Is It Me, Or Do NEX Lenses Lack Contrast (BIG TIME)? *pics*

Hey guys... I've loved the NEX-5N for a while now, probably for the same reason you guys do... APS-C quality in a very small and light package! I was reasonably impressed with the low light abilities as well. The camera I had before this was a m4/3, and it was barely better than a good P&S to me.

Some time back though, I had a 5D (classic), 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.4, and when I look back at those pictures, I see a heckuva lot more contrast (punch) and colour (pop?), without any post work. I find that my NEX pictures with the kit lens look "washed out," and I have to really add contrast and saturation to get them to a point I consider decent. After doing that, the pictures looks good, but they look a little artificial compared to what I got out of my old setup.

I was curious to see what was causing this, so I had a look at some of the Flickr groups, and while many pictures are edited, the ones that aren't definitely seemed to have more pop and much better colour.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/canon24-70f2point8l2/pool/

http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikon24mm/pool/

So, I wondered where the difference was coming from. In-camera processing/sensor or lens? Looking at various reviews of the Metabones Speed Booster, I find that the colour and contrast is pretty much the same on Canon bodies vs. NEX bodies (what I suspected), and it is actually the lens that makes the difference.

http://www.eoshd.com/content/9485/metabones-speed-booster-adapter-full-review

I plan on traveling extensively soon, and I'd love to have the NEX-5N with me (carrying it around was effortless on my last trip, and should be the same even with the SEL24F18Z), but I'm really drawn to the significantly better colour and contrast from both Canon and Nikon lenses. It seems the NEX has very decent dynamic range, colour bit depth etc., so really, the only difference from full frame image quality (comparing bodies here) seems to be DoF.

I realize that the Zeiss 24mm has MUCH better colour + contrast than the other NEX lenses, but to my eyes, there's still a fair bit of difference from Canon/Nikon/Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lenses. At $1,100, it's a full $200 or so more than the Sigma (which is getting rave reviews). And apart from that lens, all the others seem to have the washed out look as well.

Here are some samples, sorry they're not all the same subject but what can ya do...



Some micro 4/3 pics, just for the heck of it









Below are pictures from the 5D with the 35mm f/2 lens (bought for ~$300).













And now, NEX pictures!













And this is how I edited the last pic.







What do you guys think?

[No message]

The kit zoom lenses are softer than the E mount primes, but only when used wide open (soft edges). Stopped down to your apertures, you are close to hitting diffraction, but you should see pretty good contrast at most subjects. The kit zoom lenses are sharpest around f/5.6-f/8, but should still hold up at your apertures.

It is very hard to tell from your pictures, as they are really too small to discern meaningful details.

I would suggest camera induced blur? Perhaps you are pressing the shutter too hard? At your apertures and shutter speeds, there should be plenty of contrast with even the kit lens.

The other suggestion would be that your focus is off - do you see the green (small) rectangle confirming focus lock prior to you pressing the shutter all-the-way?

How about if you take a test shot of a newspaper, up against the wall, and show a 100% crop image of it - see the two pics at end. Try a tripod and a remote, or 2s shutter delay (and turn OSS of for such shots).

Below a few images taken with the SEL18200, which should render similar to your 1855 at overlapping FL. You'd have to view originals to judge contrast, at low resolution it is hard to see.


SEL18200 @ 38mm, f/4.5, ISO 100, 1/500th




SEL18200 @ 20mm, f/4.0, ISO 100, 1/1000th




SEL18200 at 43mm f/5 ISO 200 1/1600th




SEL18200 @ 32mm f/4.5 ISO 200 1/400th


SEL18200 @ 19mm f/8.0 ISO 200 1/500th








SEL18200 at 18mm f/10 ISO 200 1/100th






Same scene as previous image, zoomed in on center, SEL18200 at 200mm f/10 ISO200 1/320th



Some test shots showing lens softness of E35 when wide open (Nex-6 and Nex-7). It is more noticable on the 16Mp sensors, but all E mount lenses are soft when wide open (this includes the SEL24F18Z).

Note, this is a lens property, other lenses remain sharp when used wide open (Sigma at f/2.8, Zeiss ZM at f/2.0, etc).


Nex-6 at f/1.8 with E35




Nex 6 at f/2.8 with E35


Nex-7 at f/1.8 with E35




Nex-7 at f/2.8 with E35


































--
Cheers,
Henry

temama said:

temama wrote:

Click to expand...

Thanks, but I don't think so. You're telling me you see the same level of colour and contrast in the pictures I posted?

blue_skies said:

blue_skies wrote:

Cheers,
Henry

Click to expand...

Thanks for the constructive feedback Henry. I don't think it's camera-induced blur (too fast a shutter + IS + steady hands) and it's not incorrect focus. Actually, it's not sharpness that I'm concerned with, given that it's a kit lens. The Zeiss 24mm shows adequate sharpness from f/2 up. It's this washed out quality that I don't like... you do see what I mean?

Some nice pics you have there BTW!

Another 5D pic:



Taken at about the same time as the earlier m4/3 pic:

Adventuristo said:

Adventuristo wrote:
It's this washed out quality that I don't like... you do see what I mean?

Click to expand...

Have you tried cleaning the lens? I don't have any experience with the kit lens to say this will resolve the issue, it's just I always try to clean my lenses before I use them. You never know what the manufacturing process will leave behind.

Thank you
Russell

Adventuristo said:

Adventuristo wrote:

Click to expand...

Adventuristo said:

Some time back though, I had a 5D (classic), 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.4, and when I look back at those pictures, I see a heckuva lot more contrast (punch) and colour (pop?), without any post work. I find that my NEX pictures with the kit lens look "washed out," and I have to really add contrast and saturation to get them to a point I consider decent. After doing that, the pictures looks good, but they look a little artificial compared to what I got out of my old setup....

Click to expand...

Adventuristo said:

...In-camera processing/sensor or lens? Looking at various reviews of the Metabones Speed Booster, I find that the colour and contrast is pretty much the same on Canon bodies vs. NEX bodies (what I suspected), and it is actually the lens that makes the difference...

Click to expand...

Adventuristo said:

...even with the SEL24F18Z), but I'm really drawn to the significantly better colour and contrast from both Canon and Nikon lenses. It seems the NEX has very decent dynamic range, colour bit depth etc., so really, the only difference from full frame image quality (comparing bodies here) seems to be DoF.

Click to expand...

Adventuristo said:

What do you guys think?

Click to expand...

Sorry rude response above.

In short, I think that it is DoF and/or post-processing (or in-camera jpg settings). At least it's not sensor technology, because Sony's new APS sensors are many way better than what old 5D sensor is. But 5D is fullframe camera, and it can makes a difference how things "pop up" (DoF).

Here is one of my pictures in three different versions.

Post-processing can make a big difference!


Neutral




High


Low

Adventuristo said:

Adventuristo wrote:

Click to expand...

Adventuristo said:

I realize that the Zeiss 24mm has MUCH better colour + contrast than the other NEX lenses, but to my eyes, there's still a fair bit of difference from Canon/Nikon/Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lenses.

Click to expand...

Where is your Zeiss 24mm/NEX pictures? NEX with 24mm at f/1.8 should have about same DoF than fullframe with 35mm at f/2.8.

Adventuristo said:

Here are some samples, sorry they're not all the same subject but what can ya do...

Click to expand...

Yes indeed they're not the same subjects! Near close-ups with Canon and landscapes with NEX?! Not very comparable...

Adventuristo said:

Some micro 4/3 pics, just for the heck of itBelow are pictures from the 5D with the 35mm f/2 lens (bought for ~$300).

And now, NEX pictures!

Click to expand...

Well, the kit lens, is a kit lens. In my opinion a good kit lens, but still a kit lens, and a zoom. If you compared it to primes, it is not a fair comparison. There is not much that you can do about that, but get better lenses. The zeiss, the 50mm and 35mm are a lot better. The sigmas are really cheap and really sharp, but I don't know about contrast. The zeiss should be the bes for contrast (at an obvious cost). Personally, the most important property for me is sharpness. I cant bust sharpness in PP. Yes, you can, but it looks bad if you add too much, and it is actually a trick. But contrast, is the easiest thing to add in PP. The other thing I look into a lens is that it doesn't have too much aberration I don't care about a little, or some, cause it is easily fixed, again in PP, but if it is too much, then is a problem. But contrast, is the easiest to fix, by far.

Also you need to know if you are using raw or jpg. In raw, you can touch them very well (in fact you did that) and has good range for editing. In Jpg, you have a lot of options to play with. Styles, colors, contrast, sharpness. Have you played with those variables? If not, take a time to learn them and see if you like the results. You have an option to get more contrast, and you have another for vivid colors. Also, do your other cameras are set to the default, or where they already configured for something similar. Maybe again, there is a difference in how they are set. Please check them.

Also note that Sony's jpg are generally considered very soft on PP applied. Remember, jpg is PP, done by the camera according to Sony's specifications and user options. Generally, it is good that the camera doesn't give you images with a lot of PP on it, that gives you range to apply more if you need it. Remember that what is applied, cant be taken back.

Also, I don't see a comparison of the same scene between these cameras. You put different scenes with the nex and the other cameras. External problems can generate haze, or lack of contrast, specially light, a lot, directed to the lens. For instance, portraits with back lighting generally need a lot of contrast added in PP after shooting. So again, having the same photo would be better to check what you are asking for.

Finally, haze, dirt, fungus, etc, can create less contrast, but with a new lens, I doubt it is that.

Personally I PP all my images, so I haven't have a problem with my files. and use other lenses besides the kit, but I use it when I go on vacations for instance. It is good for what it is, a kit zoom, but obviously, don't expect prime quality. It is still a zoom.

It's very difficult to compare your shots. Low light close-ups on Canon and Panasonic and only landscape in full sun on Nex. Personally, I find Sony's colours too rich and unnaturally saturated at times but that's my opinion, I prefer a natural look. Have you tried increasing in camera contrast and/or saturation to +3 and using Vivid? Also try Cloudy even in bright light.

If you shoot raw, then take control of your images before conversion.

If you shoot jpg, then play with the settings in your camera until you get the results you want.

I don't think that what the OP is talking about has anything to do with the lens. I've personally found my NEX-7's output (RAW at least...dunno about JPEG) to be pretty "dull" compared to other cameras I've used, no matter which lens I mount. That, I think, is an issue for people who prefer not to do a lot of PP - but as someone who enjoys PP a lot, it's not a bad thing by any means. It gives you more of a blank slate to work with, really.

Still, SoC RAW images from my X100 make SoC RAW images from my NEX-7 look pretty horrible. I'd definitely take out the former if I knew I wasn't going to have the patience to PP my stuff from that particular day.

Sony cameras generally ( and NEX) are renowned for their strong vibrant colour. More so than Canons for example.

If people shoot RAW ( any camera) and do not process it then the shots will look washed out.

NEX Jpegs are punchy and RAW files when used correctly are vibrant too.

My Canon T2i seems almost too contrasty next to my NEX-7 but I attribute that to the dynamic range of the sensors. Sometimes I like that harsher look with the older sensor, but for the most part I'm hooked on having more DR.

I've never tried most of the Sony E-mount lenses but I like my SEL24 for the way it delivers a whole lot more "snap" than my old Nikkor and Minolta 24mm lenses.

Adventuristo said:

Adventuristo wrote:

Adventuristo said:

blue_skies wrote:

Cheers,
Henry

Click to expand...

Thanks for the constructive feedback Henry. I don't think it's camera-induced blur (too fast a shutter + IS + steady hands) and it's not incorrect focus. Actually, it's not sharpness that I'm concerned with, given that it's a kit lens. The Zeiss 24mm shows adequate sharpness from f/2 up. It's this washed out quality that I don't like... you do see what I mean?

Some nice pics you have there BTW!

Click to expand...

I think that what you are after is not contrast, but color. The Nex is fairly accurate in color rendering, and for many balanced (metering) images, the OOC (or RAW) quality is acceptable. It fails when there is a lot of sky (or blue) in the image, at which point the colors become dull and under-saturated. See the examples below.

You can overcome this by changing exposure metering (spot) or by adjusting the EV levels.

For most other compositions, the "dull" or washed out effect is more limited, and can be overcome (in camera) by selecting a JPG scene-mood (landscape, vivid, sunset), or by simply dialing up JPG contrast and color. In RAW you'd have to use a pp filter to pull the colors up.

But if there is no sky in the image, the colors usually have enough pop by themselves. I prefer the neutral (JPG) settings, as it allows pp on the JPG images as well. If the dials are set to high, there is little that can be done in post.

BTW - images below are with the Nex-5, the newer Nex cameras have a higher DR and suffer less from this effect. Only if HDR is overdone, you start seeing more 'dull' behavior.































































--
Cheers,
Henry

Caris said:

Caris wrote:

It's very difficult to compare your shots. Low light close-ups on Canon and Panasonic and only landscape in full sun on Nex. Personally, I find Sony's colours too rich and unnaturally saturated at times but that's my opinion, I prefer a natural look. Have you tried increasing in camera contrast and/or saturation to +3 and using Vivid? Also try Cloudy even in bright light.

Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with a more "neutral" look, but most people prefer a bit more punch. I agree, try "Vivid" mode if you like boosted colors. I think I have been using Vivid in combination with -1 saturation. This gives it a bit of a boost in colors, but not too much. And, of course, in the RAW converter, you can do whatever you want. If I prefer the color of, say, the 5D, I could select that, and it'll remap the colors (DxO), but I generally stick to the factory colors.

hmm, maybe. i do find i.e. the 35f1.8 lack a bit contrast wide open, but it's easily fixed either in camera setting or in post. I postprocess every image i wanna keep so it's not a problem for me.

Below is a snap - OOC JPG with modest sharpening applied in LR afterwards.

Colors are 'default', unmodified, not vivid, but 'true' to the conditions.

I think that it has plenty of contrast ... look at full resolution, and 100%.




Nex-6 with E1650P at 28mm and f/5.6, ISO 100, 1/800th









--
Cheers,
Henry

I have been thinking the same thing for a while and can clearly see the difference in your examples too. I come from various DSLRs and 4/3rds and your post has verified my research. Although I had yet to stick a non Sony lens on my 5R to prove it was the lenses not the camera.

I have the 16-50 PZ (after switching from the 18-55) and whilst the lens is versatile and the previous was good under the right conditions, I preferred the colours and 'pop' from my Pentax K10D kit lens and Panasonic GH2, and contrast is really just another word for 'pop' because it in conjunction with dynamic range is what makes a photo almost appear 3D, effectively representing the subject, whether a portrait or a scene, such as some of yours. (I have also used Nikon and Canon cameras of friends and again the contrast from those was better, but as you elude, it was the lenses.)

I'm going to try a non Sony lens and see what results I get, but I'm 100% in agreement already.