Beware nex-7

LucisPictor · Expire: 2013-12-03

Since this thread seems to go on, I need to add that my first response was not only referring to the initial post of this thred but also a reaction to several threads all over the internet in which users who do not own the NEX-7 have pointed at how many flaws it has and how bad it is. This is really annoying but not understandable if you only read this thread here.
That perhaps explains the different perceptions.

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

uhoh7 · Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA

Philber I think is worth quoting:

"FWIW, here is a quick synthesis of my experience with a NEX 7 so far. For reference, I have shot thousands of pics with a NEX 5, hundreds with a C3 and thousands with a 5N, all with alt glass, before getting the 7.
There are at least 2 WA that work fine of NEX 7, alas neither of them cheap: the Leica R 19mm V2, which was expected, since it is a DSLR lens, and the totally unexpected LEICA WATE. The WATE shows no softness issue even at 16mm even wide open, even in the extreme corners. It just works, period. This shows that lens construction is much more relevant than FL. If this one lens works, then other similar designs in terms of geometry and placement will work, irrespective if it is an ultra-expensive Leica or not. Careful examination fails to show any camera issues, which proves to my satisfaction that the camera itself "can" work just as specified providing a lens is mounted on it that suits it.

One WA lens shows mid-to-strong colour shift, which otherwise works fine on the NEX 5N, the Zeiss ZM 18mm f:4.0. However, it cleans up very nicely with Cornerfix, and the result fails to show any issues (test shot at f:8.0, I have not yet tried wide open, but will before deciding to keep and shoot the ZM 1 Cool

.

One wide-ish lens showed mid-to-strong colour shift, which otherwise works fine on the 5N: the Contax G 28, and I have not been able to clean it up with Cornerfix. I believe that the result, even if rid of colour shift, would also display unacceptable softness issues. This is a Biogon, symmetrical design, and likely the most problematic construction for the NEX 7 to accept, since even the much more tolerant NEX 5N is marginal with the otherwise brilliant ZM 25 Biogon.
I briefly tried the Leica M 28 Summicron f:2.0, and got clear but mild shift, but did not try to clean it up, as I had no interest in buying that lens.
I tried less wide lenses, and did not come across any trouble at all: Contax G 45 and G 90, Leica R 35-70 f:3.4, Leica F 60 mm Makro.
For reference, the "easiest" way to see shift is shooting straight into a blue sky. Second best is a white or light gray target. In my experience, it is possible to "get away" with even severe shift if you are ready to work around it. I sold a Contax G 21, a fantastic piece of glass, which I couldn't get to work even on a 5N. Even cleaned up, I got mush in the corners, and I am far from a "sharpness-�ber alles" ayatollah. Well, that guy whom I sold it to has been showing awesome pics from it and his 5N....***

In summary, the NEX 7 is a camera that can work as specified and advertised, and its IQ is awesome. BUT, to get there, one needs to understand that (1) viewing a 100% crop of a 24Mp camera is a significantly higher magnification than with a 16Mp camera, and thus a much harder test, and (2), the higher the pixel density, the more it will show any weakness in the shooting itself. For example, the 7 clearly shows the difference between critically sharp and hyperfocally sharp, which the 5N does not. It also requires that I use much higher shutter speeds if I am to avoid seeing motion blur. When shooting from the waist, on a good day I can use my 5N down to 1/3 of 1/focal length. I have not been able to get lower than 1/focal length with the 7, and even that was not with a great keeper rate.
So the 5N is a really great ultra-small platform for alt glass, delivering very good IQ pretty easily and without fuss. Perfect for shooters who want a platform for a variety of existing glass, or use it as a "take-anywhere-shoot-any-time-and-any-place" camera.
That, the 7 is not, and it will punish you for trying. BUT, as a small-ish platform for chosen glass shot carefully, it will produce IQ that is on a par with the absolute best DSLRs, with the exception of what a FF sensor can do (very thin DOF).
I rest my case (and the pot)"

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/394432-post52.html

***
http://www.flickr.com/photos/arkiv/sets/72157629132087149/

this last link is the rebirth of the contax g 21 on the nex sensor which philber refers to in the post.

uhoh7 · Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA

Klaus elaborates...a bit Wink

I was looking at the photozone review of the 50/1.8 and noticed the interesting disclaimers:

http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/720-sony50f18nex?start=1

"The camera sensor of the Sony NEX 7 has a rather difficult resolution characteristic for lenses specifically at large aperture settings - the corner quality is substantially dampened based on what we've seen so far. However, we still feel that it is appropriate to restart our Sony E tests based on this camera. After all this is Sony's flagship model (as of 2012)."

and on the following page:

"As already mentioned the 24 megapixel sensor of the Sony NEX 7 seems to have a rather difficult characteristic especially regarding its resolution capabilities at the image corners. This behavior has been confirmed by user observations in the meanwhile (feel free to google). This is a bit unfortunate because we feel that the sensor shouldn't have such a deep impact on the lens quality. The lens quality will be somewhat better on Sony's 16 megapixel sensor."

lauge · Expire: 2013-05-30

Have any of you tried to replicate Klaus findings with success? I did a quick test comparing NEX 7 with A55 with S-M-C Takumar 28/3.5 and 50/1.4 and the Zeiss Flektogon 35/2.4, and didn't find anything near what Klaus experienced. Could Sony have made a revised version of the sensor?

Pontus · Expire: 2016-08-25

I chose a different angle. I have the 5n for wide lenses and the 7 for longer focal lenghts in my camera bag.

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

If anybody dissapointed in NEX-7 I ready to take it on half price Smile

peterqd · Expire: 2014-01-04

lauge · Expire: 2013-05-30

Finally found some interesting pages on this subject on google, most tests seems to be removed though. So it's not as dramatically as Klaus writes and this forum title imply - and as a side note the same design is used by Fuji X-Pro1 sensor. "Beware nex-7" is a bit of a misleading title which cost me an entire evening testing. ...well, no harm done it was fun Smile

ManualFocus-G · Expire: 2014-11-24

lauge · Expire: 2013-05-30

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

Ok guys, calm down please Smile

Surely it's not good attitude to come to conclusions about a camera without hands-on experience with it. Other people's reviews are important but may not tell everything that there is to know about a camera.
Personal use is always the best way.
At the same time, minimizing an important issue is not the way to go either, because we are here (also) to help people make their best choices, and information is part of the plan.

About the subject:
Digital cameras with short register distance have to face technical problems related to the proximity of the exit pupil to the sensor plane and the current sensor technology.
It is not casual that Leica charges around 5000 � for their best M camera. That money has a reason to be in the critical performance at the image edges.
I have a Biogon 25mm lens and it behaves perfectly on the M9. No corner red shift, no (excessive) softness.
But I paid a harsh price for that.
A 800� camera like the Nex 7 must of course have some kind of compromise. It costs 6-7 times less than the Leica, this can not be simply due to marketing alone.
The first compromise is the APS-C sensor. This allows to cut out (literally) most of the corner problems, as the Nex-5 succeeds to do.
So why the Nex-7 fails instead? I think the reason is in the pixel density. Of course, the denser the pixels, the worse a number of problems.
Nex-5 has 14-something megapixels, Nex-7 has 24 - that's 10 megapixels more in the same sensor real estate.
Obviously, the technical solution that allows the Nex-5 to work well with rangefinder superwides, works well at 14 MP density, and not-so-well at 24 MP density.
This is important information to know for perspective buyers!!
So if you shoot telephoto and like/need the largest resolution, the Nex-7 seems to be the best choice - knowing that you'll be limited on the wide end though.
If instead you shoot wide or normal (don't forget that on a Nex, the equivalent of "normal" FOV is obtained with a 28mm lens), the better choice seems to be the Nex-5, even at the expense of a lower resolution.
I personally am one of the guys who value optical performance above the simple resolution matter. So if it was me, I would go for a Nex-5, or wait some time until Sony releases a 7 that has improved the issue.
But that's just me.

peterqd · Expire: 2014-01-04

Pontus · Expire: 2016-08-25

I know that I'm repeating myself but I'm really enjoying having two cameras. The NEX-7 for everything above 50mm and a NEX-5N for everything below. Having two cameras is so deliberating and both fit well in my small camera bag.

A perfect setup could be:

NEX-7 + Contax 100-300
NEX-5N + CV 15/4.5 + CV 35/1.2 v2