A Tale of Two Systems

Discussion in 'Other Systems' started by dixeyk, Aug 13, 2012.

  1. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...I have for the past month or so been shooting daily with my NEX and m43 systems side by side. I live with their strengths and weaknesses and thought it might be helpful to some folks if I shared them. First up, the dramatis personae:


    The top end compact Panasonic sports a newer 16mp sensor, fast AF, am improved JPEG engine, terrific build quality, compact size (it is surprisingly small) and a comprehensive set of manual controls. It seems like a worthy successor to the venerable GF1. The GX1 is a RF style body that is remarkably small. It's not much bigger than my E-PM1 was and yet it manages to fit a full complement of controls, and my favorite Panasonic touch the clickable thumbwheel. The body is all metal with a nice oversized grip that reminds me of the excellent "larger" grip for the E-P3. In many ways the GX1 is very much like the E-P3 in that it makes using it fun and effortless while still being quite compact. I use my GX1 without the optional LVF2 external EVF but I understand that it is very similar quality wise to the Olympus VF2. I'm getting somewhere around 300- 350 shots on a battery charge. I have the Panasonic P14/2.5, PL25/1.4 and PL45/2.8 as my lenses.

    I bought the NEX-C3 as a platform for manual focus lenses. It has a 16mp APS-C sensor, a flip up 900K LCD and minimal hard controls in a very compact body that is smaller than the GX1. It comes with an external flash but no ability to use the very high resolution NEX EVF. The NEX has a nice tight feel to it and sits easily in the hand. The external controls are minimal with 4 programmable soft controls, control wheel, and then buttons for video and playback. An unexpected touch in a low end camera such as the SD card having it's own door as opposed to sharing a compartment with the battery. Since I chose the NEX as a MF platform I primarily use my Vivtar 28/2 Close Focus, Olympus Pen-F 38/1.8 and Konica 24/2.8 and 50/1.4. I also have a single native lens in the Sigma 30/2.8 for when I want to have AF on the NEX (which is turning out to be almost never).

    IN USE
    I have a camera with me almost every day no matter where I’m going or what I’m doing and each day either the GX1 or C3 is inside my bag. I am not a professional but I do use my cameras quite a lot and the things I look for are how comfortable the camera is (does it sit easily in the hand and are the controls where I want them to be, does it get out of my way and let me do what I need to do (as little menu diving as possible) and do I enjoy shooting with it. I’m not particularly stuck on one brand and am more than willing to try something new if its better than what I have. The original idea of having the NEX and m43 bodies together was so I could have a system optimized for AF with terrific lenses and a system that really did MF well to use my legacy glass with.

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dixeyk/7512426536/" title="Razor Break by dixeyk, on Flickr">[​IMG]"1024" height="680" alt="Razor Break"></a>
    NEX-C3 and Hexanon 24/2.8

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dixeyk/7720743872/" title="The Hangover by dixeyk, on Flickr">[​IMG]"1024" height="681" alt="The Hangover"></a>
    NEX-C3 and Vivitar 28/2 Close Focus

    The GX1 is a small, fast and easy to whip out and grab the quick shot. The PL25 and PL45 are wonderfully sharp, have terrific bokeh and each produces images that are wonderfully detailed with lovely rendering and bokeh. That give me normal, portrait and macro in a nice light setup, and if you toss in the 14 (that is really not much larger than a rear lens cap) and you a remarkably capable system that fit into a super small bag. The NEX OTOH requires a bit more patience and thinking ahead. The NEX-C3 has limited physical controls. They come in the form of a set of programmable soft buttons/dial on the back. The NEX UI is a real challenge when coming from the IU on any m43 camera. The menu seems needlessly complex and navigation is counterintuitive. Luckily the programmable soft buttons give you just enough flexibility to limit your need to menu dive when using the camera. I have my buttons/dial set to ISO, WB, exposure compensation and metering. Since I set the aperture manually on the lens I find that I rarely need to venture into the menus while shooting. The UI and controls on the GX1 by comparison are logical, well laid out and make manual adjustments a breeze. The crown jewel of the GX1’s controls is the clickable thumbwheel that allows you to switch between aperture and exposure compensation. It couldn’t be simpler and that feature alone is one of the reasons why I tend to favor Panasonic bodies.

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dixeyk/7756969742/" title="Future TIme Lord by dixeyk, on Flickr">[​IMG]"769" height="1024" alt="Future TIme Lord"></a>
    GX1 and PL45 (I couldn't catch this "moment" with the NEX as easily)

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dixeyk/7756475766/" title="Gandalf by dixeyk, on Flickr">[​IMG]"769" height="1024" alt="Gandalf"></a>
    GX1 and PL45 (...and the GX1 is no slouch image wise)

    You’d think that given the far better native lenses, fast AF, a full complement of manual controls (and buttons), great UI and so forth the GX1 would be the natural choice when I grab for a camera but it’s not that simple. The NEX comes to the table with a wholly different appeal. Once set up the C3 is an easy camera to love. It’s reminds me in many ways of using some of my old film SLRs (I swear the shutter on the NEX is almost as loud as my old Konica T2). First off I’ve chosen to go MF only with the NEX. My favorite lenses are the Konica 24/2.8, Pen-F 38/1.8 and most recently a Vivitar 28/2 close focus. The experience of the NEX is the polar opposite of the GX1. Going MF requires you to think, slow down and consider what you are doing. The NEX helps of course because it is uniquely suited to going MF. The NEX as most folks know by now employs a feature called focus peaking. It is IMHO the fastest and most reliable way to manually focus since the rangefinder. When looking at the LCD (which BTW is a gorgeous 900K+ resolution) the focal plane that is in focus will show highlighted in the focus peaking color of your choosing (red, yellow or white). It’s a a very different thing than looking at the LCD and having to determine if something is in focus visually. It also takes a bit of getting used to. At first I found that I needed to zoom in and check focus to be sure, but after getting used to way it works I find I am able to use focus peaking without needing to zoom in. It’s a bit like the “shimmer’ effect on my old E-P1 but more reliable and accurate. In fact, I have found that if I am using a lens like the Konica 40/1.8 that has a pretty short turn to focus I am able to shoot almost as quickly with a MF lens using focus peaking than I can with the Sigma 30/2.8 for the NEX. The APS-C sensor with a 1.5x crop means that legacy lenses give me a bit more useful ranges in terms of focal length. My Konica 24/2.8 becomes a 36/2.8 and a lens like the Vivitar 28/2 becomes a close focus 42/2. Of course like any crop sensor camera legacy WA is a rather expensive proposition and longer zooms become impressive bargains with great reach.

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dixeyk/7565355084/" title="The White Queen and the Red Lady by dixeyk, on Flickr">[​IMG]"1024" height="680" alt="The White Queen and the Red Lady"></a>
    NEX-C3 and Hexanon 24/2.8 (the NEX and the Konicas really DO seem well matched)

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dixeyk/7600927644/" title="Occulus by dixeyk, on Flickr">[​IMG]"1024" height="680" alt="Occulus"></a>
    NEX-C3 and Pen-F 38/1.8

    There is however one significant difference that I have noticed using MF lenses with the NEX compared to native glass with m43. I find that I prefer the images that come from the NEX. I don’t know if you can attribute soley to the APS-C sensor vs. the m43 sensor. I know absolutely about nothing optics and sensors but the images that I get from the C3 have a wonderful 3D quality to them that I do not get from m43 using the same lenses. I am sure some of it is the superior DR of the sensor but it seems to be consistent with the brand of lens I am using, Konicas for instance have a very different look than the Super Takumars which is in turn different from the Pen-F and Vivitars. The Konicas appear to be particularly well suited to life on a NEX. It’s this “look” that I am able to get with the NEX that is very appealing and even more seductive. I'm not a professional but I find the NEX+Konica deliver very pleasing results. Recently I picked up a Sigma 30/2.8 for the NEX and as an AF camera my NEX is nowhere near as fun to use as it is with MF lenses. I'm not sure if its the lens or the camera but the performance of the Sigma and the NEX is not that different than say the E-P1 and the P20. Whether or not that seems perfectly acceptable or outrageously really depends on what you like. The Sigma is wonderfully sharp, has lovely rendering and very good bokeh but the experience of using the NEX/Sigma combination isn't what I would call fun. It's functional, does what it says it will do and at $200 is a very VERY good bargain but I find myself grabbing for the MF glass instead. When coming from the the PL25 and PL45 on my GX1 the difference is especially noticeable.

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dixeyk/7750456012/" title="Fade by dixeyk, on Flickr">[​IMG]"1024" height="680" alt="Fade"></a>
    NEX-C3 with Sigma 30/2.8

    There really isn't a winner. They're both good in very different ways. So which do I prefer? It really depends on what I am looking to do. For moving fast and working with a certain amount of spontaneity the GX1 is the obvious choice. The AF is fast (and generally reliable with the PL25) and the it has a great combination of functionality and small size that make it a perfect take everywhere camera. It's weakness is IQ, of course of I didn't have the NEX to compare to I doubt it would ever be an issue. BUT, I do have a NEX and once I got a look at what the NEX's APS-C sensor could do it became really tough to forget it. I look at at the images that the GX1 produces and they look great but you also know that the ones from the NEX look better. IMHO they have more resolution, better color and dynamic range. As much as I would love to say that I don't compare them, I do. In the back of my mind I KNOW that the NEX images are better, A LOT BETTER. The NEX on the other hand isn't the clear winner either. With a legacy lens attached it is really a terrific camera. It has an old school charm that you will either like or hate depending on your tastes. I have always loved shooting my old MF film cameras so I like it. It's simple and efficient. Set the camera to A mode, set the aperture on the lens and look at the LCD and go. Focus peaking is brilliant and I find that I can work quickly and accurately doing MF on the NEX. In fact, I'm probably faster using MF on my NEX than using the Sigma 30. The experience of using the NEX is basic and very gratifying. You certainly can't argue with the images. Unfortunately the NEX also has some significant limitations such as a bizarre UI, awkward handling of some controls, slow AF and a pedestrian lineup of native lenses. FWIW I suspect the handling is vastly improved on the NEX7 (and rumored NEX6) but I have neither of those so...

    As of now the systems are a compliment to one another. The GX1 is my AF system and the NEX my MF system. Neither is close to challenging the strength of the other. If I HAD to choose between them I think I'd probably pick the GX1 by the ABSOLUTE SLIMMEST of margins. It's easier to use under a variety of conditions and it does just as well if I am taking my time or photographing the family picnic. The GX1 cannot match the IQ of the NEX, but the PL25 and PL45 even things up a bit. That said, I really love using the NEX as my MF camera. The IQ is terrific and it is a absolute joy to use with a legacy lens attached...even with just the LCD (not something the GX1 does well) and if it had a better UI I can just as easily see picking the NEX instead of the GX1.

    In the end they both are great tools for making images and I really can't ask for anything more.
    • Like Like x 22
  2. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Thanks for posting this.
    As the owner of an E-PL2 & NEX-F3 I understand in part where you're coming from.

    I have a slightly different perspective in the area of "now & later"...
  3. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)

    I enjoyed your write up and the photos as well. Very interesting to get your perspective on NEX compared to MFT.

    As you know, I too use NEX, although for me it has been in the distinct role of secondary system, and for a few months now, I haven't been using it at all since my NEX-C3 has been on loan to my dad. Seeing as how dad has an OM-D now, I expect to be getting my C3 back soon :).

    I agree thet NEX is for most people a better choice for adapted manual focus lenses because of focus peaking and less crop factor with 35mm format lenses, giving more choices for wide angles. The exception would be those who like using adapted lenses for smaller formats.

    Where my impressions differ with yours is this whole business of "once you see what an APS-C sensor can do..." I came from 35mm format (5D, D700) and APS-C (many Canons, D5000) to MFT (GH1, GH2, E-P3, E-M5, GX1). Since becoming a MFT user, I've picked up a Pentax K-5, NEX-5N, and NEX-C3, all of which incidentally happen to use versions of the same APS-C Sony sensor, which was best in class as far as APS-C sensors went at the time. None of this has convinced me that there is any special image quality advantage to APS-C over 4/3.

    The best APS-C sensors (Sony) are measurably better than the best 4/3 sensors, but many APS-C sensors (eg, Canon) have little advantage over the best 4/3 sensors. None of the APS-C cameras left me with some kind of unforgettable impression image quality that I yearn for or miss when shooting with the GX1, E-M5, or GH2. Neither did the D700, which has a greater tonal range and high ISO noise advantage over any APS-C sensor than any APS-C sensor has over the leading 4/3 sensors. Meanwhile, stabilized primes let me shoot at lower ISO values than ever before, and that negates any slight sensor image quality difference I could see between 4/3 and APS-C.

    Maybe you're seeing something I don't, or maybe you think you're seeing something you don't. Either way, I don't see it :smile:.
  4. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Real Name:
    Great post and thanks for your commentary as a "straddler" of both camps.

    I'm still firmly in the m4/3 camp, but in time... and given wonderful, new native glass and body offerings, I can see venturing deep into the NEX or EOS camps. Time will tell. And in the meantime... m4/3 is a wonderful place to reside.

    This is a great time to be in photographic imaging as the offerings are amazing.
  5. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    I think perhaps I would amend it to say "once I saw what the NEX+legacy lenses were capable of..." because in all honesty I have friends with Nikons and Canons and I never been particularly impressed with the images they produce compared to m43. They're nice but never found myself thinking I was missing something. Also, I admit to being biased toward legacy glass. It has a wonderful tactile feel that I just like a lot so the NEX has a lot of appeal built-in. As to what I am seeing...it's hard to explain. What I see (or think I see) is that the images from the NEX have a 3D quality that the GX1 (nor any of my m43 cameras) have. I suspect the E-M5 is different but I don't have one so I can't compare what I don't have any experience with. Now, it might be the lenses. I favor using my Konicas and they are all very sharp. So it may well be what I am seeing is a product of the NEX and Konica combination. I have heard from a few NEX+Konica users over on TalkNEX that they also find that the Konicas suit the NEX well. Whatever it is I find it appealing.

    What I wanted most to get across was that they are both terrific tools and each have strengths and weaknesses. I find myself enjoying each for what it can do and not bothered too terribly by what it cannot.
  6. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    For sure, some legacy glass renders in a charming way that imparts a certain look. Some modern glass does the same. My skepticism has more to do with the sensor contribution to it all. Panasonic G1 sensor IQ at ISO 200 is nearly identical to D700 sensor IQ at ISO 800, so the idea that there is some kind of recognizable dividing line between images from 4/3 and APS-C sensor is where I sign off.

  7. jyc860923

    jyc860923 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 28, 2012
    Shenyang, China
    Real Name:
    I'd agree that the APS-C sensor has something that m43 sensor doesn't, and Sony is absolutely making the best use of the sensors with the NEX system, it's just the handling and native lenses preventing me from investing in NEX system;

    as always, I'm still seeing m43 as the best balanced system with the design, build quality, lenses and size, with only IQ being the bottleneck; I tried some entry level Canon DSLRs this weekend and my experience is that they are not as easy to deliver what I want as m43 is, the handling, focusing and rendering doesn't work for me.
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Luckypenguin

    Luckypenguin .

    Oct 9, 2010
    Brisbane, Australia
    Real Name:
    A nice, considered comparison between the two cameras. I think that one of the things that Sony has done right with the NEX is that they have not held back their best sensor technology on the entry-level models. Okay, you could say that there is a distinction now with the 24MP sensor in the NEX-7, but the 16MP alternative is still very, very good. In comparison, Micro Four Thirds has required you to stretch to the more expensive GH1, GH2, and now E-M5 to get the best sensor available in the system at the time.

    I also tend to believe that the ranking of sensor performance is as much a function of technology as it is sensor size. Go back as far as 2009 and you'll find that the Panasonic GH1 gave away nothing to the best APS-C sensor that Canon had available at the time. Especially now in Lightroom 4 it is clear to me that my 50D does nothing that the GH1 can't, excepting some banding that can occur if you try to push deep shadows too far at high ISOs. Even the latest Canon sensor found in the G1X with the new Digic V processor doesn't have the same highlight headroom as the three year old Panasonic!

    The E-M5 has since moved another large step forwards while Canon has virtually stood still. Sony has really set the standard in the last few years with sensors that are also found in Nikon, Pentax, Ricoh, Leica, and Fuji cameras, and according to all reports make the E-M5 sensor as well. It would have been nice if Panasonic had made their best sensors available across more models, and it remains to be seen whether we'll see the E-M5 sensor appear in the next generation of Pens as well.

    Amongst APS-C sensor systems it is the Ricoh GXR that interests me the most. Yes, it's a bit quirky and the lensor concept would seem to be somewhat flawed, but it's a camera that I could see myself enjoying alongside the best of the Micro Four Thirds system.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. nianys

    nianys Mu-43 Regular

    THANK you for this very interesting comparison
    !!! I'm a GX-1 lover myself who recently started using legacy lenses, and hence very curious about the NEX system. All the more so as, like you, I belong to that small minority who *does* see the IQ difference between m4/3 and APS-C sensors (ex FF user looking for max DOF control at all times). Does the older NEX5n have the nice 920k screen as well ??
  10. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    The in-between size of the Foveon (larger than Micro Four Thirds/smaller than APS-C) IMHO is a great (perfect?) balance of sizes. It's only limitation is low-light performance.

    But if you're a strobist and/or studio shooter, then low-light performance *shouldn't* be that big of an issue. :smile:

    (Problem is, Sigma doesn't make a MILC system) :frown:
  11. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    I believe the 5n does have the higher resolution screen. What I also find very nice about the NEX is they have a "sunny weather" setting on the LCD that makes the LCD very useable in bright sunlight. Believe me I was skeptical when I first saw it but it actually works really well. If you're in a mood to use legacy glass the NEX is really something special.

    As to the difference in the look...I know zip about optics and sensors so I am in no position to argue the point with folks that know more than me but to my eyes the NEX images look very different from the m43 images. I wish I could articulate it better but the best I can do is say that I find them to have a very 3D look to them (and I quite like it). I remember the first image I looked at form the C3. I was not expecting it to be very different from my GH2 but when it popped up in LR I did a double take. I can fully appreciate folks not seeing much of a difference and given that I have a real love of Black and White and Tri-X 400 film either camera produces excellent results for me...but I DO see a difference, and I like whatever it is that I am seeing. However, even with that difference I quite like my GX1. A camera is so much more than just IQ. It's the coming together of a lot of things. Right now I am thrilled to have two kits that I like so much I have a hard time deciding which to take each day.
  12. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Need to do some DOF tests with: (for example)

    -Nikon 24-70 ƒ2.8 on an APS-C body

    Comapred To

    -Lumix 12-35 ƒ2.8 on a µ4/3 body
  13. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    I see folks talk about the differences between the E-PL1 image and the rest of the m43 bodies and I find it difficult to see much difference so who am I to get all worked up of people don't see a difference between APS-C and m43? I am happy just to have a couple of really great tools to help me make images.
  14. nianys

    nianys Mu-43 Regular

    I think we've had this conversation under one form or another more than once on various boards. It's like the whole DOF or APS-C or FF argument. I do believe folks saying they don't see a difference. I also believe my own eyes in knowing that I personally do see one. We all have different sensitivity thresholds for different senses. I for one, have a very dumb nose, I need (figure of speech) to have my head held over a waste bin to realize it stinks, while my husband will sniff a discreet fart yards away. OTOH, I can hear people having a quiet conversation from the opposite side of a large room. So my nose is dumb, but my ears and eyes are eagle sharp, and that 3D, FF (and to a lesser degree, APS-C) pop is very real to me. I do respect and understand its beyond other people, like subtle smells are way beyond my dull sense of smell.
    So I guess what matters is what *i* can see in a picture. And I totally agree with the fact there is way more to a camera than its sensor. There are a few things of the GX-1 I'm so in love with I'd have a VERY hard time not having in my next cam. To name a few : genuinely useful touchscreen with AF point selection and additional controls. Super fast and vet accurate AF, low light included. Near perfect size/weight ratio. In-camera choice of image format, including the lovely 1:1. Probably the best UI and handling I ever used, I never had a Panny camera before but I'm smitten with the way the GX-1 operates. This, coupled with the guaranteed excellent IQ, has made me want to use it daily for the past 6 months I've had it, totally dismissing my other cams.
    But the NEX is nagging at me with its APS-C sensor and focus peaking feature. If the rumored NEX 6 (with built-in EVF, 16mp chip and lower than NEX 7 price tag) is anything real, I might very well get one...
  15. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    I edited my original post in order to reflect that my statements about the APS-C and the m43 sensor are MY perceptions of it. I think I had worded in a way that was a bit too black and white and it really isn't that way.

    I agree, I really like the GX1 and would be hard pressed to part with it...but there is also something really special about the NEX and MF lenses. I'm also keeping a close eye on the NEX6. :biggrin:
  16. Uncle Frank

    Uncle Frank Photo Enthusiast

    Jul 26, 2012
    San Jose, CA
    Real Name:
    When it comes to mf, your C3 has the advantage of the wonderful peaking feature. But I'd encourage you to try your gx1 with an evf before you draw firm conclusions. The vf2 made a world in manual work with my pl2.
  17. cmpatti

    cmpatti Mu-43 Veteran

    May 8, 2011
    Berkeley, CA
    Thanks for the nice comparison. I'm curious about the "output" conditions in which you see significant IQ differences between the two cameras. Do you see differences in prints? If so at what sizes?
  18. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    I have used EVFs before. I had a VF2 on my E-PL1, E-P3, and E-PM1 as well as the built-in EVFs on my G2 and GH2. I think they work pretty well but my experience has been that focus peaking is quicker and I have found it to very accurate. Part of it is that I have a stable CSR on my right eye (that I use for the viewfinder) that causes a tiny bit of vertical distortion and some mild blurriness. Having to determine what is in focus becomes a much more difficult task when you need to make that determination my seeing the picture clearly. Focus peaking is a lot broader in that I just need to see the colors and determine which plane of focus I want.

    Also, focus peaking works even in bright sun on the LCD. Sony has a cool little sunny weather setting for the LCd and it actually works. As I recall the VF2 and the built-in EVFs could get overwhelmed in bright sun. That said, using an EVF definitely makes MF on m43 a lot simpler and to that end I may still pick up an LVF2 at some point.
  19. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    I see it both in prints and on screen. I have a Canon Pro 9000 mk II so it's a pretty decent printer and usually I print on Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl. It's not high end printing but nice enough for my needs. I have to add I am happy with the output of the GX1. I really don't have any good m43/NEX comparisons shots but I do have a few NEX images that I think show the look I find so appealing.

    ... from the NEX and my Konica 24/2.8
    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dixeyk/7470611790/" title="Pastellar by dixeyk, on Flickr">[​IMG]"1024" height="680" alt="Pastellar"></a>

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dixeyk/7458342592/" title="Pink Sharp by dixeyk, on Flickr">[​IMG]"1024" height="680" alt="Pink Sharp"></a>

    Maybe its nothing or just the way the NEX and the Konicas work together but I like the way these images look (subject matter not withstanding) and i don't find that I can get that same look with my GX1. I get lovely images from the GX1 but they look different to me. Where I feel like I see it is in the way the fine details of the petal look and the way the soft surfaces look.
  20. Paul Amyes

    Paul Amyes Mu-43 Regular

    Dec 27, 2011
    Hobart, Tasmania
    I think it is important to realise that lenses have very different rendering characteristics and when combined with certain types of sensor (film or electronic) then a certain type of "magic" occurs. The most famous example is the combination of Leica Sumicrons and Kodak Tri-x which gave rise to the so called "Leica glow" which was a comination of accutance, high light rendition and the anti-halation layer in the emulsion. So I can accept what the OP is saying about his Konica lenses really suiting the sensor of the NEX.

    As to how lenses draw and the effect of format size I believe that some people are more attuned to it than others. It is a little like hifi. I have flat ears and really an expensive hifi system for me would be a waste, I would not be aware of any of the qualities I would be listening for. Itis the same with optics and photography. I like my EP-2 very much and use it a great deal and even have started a project that will end up as an exhibition and book soon, but after a period of using it solely everyday for a month I realised that my images were a little lacking in a certain something, they were a bit bland and lacked for want of a better term 'pop'. I've now been shooting for a few weeks mainly with my medium format film camera and I'm now seeing that quality in my work. I'm perfectly happy to accept that this might just be me, but if people perceive a difference between different formats then for them it is very much real.
    • Like Like x 1