot if the possibilities with the NEX?

The NEX is praised for it's IQ in Raw and ability to change lenses. But I think most people that buy a NEX will autoshoot in JPG and use one of the 2 kiitlenses.

So they are missing the real power of the NEX?

Hi, mate, yes you are, but don't just include the NEX cameras. Most cameras these days have way more features and performance than most of us will ever use.

Regards.

Stephen.

The lack of in-body stabilisation & AF & decent flash limits the appeal of the NEX to more experienced users who want a wider range of lenses however I would agree that more people should try using RAW to get better IQ.
--
Keith-C

Davidgilmour said:

in thinking that most people are missing a lot if the possibilities with the NEX?

The NEX is praised for it's IQ in Raw and ability to change lenses. But I think most people that buy a NEX will autoshoot in JPG and use one of the 2 kiitlenses.

So they are missing the real power of the NEX?

Click to expand...

There is no alternative to kit lenses today if you don't want to use MF.
The kit lenses are of mediocre quality that's for sure.

I'm waiting for the Zeiss prime that will be released in 2011.

It depends what you're shooting. The kit lenses are 'mediocre' for portraiture I won't argue with you there, but for landscapes they're fine. This photo would print at 2x4 feet no problem and it's taken with the 'worst' of the kit lenses, the 18-55mm:



As for 'most people not getting the most' out of the NEX, that's true with any dslr system. As a matter of fact, based on my experience, more people buy expensive FF systems and lenses and proceed to under-utilize their capabilities than cheaper systems. I think a lot of people dismiss the NEX as a 'consumer' product. Because we all think we're 'prosumers' or 'experts', this is seen as a bad thing.

I admire people who have enough skill to actually maximize their current photography system rather than walk around with a great looking expensive camera and don't even use it properly!
--
Vern Dewit
Calgary, Alberta Canada
http://www.explor8ion.com
http://verndewit.com/
http://twitter.com/verndewit

When the Nex system are pointed at people coming from P&S.

I think Sony should do some in-camera pp such as CA removal and correct distortion as Panasonic do with their G series.

Or you have to learn sweet spots of the lenses in my case 18-55:

18mm f5,6
24mm f5,6-f8
35mm f5,6-f8
55mm f8-f11

The build quality is good but optical it have some issues especially CA.

Other than that it's a terrific camera and easier to bring than my big DSLR

First, regarding RAW:

I used to be excited about the possibility to shoot RAW. Then I started reading Ken Rockwell's site a lot, and he pretty much talked me out of messing with it. He talks about it in numerous articles on his site, but also dedicated a full page to it here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

A few quotes from his page:

"Some fancier cameras save this raw data so you can use software to do the same thing the camera's hardware did, later. Software takes much longer to do the same thing the camera's hardware does, but gives less confident people the chance to try to fix mistakes later."

"I almost never shoot anything in raw, and when I do I never see any difference for all the effort I wasted anyway. (I can see differences if I blow things up to 100% or bigger on my computer, but not in prints.)"

Regarding Lenses:

The option for virtually unlimited lenses through adapters is another big potential that you mention, and you make it sound like people who stick with the 2 original kit lenses are not utilizing the camera to its fullest. Unfortunately, a lot of people simply will not have the money to explore the countless lens options, so I would rather say that "they're using it as much as they can," rather than "not using it to its full potential."

I also believe that someone who really knows how to take great photos can produce much better images using either of the kit lenses than a deep-pocketed amateur who has $10,000 worth of Leica glass mounted to his NEX. I've seen images that Ken Rockwell has made using really cheap cameras, and I'm doing everything I can learn as much as possible in hopes of producing images as great as his with my NEX-5. I currently think adding a lot more lens options in my camera bag would do me more harm than good - it would certainly slow me down as I try to figure out the best lens for this or that situation. Instead of taking pictures, I'd be fuddling around with lens settings. The two kits lenses are enough for me for now.

Am I not using my NEX-5 to it's fullest potential? Maybe. But I'm using it as much as I can, as often as I can, and am trying to learn every piece of it's standard functionality, from HRD settings to Flash Compensation and on...

@nex5guy,

I used to be in the JPG only camp till I started using the Panny LX-5 with its crappy JPG engine. RAW made a world of difference in the colors. So while painful, I am getting more out of the camera with it.

nex5guy wrote:

....and I'm doing everything I can learn as much as possible in hopes of producing images as great as his with my NEX-5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If this is the case, I would skip Ken Rockwell's site. He's a bit of a laughing stock to most around here.

I would stick with using a single prime and shoot in M mode for a while to really learn how your camera behaves.

nex5guy said:

I've seen images that Ken Rockwell has made using really cheap cameras, and I'm doing everything I can learn as much as possible in hopes of producing images as great as his with my NEX-5.

Click to expand...

I had to check to see if maybe he changed his galleries?????

I have problems seeing beyond the saturation.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/gallery.htm

Fran

Wll actually nex is just GREAT for just about any level of user.

It is INCREDIBLE and I tend to think this way the more I use it.

The panos, 3d, AMB, HHT, auto modes apeal a lot to point and shoot photography.

RAW is fantastic. Sony just hit the mark here - untoched RAW. (Anyone from Nikon reading?)

You can also stick pretty much anything on NEX-5 and take pictures with it.

About stabilisation and flash.....well here is a picture in very dim light (iso 1600, f1.7, 1/15 of a second hand held). It is decently sharp even full size..



I forgot ergonomics now vastly improved - I did not think MF is of any use before the firmware update. Now I enjoy MF - pictures come out sharper and better focused than A700 can do with AF or I can wdo with MF on A700 decent OVF.

....and I'm doing everything I can learn as much as possible in hopes of producing images as great as his with my NEX-5.

headofdestiny said:

If this is the case, I would skip Ken Rockwell's site. He's a bit of a laughing stock to most around here.

Click to expand...

I guess add me to the laughing stock list. I find his site very useful - his perspective on gear and photography fits my needs very well. And despite the fact that he doesn't even touch Sony cameras, it was through reading his site that I was much better able to determine my own realistic needs and goals (primarily, getting great shots of my infant daughter) and find the right camera for me (my NEX-5). His discussion of RAW vs. JPG also worked well for me, especially given the very little amount of free time I have to fiddle with pp. (I read these posts while at work.)

fsmith said:

I have problems seeing beyond the saturation.

Click to expand...

Not a big fan of the Fuji Velvia 50, eh? That film certainly does lean heavy on the saturation. But once again, I'm able to use those images to determine what I really like and what I don't like, so it works well. He explains in very easy terms how he is achieving a certain look, and I'm able to say, "Ok, I want to do that, but with a little less saturation... or with a little more of this or that, etc."

nex5guy said:

fsmith said:

I have problems seeing beyond the saturation.

Click to expand...

Not a big fan of the Fuji Velvia 50, eh?

Click to expand...

Velvia? Not really. I always considered it brighter than life. Kind of like KR's stuff.

nex5guy said:

That film certainly does lean heavy on the saturation. But once again, I'm able to use those images to determine what I really like and what I don't like, so it works well. He explains in very easy terms how he is achieving a certain look, and I'm able to say, "Ok, I want to do that, but with a little less saturation... or with a little more of this or that, etc."

Click to expand...

But he has said that the theme to his compositions is usually "wild, contrasting colors". I took "wild" to mean "oversaturated." So I guess you can take what he was trying to accomplish and turn it down a couple notches and Bingo!

Fran

Hmmm, i bought NEX as the price is reasonable, its got a large sensor and decent kit lens 1855. I prefer taking shots without flash but the tiny one that comes with it is kinda handy tho i rarely use it. NEX is not meant for studio work so if i get into that, i'd get a DSLR. I thot IBIS is inferior to Optical VR? 2 stop vs 4 stops?

Yes, its true, many bought DSLRs but haven't got a clue how to use it. I know two such persons. One leaves it on Auto and the other haven't even taken a shot with it, almost 5 months now.

Some buy cams to take photos. Some buy for bragging rights. They are the most vocal in forums cos instead of going out there to take shots, they are here pixel peeping and comparing buttons LOL. Despite all the rhetoric, i must admit learning a lot from forums like how to tolerate "mine is better than yours" attitude on top of tips and techniques! Cams are nothing but tools! But you do need the right tools for the job. And YOUR job is not the same as MINE. Tyvm!

I'm using RAW+jpg just in case:

• The jpg gets bad and then I can easier do pp of that photo, if jpg is good then I throw the RAW away.

• I'm using 16:9 as jpg output but if I want 3:2 I can take the RAW 3:2 file and use it.

of course it take much space to shoot RAW+jpg but sdhc cards aren't that expensive that you couldn't have a few of them.