Prev: Photo about Main Square
Next: Ditch the LCD for EVIL cameras
From: Rich on 5 Jun 2010 00:54
On Jun 4, 3:09 pm, Bowser <Ca...(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 12:47:22 -0400, "David Ruether"
>
>
>
> <d_ruet...(a)thotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Bowser" <ba...(a)bing.com> wrote in messagenews:gz9On.282$5N3.161(a)bos-service2b.ext.ray.com...
> >> "RichA" <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:6933c9b8-147e-49fb-949a-fb3c63c82055(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> Could probably get away with the 16mm at f2.8 in a pinch, but it isn't
> >>> in the same league as better micro 4/3rds lenses.  There is a limit of
> >>> what you can do with a set amount of funds, and Sony needs to spend
> >>> more and make the 16mm more expensive so it can do a proper job.
> >>> There is a reason a Zeiss 21mm for a FF camera costs what it does.
> >>> The Sony lens at f8.0 is passable, but the CA is severe and not
> >>> correctable in software, IMO.  The blurring at f2.8 at the edges is
> >>> also bad, enough so you'd clearly see it on any decent sized print.
> >>> IMO, this lens will be used like the crappy Sigma 30mm f1.4-centrally,
> >>> and not for work requiring good edge definition. But again, bear in
> >>> mind the camera and lens are very inexpensive.
>
> >>> [URL deleted - it didn't work...]
>
> >> Man, that is amazingly bad for a fixed focal length lens. Maybe Sony shoulda stayed in bed with Zeiss.
>
> >Even a good maker can have a "bad day"...snip...
>
> Agreed, but this one has "turkey" written all over it. The released it
> to the testers, got hammered, claimed they were all pre-productions
> samples, and then they release this? And the zoom looks bad, as well.
> I'm afraid these two lenses, combined with the utterly horrible
> control system on the NEX cams might do nothing but sell a ton of m4/3
> cams. I had hoped for something good, but they worked so hard to make
> it small they made it unusable.

The NEX will be worth buying for four reasons:
-Great low noise performance.
-Will work great with a good lens, like an adapted Zeiss.
-Great build quality and compact.
-Cheap!!
From: SMS on 5 Jun 2010 11:03
On 04/06/10 9:54 PM, Rich wrote:

> The NEX will be worth buying for four reasons:
> -Great low noise performance.
> -Will work great with a good lens, like an adapted Zeiss.
> -Great build quality and compact.
> -Cheap!!

No way.

-Adapted Alpha lenses lose the AF functionality.
-Burst mode is very slow and requires what one reviewer stated "point
and pray" because of the lack of an optical viewfinder.
-The zoom lenses so far are horrible, and the upcoming lenses are quite
expensive.
-Competition like the Panasonic DMC-GF1 have fewer negative attributes.

The problem with cameras like the Micro 4/3 and the NEX is that they are
constantly being compared to D-SLRs because they have larger sensors and
interchangeable lenses, but the advantages of a D-SLR extend far beyond
the lower noise and higher ISO capability that the larger sensor
provides, and the versatility that interchangeable lenses provide.

I.e. the GF1 gets dinged for its weak flash (duh, like all P&S cameras
it has a weak built-in flash, there's no room for a more powerful pop-up
flash, but you can always add an external flash), it's high ISO/noise
performance (hey, it's a Panasonic which is famous for poor high ISO/low
noise performance on its P&S cameras), the need for an optional
viewfinder which eliminates the ability to use a flash (rationalized by
the premise that the times you need the viewfinder is in bright light
when you don't need a flash).

What's the market for the NEX? Someone that doesn't care about poor
quality and expensive lenses as long as they're interchangeable, and
doesn't ever shoot in bright sunlight because they can't see the LCD so
they need better high-ISO performance so they can shoot in low light? At
least the market for ZLRs is undertandable, they work well at low ISO
and if you don't need fast AF and can accept their compromise lenses,
then they're a lot more convenient than carrying an SLR and several
lenses around, and most have an EVF.

What we're seeing is something similar to film formats where not every
system will survive. NEX and Micro 4:3 are akin to 110, Disc, and APS,
though Micro 4:3 may be more like 126 which will survive until a better
compact system comes along.

Time will tell on the NEX system, but if it flops at the launch it'll be
difficult to turn it around.
From: Rich on 5 Jun 2010 12:46
On Jun 5, 11:03 am, SMS <scharf.ste...(a)geemail.com> wrote:
> On 04/06/10 9:54 PM, Rich wrote:
>
> > The NEX will be worth buying for four reasons:
> > -Great low noise performance.
> > -Will work great with a good lens, like an adapted Zeiss.
> > -Great build quality and compact.
> > -Cheap!!
>
> No way.
>
> -Adapted Alpha lenses lose the AF functionality.
> -Burst mode is very slow and requires what one reviewer stated "point
> and pray" because of the lack of an optical viewfinder.
> -The zoom lenses so far are horrible, and the upcoming lenses are quite
> expensive.
> -Competition like the Panasonic DMC-GF1 have fewer negative attributes.
>
> The problem with cameras like the Micro 4/3 and the NEX is that they are
> constantly being compared to D-SLRs because they have larger sensors and
> interchangeable lenses, but the advantages of a D-SLR extend far beyond
> the lower noise and higher ISO capability that the larger sensor
> provides, and the versatility that interchangeable lenses provide.
>
> I.e. the GF1 gets dinged for its weak flash (duh, like all P&S cameras
> it has a weak built-in flash, there's no room for a more powerful pop-up
> flash, but you can always add an external flash), it's high ISO/noise
> performance (hey, it's a Panasonic which is famous for poor high ISO/low
> noise performance on its P&S cameras), the need for an optional
> viewfinder which eliminates the ability to use a flash (rationalized by
> the premise that the times you need the viewfinder is in bright light
> when you don't need a flash).
>
> What's the market for the NEX? Someone that doesn't care about poor
> quality and expensive lenses as long as they're interchangeable, and
> doesn't ever shoot in bright sunlight because they can't see the LCD so
> they need better high-ISO performance so they can shoot in low light? At
> least the market for ZLRs is undertandable, they work well at low ISO
> and if you don't need fast AF and can accept their compromise lenses,
> then they're a lot more convenient than carrying an SLR and several
> lenses around, and most have an EVF.

The sub-FF sensor cameras will be around forever simply because no
company has been able to produce a FF camera that is:
1. Cheap.
2. Small.
3. Has compact lenses (except for some Pentax lenses that support the
FF they don't have).

But for enthusiasts who already have higher-end gear, there is no
doubt there will be adoption of these small cameras for various
situations. Sony does have an clip-on optical viewfinder, a pointer
basically, for its 16mm lens, but a zoom viewfinder such as the one
Voigtlander makes (expensive!) is what I would probably get for the
camera if I owned one. Until Sony sees fit to do what Olympus did,
obsolete a year-old camera by releasing a new one that takes an
electronic viewfinder.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Photo about Main Square
Next: Ditch the LCD for EVIL cameras