Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Systems' started by RT_Panther, Jul 10, 2011.
DxOMark - Compare sensors
The C3 is a nice bump over the old NEX 3/5. It extends the NEX lead over the M43 cameras. These were posted on a NEX forum a few days back. The NEX people complain that the C3 is "handcuffed" since the same sensor on the A580 gets even better marks. For something I can stick in my pocket, those numbers are pretty darn impressive.
And when the 40mm ƒ2.0 gets released along with the 55-210....I just might have to convert completely to NEX....
Problem is, I dearly love my µ4/3 gear but it just can't compete with NEX in dynamic range & high ISO performance....
So why give up your m4/3 gear? There is not a great difference between them.
depressing. I've always thought they were fugly cameras and have assumed that the ergonomics would be foul, but the difference between the performance is great enough that I may have to try one out and see how it feels (and then I plugged in my current m4/3 cams.....not the latest best models.......bad idea)
There's a big difference in high ISO performance. I can already do things with my NEX-3 at ISO 1600 & 3200 that I wouldn't dream of with my E-PL2...
But there's a certain "fun factor" with µ4/3 that exists.. :smile: :smile: :smile:
That being said, if I were to part with my µ4/3, I would have bigger pool of funds to work with.....
Perhaps I should keep my µ4/3 lenses..
sonyalpharumors | Blog | (Updated) Micro Four Thirds to Sony NEX adapter (but there will be a vignette issue most likely)
I don't see the point unless the AF function works since MF glass will be much cheaper. Selling a 20mm F1.7 will fund a bunch of old MF glass. While technically possible for AF to work, an adapter like that will not be cheap.
I did the NEX swing a bit, for about 6 months (sold the NEX3 last month). The lenses are fairly poor in quality, and there are real engineering limits to what they can do with them -- both in quality (the distance to sensor is too short, meaning always soft edges) and size (sensor size drives lens size, so their lenses will always be bigger). It's mainly a bells and whistles platform (tilt screen, LCD quality and pano shooting were spot on), and it supports legacy glass fairly well.
I would say the move makes a lot of sense IF OlyPanny hadn't just announced the 12, 25 and 45. I've got all three lenses on order. I think these new lenses are going to really make a difference, but I'm having trouble being patient and waiting for their arrival!
COMPLETELY agree, but when the fastest lens is at 2.8 vs. 1.7, some of that high ISO advantage is lost. Meanwhile SONY is pumping out bodies, but not lenses. Bodies are easy to make -- lenses are not.
NEX systems have "Peak Focusing" for MF...which IMHO, works better than MF in µ4/3 systems...
But you're correct in that it makes better sense to sell a complete µ4/3 system along with associated glass for a good price :smile:
m43 has a f0.95 lens
I'll be the first to admit that my NEX-3 sat unused for months while I enjoyed µ4/3 :smile:
However, two things brought me back to NEX...
1) "Peak Focusing" (which allows me to use Sony A-mount 50 & 35mm ƒ1.8 primes with GREAT satisfaciton in MF)
2) Upcoming Zeiss 24mm ƒ2.0 E-mount (NEX) lenses, along with Sony's own E-Mount 40mm ƒ2.0 and 55-210...
and the nex7!
(I really do like m43, just wish they had peaking and better sensors)
And scary thing about the upcoming NEX-7 (August tentative release) is that it will have the vaunted α77 sensor
Me too! - I REALLY like µ4/3 too.... :smile:
But the dynamic range & high ISO performance difference between NEX & µ4/3 systems is getting to be too much for "me" to ignore now....
I really like m43 as I have more than one brand to choose from unlike other systems.
yeah, that's why I was hoping the rumored apsc pentax would have an nex mount. The two system combination is one of the best things about m43, IMO
When you say it's getting too much for you to ignore...
1. Is this based on your actual photography? In other words, is the M4/3 dynamic range limiting you in some aspect of your photography> Same with the ISO performance?
2. Related to question one, is it the test results that concern you, or real-world shooting?
3. Have you considered the high ISO results of the G3 and E-P3: most reviews are preliminary, but these cameras are producing good results. Do you really need better?
4. To each their own priorities. For me, it's important to consider a whole system rather than just one piece of equipment (camera body for example) or one feature or result (calculated ISO results, for example).
I think about the photography I enjoy, and also types of photography I might enjoy, and consider what might be holding me back. More often than not, it is skill, technique or time that is a bigger culprit than gear.
If the dynamic range and ISO abilities of M4/3 are holding you back from achieving your photography goals then move, and move fast so you can spend time making photographs.
I certainly like the idea of a Nex 7 with what seems to be a great sensor and built-in VF. Nice.
But the lens availability for Sony does not meet my needs. M4/3 lenses are very good to great, and more are arriving. The system is great, and I can print very large with no loss over my 5D.
As for peaking: a very cool feature. It's not the nirvana for MF, but it is cool. But note that Sony do not have a monopoly on it: they were just smart enough to use it for this first. Panasonic already use it in some video cameras. It will come...
I agree on the peaking, but I guess I decided I was over MF.
I really find there's a difference for me for how I want to use my camera. Staring at an LCD in front of my face gives me eye strain. But it's a different kind of strain, whether I'm looking to frame, or I'm looking to focus. Focusing requires a lot more looking than framing, and just leaves me way too crosseyed. Once I came to that realization, my initial infatuation with MF ended, I sold all my MF lenses excepting an OM 100 2.8, and am going with the new stable of lenses plus the 20mm and 14-150 (so my plan is 12, 25, 45, OM 100, 14-150 and possibly the 20).
But if you really love MF and don't mind the more modern/techno aesthetic of the Sony bodies, then I would think the NEX is a good choice.
One last note, though I didnt try any CZ lenses, I found most adapted lenses unacceptably soft wide open, meaning you had to stop down, thereby negating some of the advantage of the fast glass, and therefore also carrying extra weight for nothing.
I'll have a more formed opinion in the fall from actual experience, but I really do think these new lenses change the Mu platform into the leading contender. We'll all know more in a few months time.