Low light shots... Does the nod go to the NEX 5N or 7 ?

[Sedimentary]

It is my understanding that the low light and reduced noise produces better results with the 5N. It seems that all the galleries I have seen have had more enjoyable shots from the 5N ilk!! Just appears that maybe the 24 Megs are too much for the sensor?? 16 seems to be right in the sweet spot.

 

[ChapelThrill23]

I have not tried a NEX7 but the NEX5N's sensor is the most impressive one i've ever come across. Its performance in lower light is staggering and to my surprise the twilight mode really works.

 

[svenvie]

Let me do some nodding for the 5N. Love it.

 

[El Matadurr]

It is my understanding that the low light and reduced noise produces better results with the 5N. It seems that all the galleries I have seen have had more enjoyable shots from the 5N ilk!! Just appears that maybe the 24 Megs are too much for the sensor?? 16 seems to be right in the sweet spot.

Facepalm

Before this gets out of hand, let me just say my take, in as simple a way as possible. Yes, the 5n sensor is "better" in the low noise department. But the difference in high ISO shots (up to around 3200-6400) is negligible in real world use, ESPECIALLY if the 24 MP is downsized at all (for instance, uploading a 20 MP file to DPReview).

In my honest opinion, the trade off of having 50% more pixels to play with, versus I judge a 10% loss in low light performance is far worth it.

Then you have to ask yourself, where do you do most all your photography? At night? Then you're better off with a D3 or the like. If you are like most everyone else, you shoot 90-95% of your pictures in at least partially lit scenes, and you don't need more than ISO 3200 depending on the lens. If you take a look at the noise/signal curves comparing the 5n to the 7, they are essentially the same line out to about ISO 5000.

This topic has been beaten to death, and I'm sure pretty much everyone else on this forum is sick of hearing about it.

All the best,
MD

 

[SQLGuy]

The 5N is slightly better, but the main reasons why you might feel that you're seeing better results posted from the 5N are that:

1) The 5N's been out since last May, while the 7 has been actually shipping for about a month

2) Even though the 7's are shipping, very few have yet shipped

3) There's not much post-processing software that supports the 7. DxO Optics, for instance, which has very good raw conversion and noise reduction capabilities supports the 5 and 5N, but not yet the 7.

For balance, here's a low light 7 shot (OOC JPG done with Contax G 35/2 at F4).





--

Nex-7 with kit lenses, Contax G 35, and a number of legacy lenses (mostly Canon FD)

 

[relate2]

This just keeps getting said over and over and over, it really is getting boring. Do a search for the other 50 or so threads stating the same that the 5N is better in low light. Yes it is 5% better in low light IF you don't scale the 7 photo down to the same resolution.

Choose the 5N but you then miss the built in EVF, the tri-navi controls, the enormous crop-ability and the better ergonomics of the 7. All for the 5% better low light in that one photo you take every 12 months. People really are anal about the smallest things.

As I said in different thread, even 5 years ago if you were getting the low light photos out of any of the NEX cameras you would have thought you had just won the lottery.

 

[El Matadurr]

This just keeps getting said over and over and over, it really is getting boring. Do a search for the other 50 or so threads stating the same that the 5N is better in low light. Yes it is 5% better in low light IF you don't scale the 7 photo down to the same resolution.

Choose the 5N but you then miss the built in EVF, the tri-navi controls, the enormous crop-ability and the better ergonomics of the 7. All for the 5% better low light in that one photo you take every 12 months. People really are anal about the smallest things.

As I said in different thread, even 5 years ago if you were getting the low light photos out of any of the NEX cameras you would have thought you had just won the lottery.

+1, well said. People forget how much stuff just wasn't possible with small cameras just a few years ago. Makes me wonder if these guys posting the threads are either just too lazy to search the forum, or just trolls trying to convince themselves that the 5n is always the better camera, bashing the 7 on the few things, the VERY few things, it can't do. I've seen some threads bashing the 7 because it doesn't have a touch screen. REALLY NOW???

 

[lowincash]

This just keeps getting said over and over and over, it really is getting boring. Do a search for the other 50 or so threads stating the same that the 5N is better in low light. Yes it is 5% better in low light IF you don't scale the 7 photo down to the same resolution.

Choose the 5N but you then miss the built in EVF, the tri-navi controls, the enormous crop-ability and the better ergonomics of the 7. All for the 5% better low light in that one photo you take every 12 months. People really are anal about the smallest things.

When I saw the title of this thread my first thought was "oh no here we go again" lol

I could have bought the 5n and saved a load of money but getting the 7 has been perfectly fine even though the low light performance isn't quite as good as the 5n according to some. If you're really anal about the low light shots then get the 5n.

Honestly, I must say that I would happily give up that slight high ISO advantage for the 7 due to other things such as the built in EVF and flash (which can use as bounce) and the comfortable feel of the whole camera overall. The 7 fits comfortably and perfectly in my hand thanks to the slightly larger body and the bigger grip. I held the 5 and it felt a bit too small for me.

Good luck with your search. I wish I can find the perfect camera out there but I know that will never happen, or at least not yet. The 7 is as perfect as I can ask for at the moment.

 

[sounfanz]

You people that complain about this being done over and over don't need to read this. Just a slight pause before you ignore the latest thread on the subject.
Simple.

 

[scotbot]

The 5N is excellent in low light, I'm sure the 7 will be too if downsized to 16MP equivalent image size - it's not really fair to compare 100% crops of the two cameras at their native resolutions.



http://www.flickr.com/photos/scotbot/6703408763/in/photostream
--
http://www.scottwylie.co.uk

 

[Sedimentary]

Accusations of troll. Redundancy. Boredom. Here we go again. What d-bags!!

Some of you really think way too highly of yourselves. Do me a favor and put me on your ignore list, and those of you who are beneficial and offer true real life experience-- thank you.

 

[turnstyle]

I agree the high ISO comparison of NEX5N vs. NEX7 is a thoroughly flogged horse, and that most results seem to indicate both perform fairly similarly at high ISO, assuming output from both are scaled to a similar size.

HOWEVER...

This doesn't explain why the NEX5N AutoISO will pick up to 3200, whereas the NEX7 AutoISO will only pick up to 1600 -- and I note this here b/c your photo did use ISO 3200, which I assume you must have had to manually select.

ie, if the sensors are nearly equivalent at 3200 for scaled images, then why doesn't the NEX7 AutoISO reach up to 3200?

 

[El Matadurr]

I agree the high ISO comparison of NEX5N vs. NEX7 is a thoroughly flogged horse, and that most results seem to indicate both perform fairly similarly at high ISO, assuming output from both are scaled to a similar size.

HOWEVER...

This doesn't explain why the NEX5N AutoISO will pick up to 3200, whereas the NEX7 AutoISO will only pick up to 1600 -- and I note this here b/c your photo did use ISO 3200, which I assume you must have had to manually select.

ie, if the sensors are nearly equivalent at 3200 for scaled images, then why doesn't the NEX7 AutoISO reach up to 3200?

You bring up a good point, but you sort of contradict yourself there in the last sentence. It probably doesn't go up to 3200 because the sensor is taking at 24 MP, it doesn't scale them down in-camera, unless you select medium or small (12MP and 6MP), but I don't think it bumps up the ISO there either.

You know it's hard to imagine the "small" setting is a 6 MP picture. Just take that in for a minute.

 

[turnstyle]

You bring up a good point, but you sort of contradict yourself there in the last sentence. It probably doesn't go up to 3200 because the sensor is taking at 24 MP, it doesn't scale them down in-camera, unless you select medium or small (12MP and 6MP), but I don't think it bumps up the ISO there either.

Though my expectation is most 24MP photos are going to be scaled down for output.

Off-hand I don't know how large a typical 24MP print would be without scaling, but I'm assuming it would be pretty big -- likewise, I assume most photos are emailed, uploaded, or printed at smaller sizes (4x6, 5x7, even 8x10 would be, and I am guessing here, also scaled down).

 

[Ron Parr]

Off-hand I don't know how large a typical 24MP print would be without scaling, but I'm assuming it would be pretty big -- likewise, I assume most photos are emailed, uploaded, or printed at smaller sizes (4x6, 5x7, even 8x10 would be, and I am guessing here, also scaled down).

This question doesn't make sense. There is no such thing as "without scaling" unless you view the image at 23.5mm x 15.6mm.

I should also mention that 24MP gives you great flexibility to crop. If you only "need" 6MP worth of resolution, then you can view that NEX-7 effectively double the reach of your lenses.

--
Ron Parr
Digital Photography FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[Adventsam]

I wish the 5n looked like the 7 though and the 7 had the 5n sensor and touchscreen, the touch focus tracking is fab on 5n, that alone is probably worth more than any 24vs16 advantage. The lack of a real hot shoe is poor on 5n and the lack of a mic input too is an oversight. But all things considered, price, performance I wouldnt entertain the 7 unless its exactly the price of the evf and a tiny bit more than the 5n? even then I may still opt 5n for the better(read flexible/video/overall) sensor.

It is my understanding that the low light and reduced noise produces better results with the 5N. It seems that all the galleries I have seen have had more enjoyable shots from the 5N ilk!! Just appears that maybe the 24 Megs are too much for the sensor?? 16 seems to be right in the sweet spot.

 

[turnstyle]

Off-hand I don't know how large a typical 24MP print would be without scaling, but I'm assuming it would be pretty big -- likewise, I assume most photos are emailed, uploaded, or printed at smaller sizes (4x6, 5x7, even 8x10 would be, and I am guessing here, also scaled down).

This question doesn't make sense. There is no such thing as "without scaling" unless you view the image at 23.5mm x 15.6mm.

I'm not really sure what this means, why an 'unscaled' image would be 23.5mm x 15.6mm. Anyhow, my point was that it doesn't make sense that the NEX5N will go up to 3200 in AutoISO, whereas the NEX7 only goes up to 1600 -- and that, effectively, all output will be scaled.

 

[turnstyle]

I wish {snip} the 7 had the 5n sensor and touchscreen, the touch focus tracking is fab on 5n, that alone is probably worth more than any 24vs16 advantage.

I'll bet anybody that the "7N" (or whatever they call it) adds the touchscreen.

 

[Ron Parr]

I'm not really sure what this means, why an 'unscaled' image would be 23.5mm x 15.6mm.

That's the size of the sensor.

--
Ron Parr
Digital Photography FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[commiebiker]

Dead pixels?

The 5N is excellent in low light, I'm sure the 7 will be too if downsized to 16MP equivalent image size - it's not really fair to compare 100% crops of the two cameras at their native resolutions.



http://www.flickr.com/photos/scotbot/6703408763/in/photostream
--
http://www.scottwylie.co.uk