ivierre
Member
Hello everyone,
Recently, I have been paying attention to the new released Sony Nex 7 and according to its spec, it is really a good camera with good control and a nice built in EVF. However, after doing some research online, I realized that it does have the color shift issue due to the lacking of the micro lenses. Part of the reasons I was planning to get the Nex 7 was to use it with the M mount lens. The Sony E-mount lenses was not very appealing to me.
With the color shift issues with wide lenses, I have a feel questions or concerns.
If you were me, would you:
1. Get the Nex 7 and photoshop or corner fix everytime the color shift appears? I assume that it cannot be corrected completely until Sony release a new version of 7n?
2. Get the Nex5n instead and get the electronic viewfinder as well?
3. Get the GXR mount to mount the m lenses?
4. If only using the M mount lenses, which system has better performance? The NEX or the GXR?
5. I understand both system has some sort of focus assist, (focus peaking?) Which one is easier to focus with?
Thank you very much for the advices.
Recently, I have been paying attention to the new released Sony Nex 7 and according to its spec, it is really a good camera with good control and a nice built in EVF. However, after doing some research online, I realized that it does have the color shift issue due to the lacking of the micro lenses. Part of the reasons I was planning to get the Nex 7 was to use it with the M mount lens. The Sony E-mount lenses was not very appealing to me.
With the color shift issues with wide lenses, I have a feel questions or concerns.
If you were me, would you:
1. Get the Nex 7 and photoshop or corner fix everytime the color shift appears? I assume that it cannot be corrected completely until Sony release a new version of 7n?
2. Get the Nex5n instead and get the electronic viewfinder as well?
3. Get the GXR mount to mount the m lenses?
4. If only using the M mount lenses, which system has better performance? The NEX or the GXR?
5. I understand both system has some sort of focus assist, (focus peaking?) Which one is easier to focus with?
Thank you very much for the advices.
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
I have owned both the GXR A12 mount and the Nex 5n. I now only have the 5n.
I really enjoyed a lot about the A12 mount. The silent shutter was amazing when making NO noise was required. Performance with my 25mm ZM lens was jaw-droppingly sharp, no color cast issues, no vignetting. Actually, the images were too perfect in this respect, I liked my R-D1 images more because they had a bit more character (which was probably just vignetting which for some weird reason I have a taste for). The camera is responsive, customizable, and has some great art filters. Manual focus with peaking/magnification was fine once set up the way I wanted it.
The two negatives for me were no AF possibility (only needed for paid assignments in restaurants, but that's at once a miniscule and a huge need) and the poor OOC Jpegs from the Ricoh. I'm not a fan of shooting Raw. I also never really took to the VF-2 viewfinder...it's good but just doesn't do it for me. I've looked through the A77--it's fine but I haven't bought the VF for the 5n yet either. I'm used to working at arm's length from my TLR days.
The 5n doesn't work as well with rangefinder lenses, though it seems from reports to be better in the corners than the 7. My 25 worked fine however, and I've used a 21mm Contax G (on sale here) and I think I can see a slight magenta tinge in the corners of SOME photographs. Not a big deal.
The 5 is smaller, less ergonomic, has a terrible menu system. Why do I like it? I can attach the AF adapter and shoot Alpha glass with fast AF, so my restaurant assignment work is covered. Manual focus is even easier than with the GXR; the touch screen comes into its own in this regard. Tapping on the screen right where you want to magnify is mighty handy. In winter shooting, I've even used my nose to magnify the screen! So that's a huge boon in my mind. Also the tilting screen is extremely, extremely useful.
So it's win and lose. The Nex is a bit more modular, which is ironic given that this was the design principle of the GXR. It's more ergonomic in some ways (touch screen) and less in others (no dedicated control wheel). Better JPEGs. Worse art filters. It takes a wider set of legacy lenses, but doesn't do as well with the wider ones.
The 7 has intrigued me, though I really don't need those giant files clogging up my computer. I like the look of the dials, I LOVE the hot shoe addition, the EVF that's there when I need it, etc. But I haven't ordered one yet. Not sure that I will. The 5N represents a lot of compromises but I've been very happy with it. Oh, and it does a very nice 3200 ISO. That's another difference.
I'll be intrigued to see what Ricoh comes up with next. The new sensor will level the playing field in terms of noise and iso reach, though I hope they work on their lackluster JPEG engine and upgrade the body to include a tilting touch screen.
That's my two cents. Both are just wonderful for their own reasons.
I really enjoyed a lot about the A12 mount. The silent shutter was amazing when making NO noise was required. Performance with my 25mm ZM lens was jaw-droppingly sharp, no color cast issues, no vignetting. Actually, the images were too perfect in this respect, I liked my R-D1 images more because they had a bit more character (which was probably just vignetting which for some weird reason I have a taste for). The camera is responsive, customizable, and has some great art filters. Manual focus with peaking/magnification was fine once set up the way I wanted it.
The two negatives for me were no AF possibility (only needed for paid assignments in restaurants, but that's at once a miniscule and a huge need) and the poor OOC Jpegs from the Ricoh. I'm not a fan of shooting Raw. I also never really took to the VF-2 viewfinder...it's good but just doesn't do it for me. I've looked through the A77--it's fine but I haven't bought the VF for the 5n yet either. I'm used to working at arm's length from my TLR days.
The 5n doesn't work as well with rangefinder lenses, though it seems from reports to be better in the corners than the 7. My 25 worked fine however, and I've used a 21mm Contax G (on sale here) and I think I can see a slight magenta tinge in the corners of SOME photographs. Not a big deal.
The 5 is smaller, less ergonomic, has a terrible menu system. Why do I like it? I can attach the AF adapter and shoot Alpha glass with fast AF, so my restaurant assignment work is covered. Manual focus is even easier than with the GXR; the touch screen comes into its own in this regard. Tapping on the screen right where you want to magnify is mighty handy. In winter shooting, I've even used my nose to magnify the screen! So that's a huge boon in my mind. Also the tilting screen is extremely, extremely useful.
So it's win and lose. The Nex is a bit more modular, which is ironic given that this was the design principle of the GXR. It's more ergonomic in some ways (touch screen) and less in others (no dedicated control wheel). Better JPEGs. Worse art filters. It takes a wider set of legacy lenses, but doesn't do as well with the wider ones.
The 7 has intrigued me, though I really don't need those giant files clogging up my computer. I like the look of the dials, I LOVE the hot shoe addition, the EVF that's there when I need it, etc. But I haven't ordered one yet. Not sure that I will. The 5N represents a lot of compromises but I've been very happy with it. Oh, and it does a very nice 3200 ISO. That's another difference.
I'll be intrigued to see what Ricoh comes up with next. The new sensor will level the playing field in terms of noise and iso reach, though I hope they work on their lackluster JPEG engine and upgrade the body to include a tilting touch screen.
That's my two cents. Both are just wonderful for their own reasons.
segedi
RFicianado
I have the GXR + M mount and the NEX-5n. Both with viewfinders. The 5n has the Hawk Peng helicoid adapter. I've tried out the following lenses:
CV 21mm f/4
Zeiss 25mm f/2.8
Leica Summarit 35mm f/2.5
MS Optical Super Triplet Perar 35mm f/3.5
Zeiss Planar 50mm f/2
Leica Summilux ASPH 50mm f/1.4
Leica 90mm Summicron ASPH APO f/2
Sony Nex 5n + Hawk's adapter Pluses
- Great for allowing for close focusing, with the adapter, turns your M mount lenses into Macros!
- Small, light
- Excellent image quality*
- Lots of options for e-mount lenses for future expandability
- 16mp vs the 12 in the GXR
- Better High ISO performance than GXR
- Very easy manual focusing with the focus peaking feature (I set the peaking color to yellow)
5n Minuses
- Poor performance with lenses as max aperture, especially the wide angles. The corners suffer from severe smearing.
- The viewfinder is a bit bulky. Sounds silly as the entire unit and body are quite small, but not as good as the builtin variety. It tends to snag on things in my bag.
- Price, for about the same performance with M lenses, the NEX-7 with builtin VF seems more attractive.
- Menu system is a bit awkward and it has less buttons to customize than the GXR
- No Coding of lens data in EXIF
- Size, it might just be too small.
GXR + M mount Pluses
- Native mount, no need for adapter
- Much better performance with wide angle lenses
- Ability to code 3 lenses and a dial to select for coding EXIF data, plus a default. You can have the camera default to different settings and code the buttons to work differently depending on which custom setting your are in.
- Menu system is big but sensible and the ability to set different buttons. I can set ISO, Exposure Compensation, Metering pattern, Image mode, magnification and such without having to go into a menu.
- Ergonomics - it's not much larger than the NEX but feels much better in your hand. Shape and materials really make it easy to hold.
- Manual focusing of the lens seems easier too as the mount has some room for you to work and isn't as close to the body.
- DNG for Raw files - native to Adobe products and open source.
Ricoh Minuses
- High ISO performance is good, but not as good as GXR
- Lack of alternative lens choices if you ever want to go to AF
- Manual focus peaking modes are not as good as the NEX
- Video - the Sony has more resolution and just makes a better video.
Having used both systems, and considering only use with M mount lenses, I would choose the Ricoh GXR. If AF or other mount manual focus lenses mightbe used (e.g. Canon FD) then the NEX lineup is your best bet. Not even having the NEX 7, I'd recommend it over the 5n. The 5n's performance is pretty good but the 7 with builtin VF makes sense, especially financially.
It will be a tough decision, made even tougher if the new Fuji X mount system is what I think it will be for M mount lenses. But of your choices, the Ricoh is what I recommend. And I would only recommend viewfinders after you had the camera and tried it out. The viewscreens, especially on the Sony with its ability to tilt make the high price VFs a bit unnecessary.
I'm building an image library, but you can see some images from both units here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/73546415@N07/
and
http://www.flickr.com/photos/segedi/sets/72157628434779317/with/6532444783/ - theses were all taken with the NEX-5n and M mount lenses.
CV 21mm f/4
Zeiss 25mm f/2.8
Leica Summarit 35mm f/2.5
MS Optical Super Triplet Perar 35mm f/3.5
Zeiss Planar 50mm f/2
Leica Summilux ASPH 50mm f/1.4
Leica 90mm Summicron ASPH APO f/2
Sony Nex 5n + Hawk's adapter Pluses
- Great for allowing for close focusing, with the adapter, turns your M mount lenses into Macros!
- Small, light
- Excellent image quality*
- Lots of options for e-mount lenses for future expandability
- 16mp vs the 12 in the GXR
- Better High ISO performance than GXR
- Very easy manual focusing with the focus peaking feature (I set the peaking color to yellow)
5n Minuses
- Poor performance with lenses as max aperture, especially the wide angles. The corners suffer from severe smearing.
- The viewfinder is a bit bulky. Sounds silly as the entire unit and body are quite small, but not as good as the builtin variety. It tends to snag on things in my bag.
- Price, for about the same performance with M lenses, the NEX-7 with builtin VF seems more attractive.
- Menu system is a bit awkward and it has less buttons to customize than the GXR
- No Coding of lens data in EXIF
- Size, it might just be too small.
GXR + M mount Pluses
- Native mount, no need for adapter
- Much better performance with wide angle lenses
- Ability to code 3 lenses and a dial to select for coding EXIF data, plus a default. You can have the camera default to different settings and code the buttons to work differently depending on which custom setting your are in.
- Menu system is big but sensible and the ability to set different buttons. I can set ISO, Exposure Compensation, Metering pattern, Image mode, magnification and such without having to go into a menu.
- Ergonomics - it's not much larger than the NEX but feels much better in your hand. Shape and materials really make it easy to hold.
- Manual focusing of the lens seems easier too as the mount has some room for you to work and isn't as close to the body.
- DNG for Raw files - native to Adobe products and open source.
Ricoh Minuses
- High ISO performance is good, but not as good as GXR
- Lack of alternative lens choices if you ever want to go to AF
- Manual focus peaking modes are not as good as the NEX
- Video - the Sony has more resolution and just makes a better video.
Having used both systems, and considering only use with M mount lenses, I would choose the Ricoh GXR. If AF or other mount manual focus lenses mightbe used (e.g. Canon FD) then the NEX lineup is your best bet. Not even having the NEX 7, I'd recommend it over the 5n. The 5n's performance is pretty good but the 7 with builtin VF makes sense, especially financially.
It will be a tough decision, made even tougher if the new Fuji X mount system is what I think it will be for M mount lenses. But of your choices, the Ricoh is what I recommend. And I would only recommend viewfinders after you had the camera and tried it out. The viewscreens, especially on the Sony with its ability to tilt make the high price VFs a bit unnecessary.
I'm building an image library, but you can see some images from both units here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/73546415@N07/
and
http://www.flickr.com/photos/segedi/sets/72157628434779317/with/6532444783/ - theses were all taken with the NEX-5n and M mount lenses.
ivierre
Member
Thank you very much for the replies! 
I was always under the wrong impression that GXR has pretty good OOC jpeg results. Due to the fact that I dont know much about post processing, I think I will go for the one with better OOC jpeg. Does the NEX lines gives better jpeg straight out of camera?
I originally was planning to get the NEX7 and the 24/1.8 as I like the built in EVF and the looks and the tri-dial are just really nice to have. However the color cast/ color shift on wide lenses just got me to think twice.
The color cast /shift issues is due to the sensor and cannot be corrected by firmware right? In this case, how hard is it to correct this issue with post processing?
The problem is that I have done some research online looking photos from each system but some of them are really nice with nice color and stuff. But some of them are just not as good with dull color and looks flat etc. So I will need some advice one which system gives better OOC jpg. :bang:
Thanks once again! :angel:
I was always under the wrong impression that GXR has pretty good OOC jpeg results. Due to the fact that I dont know much about post processing, I think I will go for the one with better OOC jpeg. Does the NEX lines gives better jpeg straight out of camera?
I originally was planning to get the NEX7 and the 24/1.8 as I like the built in EVF and the looks and the tri-dial are just really nice to have. However the color cast/ color shift on wide lenses just got me to think twice.
The color cast /shift issues is due to the sensor and cannot be corrected by firmware right? In this case, how hard is it to correct this issue with post processing?
The problem is that I have done some research online looking photos from each system but some of them are really nice with nice color and stuff. But some of them are just not as good with dull color and looks flat etc. So I will need some advice one which system gives better OOC jpg. :bang:
Thanks once again! :angel:
Matus
Well-known
I would say that it micht be interesting how the new FUji X Pro1 will handle the M-mount lenses (via adapter of course).
If I were to get a camera for M-mount now ... I would wait as the M-mount for Ricoh GXR will soon be updated to new sensor. The Nex5N has edge when it comes to the EVF comparer to Ricoh though. I would not consider Nex7 personally (No micro-lensing).
I have just seen a part com comparison of the GXR M-mount and Nex5N with the Heliar 15/4.5 from Raid - and whlie I would not go into details for the legal reasons, it pretty much confirms what was already known - the GXR delivers crispier images (no AA filter) and better corner performance sharpness wise.
BTW, both GXR and NEX5N have color shift issues with wide angle lenses, but it is not so bad that it could not be fixed in PP with some dedicated software. NEX7 is worse.
Personally - I like the GXR (feels so nice in hand), but I actually hope that Ricoh will bring new body and EVF (either external or built) this year (no rumor, just my hope). Still - the current A12 M-mount is very good and it will certainly be compatible if new body should be introduced.
Have a look at reviews from Steve Huff - you may find them helpful.
If I were to get a camera for M-mount now ... I would wait
as the M-mount for Ricoh GXR will soon be updated to new sensor. The Nex5N has edge when it comes to the EVF comparer to Ricoh though. I would not consider Nex7 personally (No micro-lensing). I have just seen a part com comparison of the GXR M-mount and Nex5N with the Heliar 15/4.5 from Raid - and whlie I would not go into details for the legal reasons, it pretty much confirms what was already known - the GXR delivers crispier images (no AA filter) and better corner performance sharpness wise.
BTW, both GXR and NEX5N have color shift issues with wide angle lenses, but it is not so bad that it could not be fixed in PP with some dedicated software. NEX7 is worse.
Personally - I like the GXR (feels so nice in hand), but I actually hope that Ricoh will bring new body and EVF (either external or built) this year (no rumor, just my hope). Still - the current A12 M-mount is very good and it will certainly be compatible if new body should be introduced.
Have a look at reviews from Steve Huff - you may find them helpful.
BMacW
Established
Thank you very much for the replies!
I was always under the wrong impression that GXR has pretty good OOC jpeg results. Due to the fact that I dont know much about post processing, I think I will go for the one with better OOC jpeg. Does the NEX lines gives better jpeg straight out of camera?
I originally was planning to get the NEX7 and the 24/1.8 as I like the built in EVF and the looks and the tri-dial are just really nice to have. However the color cast/ color shift on wide lenses just got me to think twice.
The color cast /shift issues is due to the sensor and cannot be corrected by firmware right? In this case, how hard is it to correct this issue with post processing?
The problem is that I have done some research online looking photos from each system but some of them are really nice with nice color and stuff. But some of them are just not as good with dull color and looks flat etc. So I will need some advice one which system gives better OOC jpg. :bang:
Thanks once again! :angel:
You owe yourself to shoot RAW, if you plan on using M mount lenses. It's still significantly less time consuming than scanning films.
I have the 5n with EVF. I'm hunting for a nex 7 ONLY because the external EVF is just a pain to have. It makes the camera really bulky to get in and out of a bag.
bensyverson
Well-known
May be worth waiting to see how the Fuji X-Pro 1 does with M lenses...
ivierre
Member
Thanks for all the replies again.
While this is prolly way too early to ask, any idea about when will the X-pro 1 be available to the market?
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
JPEGs are a taste issue...I didn't like the Ricoh ones, the ones from Sony are okay to my eye, closer to what I would do with a raw file.
Starting in March sometime I believe...
Adanac
Well-known
I've owned the Fujifilm X100, the Sony NEX-5N and Sony EVF, and now the GXR Mount A12 and EVF, the VF-2. On the latter two cameras I shoot M mount lenses.
I used the X100 extensively and because of that am in wait and see mode when it comes to the X Pro 1. Objectively I can state that the camera was good, but wasn't in the league I wanted to be. If you only want one fixed lens, and a moderate wide angle perspective works for you, it certainly is a camera to consider. I found the single fixed lens limiting in the end, and I had prime lenses I wanted to put to work. So I sold it.
I had some M lenses I wanted to support and others I wanted to horse trade my way into. I'd been looking forward to the NEX-7 as the thought of an external EVF did not turn my crank, but as the flooding related delays conspired to hold back delivery, we started to see reviewers produce some relatively awful looking files with certain wide angle M glass. At first no one could believe what was being published - surely the reviewers were out to lunch - but when one review or set of observations after another started showing popular wide angle M lenses delivering smeared edge and corner detail on the NEX-7, to me it became clear that I should give up waiting for it.
I'd been learning about the GXR but the relative quality of the EVF on the Sony vs the GXR drew me to purchasing the NEX-5N.
That, for me, was a mistake. Three of my five M lenses are wide angle Zeiss ZM lenses and two of them perform quite poorly overall on the NEX.
They perform brilliantly on the GXR.
It being far cheaper to replace a body than an entire collection of lenses... I switched to the GXR and haven't had a moment of regret.
The GXR isn't a camera for everyone. Some call it a "photographers camera". I know what they mean buy this but can't help but ask, rhetorically, aren't they all? Of the X100, NEX, and GXR, it is the camera which fits my brain best and seems to ask me to jump through fewer hoops.
Fujifilm is noted for nice out of camera JPGs; Sony? I thought they were ok; the raw files were nice to work with from both - perhaps the Fujifilm were software looking but that could be fixed.
I prefer to shoot raw and use Lightroom myself as my main editing / organizing tool. You don't have to be a post processing guru to get benefit from using the raw files and if you are new to all this, Lightroom might be just the tool for you as it hides a lot of power behind easy to use controls.
As another said up thread, if you are going to go to the expense of collecting M mount lenses to use on compact cameras, maybe you owe it to yourself to shoot in raw. It isn't nearly as time consuming or difficult as it is made out to be.
Recently Sean Reid of reidreviews.com compared the Voigtländer 15mm shot on both the NEX-5N and GXR Mount A12. His observations match my own perfectly - the GXR handles my wide angle lenses better.
For anyone contemplating M lenses on a compact camera with an APS-C sensor, the GXR should be a consideration along with the Sony and probably the Fuji X Pro 1 too, although many details of support for manual focus lenses on that camera remain unknown.
There are some things the NEX does better. It certainly is able to produce files at higher ISO sensitivity with less noise. Eventually that gap will be closed, as Ricoh sometime in 2012 will update the Mount A12 to be a Mount A16 with the same 16 megapixel sensor as the NEX-5N, only without an anti-alias filter, this module may well perform closer to the Sony NEX-7 but without problems at the corners and edges with symmetrical wide angle lenses or retrofocus lenses that have a small exit pupil very close to the sensor. In short... all my lenses pretty much!
If you want solid video support, the Sony is a better choice than the GXR or Fujifilm too, probably. The GXR's video abilities were ample for me; honestly, I'd be ok with a camera that forgoes all video support and focuses instead on being a good still camera.
On EVFs, the Sony's is the best of the three at present; the GXR in the middle. The X Pro 1's is said to be a second generation but we don't yet know what that means.
Having owned both the Sony and GXR, with EVFs for both, I found it a bit hard to switch to the GXR at first, but the solution to that is to sell the Sony. When all you use is the GXR's VF-2, you just get on with it. It actually isn't all that bad and I would buy it again if I needed one and it had not yet been updated by Ricoh. That said, surprising to me, I've been using the camera without the EVF far more than I expected. I think this says something about the effectiveness of the manual focus assists for the GXR.
The Fuji X Pro 1 is an unknown quantity so far. If you primarily plan to run non Fuji manual focus lenses on the camera, I'd wait until more is known about it before assuming it will be *the* place to turn to for manual focus rangefinder lenses. We simply do not know yet.
I used the X100 extensively and because of that am in wait and see mode when it comes to the X Pro 1. Objectively I can state that the camera was good, but wasn't in the league I wanted to be. If you only want one fixed lens, and a moderate wide angle perspective works for you, it certainly is a camera to consider. I found the single fixed lens limiting in the end, and I had prime lenses I wanted to put to work. So I sold it.
I had some M lenses I wanted to support and others I wanted to horse trade my way into. I'd been looking forward to the NEX-7 as the thought of an external EVF did not turn my crank, but as the flooding related delays conspired to hold back delivery, we started to see reviewers produce some relatively awful looking files with certain wide angle M glass. At first no one could believe what was being published - surely the reviewers were out to lunch - but when one review or set of observations after another started showing popular wide angle M lenses delivering smeared edge and corner detail on the NEX-7, to me it became clear that I should give up waiting for it.
I'd been learning about the GXR but the relative quality of the EVF on the Sony vs the GXR drew me to purchasing the NEX-5N.
That, for me, was a mistake. Three of my five M lenses are wide angle Zeiss ZM lenses and two of them perform quite poorly overall on the NEX.
They perform brilliantly on the GXR.
It being far cheaper to replace a body than an entire collection of lenses... I switched to the GXR and haven't had a moment of regret.
The GXR isn't a camera for everyone. Some call it a "photographers camera". I know what they mean buy this but can't help but ask, rhetorically, aren't they all? Of the X100, NEX, and GXR, it is the camera which fits my brain best and seems to ask me to jump through fewer hoops.
Fujifilm is noted for nice out of camera JPGs; Sony? I thought they were ok; the raw files were nice to work with from both - perhaps the Fujifilm were software looking but that could be fixed.
I prefer to shoot raw and use Lightroom myself as my main editing / organizing tool. You don't have to be a post processing guru to get benefit from using the raw files and if you are new to all this, Lightroom might be just the tool for you as it hides a lot of power behind easy to use controls.
As another said up thread, if you are going to go to the expense of collecting M mount lenses to use on compact cameras, maybe you owe it to yourself to shoot in raw. It isn't nearly as time consuming or difficult as it is made out to be.
Recently Sean Reid of reidreviews.com compared the Voigtländer 15mm shot on both the NEX-5N and GXR Mount A12. His observations match my own perfectly - the GXR handles my wide angle lenses better.
For anyone contemplating M lenses on a compact camera with an APS-C sensor, the GXR should be a consideration along with the Sony and probably the Fuji X Pro 1 too, although many details of support for manual focus lenses on that camera remain unknown.
There are some things the NEX does better. It certainly is able to produce files at higher ISO sensitivity with less noise. Eventually that gap will be closed, as Ricoh sometime in 2012 will update the Mount A12 to be a Mount A16 with the same 16 megapixel sensor as the NEX-5N, only without an anti-alias filter, this module may well perform closer to the Sony NEX-7 but without problems at the corners and edges with symmetrical wide angle lenses or retrofocus lenses that have a small exit pupil very close to the sensor. In short... all my lenses pretty much!
If you want solid video support, the Sony is a better choice than the GXR or Fujifilm too, probably. The GXR's video abilities were ample for me; honestly, I'd be ok with a camera that forgoes all video support and focuses instead on being a good still camera.
On EVFs, the Sony's is the best of the three at present; the GXR in the middle. The X Pro 1's is said to be a second generation but we don't yet know what that means.
Having owned both the Sony and GXR, with EVFs for both, I found it a bit hard to switch to the GXR at first, but the solution to that is to sell the Sony. When all you use is the GXR's VF-2, you just get on with it. It actually isn't all that bad and I would buy it again if I needed one and it had not yet been updated by Ricoh. That said, surprising to me, I've been using the camera without the EVF far more than I expected. I think this says something about the effectiveness of the manual focus assists for the GXR.
The Fuji X Pro 1 is an unknown quantity so far. If you primarily plan to run non Fuji manual focus lenses on the camera, I'd wait until more is known about it before assuming it will be *the* place to turn to for manual focus rangefinder lenses. We simply do not know yet.
uhoh7
Mentor
Get a 5n + EVF, enjoy it, and wait for the coming FF EVIL.
Yes, the GXR and Xpro have a bit better sensors, but the sony 5n is producing superb images with leica glass, and it has the tiny footprint and incredible EVF.
In this new un-leica war there is only one way to win. FF. It will come within 2 years.
Yes, the GXR and Xpro have a bit better sensors, but the sony 5n is producing superb images with leica glass, and it has the tiny footprint and incredible EVF.
In this new un-leica war there is only one way to win. FF. It will come within 2 years.
Adanac
Well-known
Uhoh, there's Uhoh7 spreading his talk of war, famine and pestilence again. Can't we just be friends?
The real enemy is the DSLR and its evil minion servants the Penta-Prism and the Mirror.
I also figure a full frame evil camera that is affordable to regular folks who squirrel some camera funds away is a likely outcome within a couple of years. I'd love to hope for faster but can't see that well into the future. I do think it is a good time to be owning rangefinder glass.
The real enemy is the DSLR and its evil minion servants the Penta-Prism and the Mirror.
I also figure a full frame evil camera that is affordable to regular folks who squirrel some camera funds away is a likely outcome within a couple of years. I'd love to hope for faster but can't see that well into the future. I do think it is a good time to be owning rangefinder glass.
uhoh7
Mentor
Uhoh, there's Uhoh7 spreading his talk of war, famine and pestilence again. Can't we just be friends?
The real enemy is the DSLR and its evil minion servants the Penta-Prism and the Mirror.
I also figure a full frame evil camera that is affordable to regular folks who squirrel some camera funds away is a likely outcome within a couple of years. I'd love to hope for faster but can't see that well into the future. I do think it is a good time to be owning rangefinder glass.
LOL
I admit that the GXR is the best available un-leica (i'm trademarking that one) at the moment in terms of pure image quality.....tick.....tick.....tick....
but you must admit the nex evf is easy on the eye
canon LTM 85/1.5
slungu
Established
I had a Sony NEX 3 and got myself a 5N at the end of last year because it works better with wides. Now, the Ricoh is supposed to go 16MP, the new Fuji has been announced and I was asking myself what to do. But for the time being I plan to extend my lens colection and shoot at least one year with the 5N and look then what is available on the market. If you only want M-mount, the Ricoh would be ok, if you think you might consider something else also, get the NEX. Either way, your investment is in the lenses and as it looks right now, the future will bring more options in terms of M-mount and APS-C.
Regards, Stefan
Regards, Stefan
Lss
Well-known
I would include Epson R-D1 and Leica M8 (although it has a larger sensor), too.
Adanac
Well-known
Sure, an R-D1 or M8 are options, but this is the EVIL corner of the forum and both miss the EV if not the IL. I briefly considered a M8 myself but decided I wanted to fully cross over to the dark side and embrace electronic viewfinders | live view cameras.
The R-D1, for me because it does not seem practical, never was an option. Long since out of production and about to drop off Epson's support radar completely, utilizing a 6MP sensor produced a decade ago, used they cost at least as much as a pair of brand new NEX-5N's, or a NEX-7, or a fully equipped Ricoh GXR system, or a nice digital and twenty film cameras, or... well you get the picture. Would I buy one if they were a couple hundred dollars? Sure. If they are 1000 - 2000 dollars? Never, but that's just my thinking.
In this digital age, not much different than the film age really, I'd rather spend more dollars on things that last - lenses - than bodies. For this reason I'm never going to purchase a M9. Eventually full frame compacts will appear on the market at more reasonable prices. I can wait.
The R-D1, for me because it does not seem practical, never was an option. Long since out of production and about to drop off Epson's support radar completely, utilizing a 6MP sensor produced a decade ago, used they cost at least as much as a pair of brand new NEX-5N's, or a NEX-7, or a fully equipped Ricoh GXR system, or a nice digital and twenty film cameras, or... well you get the picture. Would I buy one if they were a couple hundred dollars? Sure. If they are 1000 - 2000 dollars? Never, but that's just my thinking.
In this digital age, not much different than the film age really, I'd rather spend more dollars on things that last - lenses - than bodies. For this reason I'm never going to purchase a M9. Eventually full frame compacts will appear on the market at more reasonable prices. I can wait.
uhoh7
Mentor
The M8 is still highly desireably, and for anyone who loves a real RF and is fine with the footprint, it's the second best camra for Ms.
1.3x crop outweighes many bells and whistles. It strains at higher ISOs, but reamins a superb camera, as is plainly evident in many images.
The RD-1 images less so, but again it's a true RF and a wonderful peice of equipment.
It's important to keep track of the leading performers, but in the end, it's the camera you have with you.
If you really love an RF, digitally there are only 3 options (4 if you call the 8.2 seperate).
With all these great new sensors, I think it's only a matter of time before we see a bare bones 16mp FF M RF. Still at least 2.5K for a body thugh.
The real home run would be to make it the size of a CL or even a bit smaller
And since I have mentioned EVILs in other corners, I can't see why RFs, in context, shouldn't enter the discussion here.
Lss
Well-known
I understand this is the EVIL corner, but as the discussion is about a body for M lenses, the more affordable digital M mount rangefinder options seem quite relevant to me.
Adanac
Well-known
Ok, ok, I relent, let's add the M8.
But the R-D1... I could not recommend one with a clear conscience given the OP appears to be looking for modern day sensor performance as a first priority, not "the rangefinder experience". But if you want one there's a R-D1 for sale on our local Craigslist for $1800, on eBay for $2000, complete with a box! No lens, but a box! No long term support, a 10 year old sensor, but it comes with a box! Hurry!
Absolutely agree the M8 or M8.2 is a perfectly viable camera and I have considered that as an option for myself, but whenever I get close to buying one I remember my plan is to save those dollars and wait for someone to come out with a full frame digital affordable compact M-compatible or M-adaptable body, if that ever happens.
ivierre - maybe you can share with us what your experience is? You've been registered here since 2008 but haven't posted much. Are you currently using film or digital rangefinder cameras? Do you already have a collection of M mount lenses?
You've said that a good looking out of the camera JPEG image would be desirable because you don't have post processing experience (and tools, probably?) - can we infer that you are a film shooter dipping a toe into the digital waters?
Or are you like some of us who are moving to compact mirrorless cameras because of the small foot print, and you appreciate rangefinder glass because it too has a small foot print and can be bought at various levels of quality?
Fill us in on some more details as to your preferences - the group will certainly be better positioned to offer good advice and maybe save you some intermediate steps many of us have walked!
But the R-D1... I could not recommend one with a clear conscience given the OP appears to be looking for modern day sensor performance as a first priority, not "the rangefinder experience". But if you want one there's a R-D1 for sale on our local Craigslist for $1800, on eBay for $2000, complete with a box! No lens, but a box! No long term support, a 10 year old sensor, but it comes with a box! Hurry!
Absolutely agree the M8 or M8.2 is a perfectly viable camera and I have considered that as an option for myself, but whenever I get close to buying one I remember my plan is to save those dollars and wait for someone to come out with a full frame digital affordable compact M-compatible or M-adaptable body, if that ever happens.
ivierre - maybe you can share with us what your experience is? You've been registered here since 2008 but haven't posted much. Are you currently using film or digital rangefinder cameras? Do you already have a collection of M mount lenses?
You've said that a good looking out of the camera JPEG image would be desirable because you don't have post processing experience (and tools, probably?) - can we infer that you are a film shooter dipping a toe into the digital waters?
Or are you like some of us who are moving to compact mirrorless cameras because of the small foot print, and you appreciate rangefinder glass because it too has a small foot print and can be bought at various levels of quality?
Fill us in on some more details as to your preferences - the group will certainly be better positioned to offer good advice and maybe save you some intermediate steps many of us have walked!