Sony NEX3 and NEX5 EVIL cameras with new E-mount

Amazing

Amazing

Hi, very small package and a large sensor, but why they made such large lenses.
Are 4/3 cams completely outclassed by this Sony?
Hope to see smaller, faster and better fov zeiss lenses for this NEX.
Panasonic has the pancake 20mm 1.7, why they didn´t launch some like that.

In this precise moment someone is working really hard to get a e-mount to m-mount adaptor :)

Bye
 
Last edited:
That's still about 38mm equivalent, right and fairly big too? Would have to get down under 35mm (full frame equivalent) to get into the wide range for me. Would give up some speed for something small. That's what makes cameras big, the bodies are slim and then you get these big honking lenses.

Seems like the micro 4/3 have the edge with the 17mm Olympus and a 14mm coming from Panasonic sometime soonish.

That 16mm on the Sony does look pretty big but maybe it's just because the bodies are so small and thin.

If Sony is getting in, Canon and Nikon are sure to follow.

semilog said:
The new Nikon 24/1.4 is very compact. :rolleyes: :p
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
[FONT=&quot]I’m more interested in when Zeiss gets in. :)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Depending on projected sales, Zeiss might build dedicated primes with AF in e-mount for this thang.
How awesome would that be! Small, light weight AF prime lenses from Zeiss.[/FONT]
 
NickTrop said:
You should take a look at the Samsung NX, which meets your qualifications with their f2 30mm pancake lens. This was my thinking exactly - a smaller form camera with an APS-C sensor that has a fast fixed lens that never leaves the camera, and I came thisclose to snapping one (Samsung NX) up. I ended up with the Nikon D5000 and their recently released f1.8/35mm fixed lens (...which never leaves the camera, so I now have a "fixed lens DSLR" to go along with my fixed lens rangefinders) and don't regret it at all, however. After comparing the size between the Oly Pen 4/3 and Nikon in a camera store, I didn't see the smaller size of the Oly "buying" me anything and actually preferred the way the Nikon handled over the 4/3-rds. I don't see either being truly pocketable. In fact, I don't see any camera being genuinely pocketable - film or digital, unless it has a collapsible lens along with a pocket-sized body. So a more compact body becomes more of a preference/nice-ity... and from a practical standpoint it has to merely be "small enough" so you're not walking around with a giant conspicuous camera that's an annoyance to carry, so you'll actually walk around and use the thing. Let's say it should be "wrist-strapable"-sized, imo. I looked how DxO labs http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor/Camera-rankings rated APS-C DSLRs based on their testing, and the D5000 was the 2nd highest rated camera (Nikon D90 was 1st by a hair) in terms of IQ (including the M8) based on their testing - at least when I last looked, about a month ago. I like using that site to rank digitals because they're the "for-profit" maker of DxO Optics Pro, RAW processing SW, that is optimized to various camera/lens combinations, so it's their business to get these tests right. I assume their rankings are more credible than some amateur jabroney's subjective "take" on things shooting test patterns or who has a bias toward a specific manufacturer, or weights this feature or that higher/lower due to personal preferences. So, this camera gave me a "wrist-strappable"-sized camera (like the 4/3rd's and the EVILS), "as good as it gets for APS-C" (blows away all 4/3rds in DxO testing, expectedly, due to sensor/pixel size) IQ... and, the requisite fast fixed lens in the "normal" focal length range... oh, and a viewfinder and built-in flash at the expense of a "cool looking" form factor at a price (bought refurbed from B&H) a good bit less than the 4/3rds.
Click to expand...


DXO is pretty much a joke. Half of their data is flat out wrong, and their results don't correlate to real world results in my experience.
 
nightfly said:
What do you do for a 28mm (full frame equivalent) lens on either the Samsung or the Nikon? Seems like any smallish lens you are going to stick on it is more like a 40mm or 50mm equivalent.
Click to expand...

I'm mostly a 50mm shooter, not a wide angle guy so the 35mm (standard lens equiv in FF) works fine for me. It's essentially a "Fixed Lens DSLR", as would the Samsung have been with the 30mm f2 had I bought that one. I do have an Oly WCON 7 WA converter with a 52-55 step-up ring for the Nikon DX prime. Going the teleconverter route isn't optimal but the WCON is on of better ones (lighter ones too) that brings the 35mm down to around a 25mm FF equivalent. I haven't used it yet other than to test to see if it works (does - metering uneffected, AF fine, IQ decent). I know this isn't the optimal solution, but I have the capability of shooting reasonably wide if I want to, which is rarely. I also have two other lenses that are M42 - an old Pentax 50mm f1.4 Tak and a Kmount Jupiter 9, and have an M42->Nikon adapter for portraits. Of course, focusing is manual and you lose in-camera metering. I've fooled around with these for fun but 99% of the time I just use the Nikon DX 35mm. It's fast, sharp, quiet and fast AF and the best performing lens wide open I've personally ever used. Flaring, contrast loss minimal - a steal at $200 bucks. There's something to be said for the new glass in this regard. Like to shoot in available darkness? This new coating technology blows away the old stuff - it just does, as much as it pains me to admit. There's no need for 50,000 lenses of every stupid focal length. Alls you need is one good lens, specifically one good, fast nifty fifty. This is coming from a guy whose had his big bags o' primes at one time, now down to just a select few. As far as wides, I'm from the "three steps back" school.
 
Last edited:
chrishayton said:
After looking at the samples on DPreview Im very impressed.
High ISO looks ALOT better than 4/3rd
Click to expand...

+1

I am seriously considering the NEX line as a travel option over µ4/3. Since it is serving as a portable carry anywhere option, versus a do everything, the limited buttons, while possibly frustrating for quick use, should not be a problem in real use.
 
The lens looks like it's about to devour that little camera body -- very strange looking, though ergonomically it might be okay in practical use.
 
fdigital said:
DXO is pretty much a joke. Half of their data is flat out wrong, and their results don't correlate to real world results in my experience.
Click to expand...

How/why is their data "flat out wrong"? It's surprising sometimes. Sometimes they might not tell you what you want to hear. They're a for-profit company that makes sensor testing software that other tech-based reviewers use, and is probably used in industry. Their raw processor, which is excellent, competes with Adobe and other players by correcting raw files by creating specific profiles of individual DSLR body and lens combinations, which includes precise optics corrections for lenses, based on their lab testing. It's the most sophisticated raw sw out there. It would behoove them to "get it right". Isn't this a fair assumption? This company's published technical data from their testing of sensors, color response, noise handling, low light sensitivity, dynamic range etc. is stored in a database and up on the web. This is clearly a better and more objective way to evaluate IQ of various cameras than a "blog post" or some nitwit on YouTube's highly subjective opinion. It seems to me - let me guess, you have a camera, like it - say like an M8, and found it fared below average in their tests, so you think "the site is a joke".
 
Last edited:
cny3123 said:
+1

I am seriously considering the NEX line as a travel option over µ4/3. Since it is serving as a portable carry anywhere option, versus a do everything, the limited buttons, while possibly frustrating for quick use, should not be a problem in real use.
Click to expand...

Anything with an APS-C sensor is going to have better image quality, technically, than a 4/3. The sensor size is obviously bigger, presumably the pixels are bigger and you'll have more stops to play with for DoF effects. That's not to say 4/3rds give you bad IQ but to me it's too much of a trade-off for a "cool looking" retro design, which is - let's face it, the 4/3'rds main selling point. Since 4/3rds do not have collabasble lenses, like compacts, they are not small enough to be "pocketable" and offer no advantage from a size standpoint than the EVILs that are coming out or even the compact consumer-level DSLRs. To me if you want good IQ with decent low-light performance and a camera that's truly pocketable, get one of the "old" 6 megapixel Fuji Finepix consumer digicams (F10, F20, F30,31) on the auction sites with their Super CCD sensor for $100 and skip the 4/3rds all together and save yourself 600-1000 bucks. Again, to me, from a practical stand-point cameras come in three sizes: pocketable, "wrist-strapable", behemoth. The 4/3, compact DSLRs, and EVILs are in the middle "wrist-strapable" category. The relatively small differences in sizes withiin theses categories are meaningless. The 4/3'rds give up way too much, and cost too much relative to their "wrist-strapable" competition. But they look cool!
 
Last edited:
Handled some pre-production samples at the local Sony Style yesterday - just one day after the announcement, those guys surely are fast.

What surprised me most is the weight of the kit zoom: it's large, but feather light! It seems to weight as much as the 16mm pancake. Meanwhile both the 16/2.8 and the 18-55 are sturdy built and the focus rings are well damped(another surprise).

I'm almost certain that the bodies are plastic cast covered by Magnesium alloy, like the EP-1. Solid, small (the NEX-3 is indeed pocketable) without any moving or shaky parts.

Didn't have time to try them further (especially the AF performance) but the general impression is very positive. Should they come out with a 28mm equivalent or some future model with extra control dials I'll surely get one..
 
NickTrop said:
How/why is their data "flat out wrong"? It's surprising sometimes. Sometimes they might not tell you what you want to hear. They're a for-profit company that makes sensor testing software that other tech-based reviewers use, and is probably used in industry. Their raw processor, which is excellent, competes with Adobe and other players by correcting raw files by creating specific profiles of individual DSLR body and lens combinations, which includes precise optics corrections for lenses, based on their lab testing. It's the most sophisticated raw sw out there. It would behoove them to "get it right". Isn't this a fair assumption? This company's published technical data from their testing of sensors, color response, noise handling, low light sensitivity, dynamic range etc. is stored in a database and up on the web. This is clearly a better and more objective way to evaluate IQ of various cameras than a "blog post" or some nitwit on YouTube's highly subjective opinion. It seems to me - let me guess, you have a camera, like it - say like an M8, and found it fared below average in their tests, so you think "the site is a joke".
Click to expand...

No, I don't have an m8. I have a canon 5d, which scores very well in their data, especially considering it's 4-5 years old, better than the m9 in fact. I do have a close friend with a Nikon d90 however, and I've used it pretty extensively for video AND still, and there is no way in hell that it has more dynamic range than the 5d. Neither does the d40x, d200, any of the digital rebels, k10d, pana gh1 or the nikon d300, that are all listed as having a higher dynamic range than the 5d. And yes, I've shot with all those cameras.

If you want some factual proof that their statistics are crummy, have a look at this link:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/300|0/(appareil2)/344|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Olympus/(brand2)/Olympus

According to them, the olympus e-420 has a pixel pitch of 4.8 and a focal length multiplier of 1.92, and the e-450 has a pixel pitch of 4.7 and a focal length multiplier of 2.0. The interesting bit is that the sensor is exactly the same in the two cameras.

Got an explanation? Didn't think so.

I don't buy cameras because of some meaningless data some nameless technophile put on the internet says it has .7 of a point better "colour depth" (whatever that means) than another model. I use the camera, and then make a judgement.

The m4/3rds and 4/3rds sensor is a compromise yes, but it's a good one for a few reasons. The main selling point of both sensors is the LENSES. Especially 4/3rds, where even the kit lenses equal canon/nikon mid level glass. Even on m4/3rds where the lenses are optimised for a small size, they're still very good in image quality, and totally reliable. The 4/3rds sensor IS the reason for this. It allows highly telecentric lenses which gives rich color, low CA, high sharpness and low vignetting. If you haven't already, check out the image samples posted so far by all the camera review sites from the sony nex cameras. Check them out full size, taken by both the 16mm and the zoom, and note how soft and crappy the corners are, how much CA high contrast edges have. From the samples posted so far, the lens quality of the sony E series lenses looks pretty average.
 
Last edited:
We all have to evaluate size vs. IQ compromises according to our own needs.

NickTrop doesn't think m4/3 is smaller enough to justify the IQ hit over APS sensors, and he also seems to be saying that cool/retro design is m4/3 main sales point. I think the market has already voted that m4/3 is smaller enough to justify the IQ hit over APS. They are 20% of the non-p&s shoot market in the UK and Japan (haven't seen any other market figures), and product offerings are growing. More consumers are buying D3000/D5000/Rebel/etc, but many are buying m4/3 after deciding entry-level DSLRs are too big.

A Nikon D5000 w-35/1.8 is significantly larger than an EPL1 w-17/2.8. It needs a significantly bigger bag, it is significantly heavier. And few D5000 bodies are sold with 35/1.8 lenses, they overwhelmingly sell w/18-55 VR zoom, a package which is way bigger than an EPL1 w/14-42.

This doesn't even touch on mirrorless live view vs. DSLR viewing, very slow performance DSLR live view mode, and superior m4/3 video. Mirrorless systems have advantages beyond compactness.

Although not easily pocketable, m4/3 will handily outperform any small-sensor p&s.

I'm not saying NickTrop is wrong, his decision was right for him, I'm just saying a growing chunk of the consumer market sees it differently. And there are certainly many enthusiasts, myself included, that see it differently.

What is exciting about the NEX series (and the Sammy NX10) is putting an APS sensor into a package sized like m4/3. Better image quality in a similar size, same image quality as a DSLR in a smaller size.

What we don't know is whether enough consumer wallets will agree and buy enough of these to make them viable. I think the critical factor is whether they are perceived to be smaller enough than a DSLR, not too much bigger than m4/3. And that seems to be more a lens issue than a body issue, since clearly the bodies can be made very small indeed.

IQ won't be an issue, the bigger sensor will be better. Performance (focus speed and shot-to-shot lag time) is not unimportant, but it only has to be better than a p&s and not worse than m4/3.

If Sony gets traction, and if Nikon/Canon come out with sharp, compact mirrorless designs built around APS sensors, m4/3 could become a footnote. But I can't keep thinking that lens size will be a limiting factor....
 
Last edited:
@Fdigital... It would seem to me that the data regarding focal length multipliers, pixel pitch etc. would come from the manufacturer's specs, so that question isn't enough to invalidate their testing. Perhaps this is a question for Olympus? It also could simply be a misprint. Likewise - and no offense, the subjective opinion of a single person who has "eyeballed" the output of whatever cameras is insufficient to invalidate their findings based on lab testing. Their testing SW is supplied to the optics industry, their Optics Pro SW competes with Adobe and is customized to your gear based on their testing. If they sucked, as you say, and their testing methodologies were not accurate I doubt they'd still be in business. The marketplace would handle that. I can see, however, where their results may aggravate people, like M8 or 4/3 owners.
 
Last edited:
@PCB_RF Having handled the Oly and a few of the smaller DSLRs in a camera store, I wouldn't call the difference in size/weight "significant". "Significant" would be the Oly and a Canon Mark IV. Can you put the camera in your pocket? No? Is the camera okay to put on a wrist strap? Yes. Then it falls in the "medium" camera-size category, the criteria to be being "can't slip into a shirt pocket, but it's okay to carry on a wrist strap". Intercategory size differences are largely meaningless from a practical standpoint. Starbucks: expresso shot, "Tall" or 7/11 "Big Gulp". These are "Talls" one is a 10oz, the other a 12oz but both "Talls" i.e. medium sized. If you want a camera with good low-light performance that you can slip in your pocket then the best solution out there are the "old" Fuji Finepix F10,20,30,31's that cost around $100, give-er-take, that "probably" give you IQ comprable to the 4/3rds but with the caveat you have to use the lens on the camera. Interchangeable lens "system" cameras - film/digital, then/now have never been nor will they ever be "pocketable". The best they can do from a size/usability standpoint is to be able to be put on a wrist strap and carried (and therefore used) without much fuss. While on the subject of lenses, the cheap 35mm f1.8 DX prime I use covers all the criteria you mention and it's designed around an APS-C film plane size. There are a bazillion lenses, old and new, I can use on the camera, though most won't autofocus and many won't meter - no biggie to this manual camera with broken meter user. But I deleted all the "watched" auctions for old Nikon glass, decided this is a slippery slope that results in bags of not used or rarely used "had to have" glass and focal lengths, and - like HCB, decided that the decent 35mm (50mm equiv) f1.8 is all the lens"es" I need. I'm through with GAS and that slippery slop of gear lust. My collection of cameras is complete - except, perhaps, the purchase of a TLR for medium format. I am currently without MF gear, sadly, and will likely pick up a TLR down the road. Apart from that? I'm done.
 
Last edited:
To me the NEX-3 looks a lot better than the NEX-5 aesthetics wise. The lens fits the design better. For $550 list and most likely $449-499 street, the NEX-3 looks like a great P&S camera.
 
NickTrop said:
@Fdigital... It would seem to me that the data regarding focal length multipliers, pixel pitch etc. would come from the manufacturer's specs, so that question isn't enough to invalidate their testing. Perhaps this is a question for Olympus? It also could simply be a misprint. Likewise - and no offense, the subjective opinion of a single person who has "eyeballed" the output of whatever cameras is insufficient to invalidate their findings based on lab testing. Their testing SW is supplied to the optics industry, their Optics Pro SW competes with Adobe and is customized to your gear based on their testing. If they sucked, as you say, and their testing methodologies were not accurate I doubt they'd still be in business. The marketplace would handle that. I can see, however, where their results may aggravate people, like M8 or 4/3 owners.
Click to expand...

I own a 5d, for the second time. I also own an e-p1, and in good conditions it would be very difficult to tell the files from each apart. DXO mark get their specs on pixel pitch from getting the size of the sensor, and doing some sort of math with the pixel count. Also the crop factor cannot be explained - olympus would have never said the crop factor on any of their cameras was 1.92. If you can find an olympus resource that says otherwise, I will paypal you $10. I know you won't, so just accept that dxomark has errors in it.

Do you honestly thing the nikon d200 has more dynamic range than the canon 5d, with it's full frame sensor?

NickTrop said:
@PCB_RF Having handled the Oly and a few of the smaller DSLRs in a camera store, I wouldn't call the difference in size/weight "significant". "Significant" would be the Oly and a Canon Mark IV. Can you put the camera in your pocket? No? Is the camera okay to put on a wrist strap? Yes. Then it falls in the "medium" camera-size category, the criteria to be being "can't slip into a shirt pocket, but it's okay to carry on a wrist strap". Intercategory size differences are largely meaningless from a practical standpoint. Starbucks: expresso shot, "Tall" or 7/11 "Big Gulp". These are "Talls" one is a 10oz, the other a 12oz but both "Talls" i.e. medium sized. If you want a camera with good low-light performance that you can slip in your pocket then the best solution out there are the "old" Fuji Finepix F10,20,30,31's that cost around $100, give-er-take, that "probably" give you IQ comprable to the 4/3rds but with the caveat you have to use the lens on the camera. Interchangeable lens "system" cameras - film/digital, then/now have never been nor will they ever be "pocketable". The best they can do from a size/usability standpoint is to be able to be put on a wrist strap and carried (and therefore used) without much fuss.
Click to expand...

My 5d is the smallest full frame digital you can buy, and no bigger than a d300 or a 50d. It's massively bigger than an e-p1 or any other m4/3 camera. Massively. Even if something like a 550d/t2i rebel etc is close to the e-p1 in size, it's kit lens is still twice the size, not to mention it's half the optical quality of the olympus/panasonic one. I can fit an e-p1 and 3 lenses in a tiny little domke bag whilst travelling. I can fit 1 5d and a 35mm lens in the bag, and nothing else. The e-p1 kit weighs under half of the 5d/lens. That's usefully smaller. The only camera you can actually put in your pocket with half decent IQ is the olympus XA.

5d vs e-p1 w/kit lens - similar focal lengths:
3805147424_5fb604a2c2.jpg


Better comparisons here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrewgospastic/3744538499/

and here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrewgospastic/3744539001/

The fuji finepix f10/20/30/31 image quality is nowhere near of an e-p1. Not even close. Viewed at 100% images from one of those fujis look like a blurry pixelated mess in comparison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top