sonyalpharumors

But to clarify, with “kit lens” they mean the 18-55 SAM, not the new 16-50 SSM.

He said very well. People who are still concerned about noise, take note:

‘ Take a look at the frame above. It was taken at ISO 12,800. Not bad at this size, huh? In fact damn good. That’s because the image, when reproduced on a typical monitor at 100%, would be 83 inches across on screen. That’s seven feet wide!

At what distance do you view a seven foot wide image? Certainly not with your nose 10 inches from the screen. One rule of thumb is that the minimum viewing distance for a print is the same as its diagonal. So, something like 10 feet away for a seven foot wide print.

Now scroll up to the ISO 12,800 image in the test sequence above and walk back about 10 feet from your screen. Not so bad, isn’t it.

Therein lies the fallacy of pixel peeping. Looking at an image from a high resolution camera on-screen at 100% is like walking up to your large screen TV and looking at the picture at the closest distance that your eyes can focus. What do you see? RGB dots, right? Now go back to your favourite arm chair and what do you see? The Sunday afternoon football game.

I rest my case.

Back in the days of 3 Megapixel and 6 Megapixel cameras looking at an image at 100% on screen bore a relationship to what we might see on an 8X10″ or a 11X17″ print. Today, a 24 Megapixel file can make an excellent 24X36″ print. How many prints that big do you ever make? Indeed, how many worthwhile photographs do you ever take at anything over ISO 1600?

But still, we continue to insist on looking at images at 100% on-screen. It does tell us things about the image quality, but just not things that are terribly relevant to most people’s real-world needs.’

How about if we compare it to a D7000? I’m guessing it won’t fair well. The D7000 and NEX-5N are very close, so maybe we can compare it to a 7D in regards to DR and noise.

still wondering as allready said before why people always talk about the high iso capabilities.
You can NOT compare Nex-5n with a65 or a77 for low light shooting.
You can do in theory but in praxis you have a tripod and can vary your exposure in a wide range. therefor high iso is not as necessary as talked about, or when you do handheld shots you have the super steady shot in a65 and a77 which you don’t have in Nex-5n…. I think you should compare Nex-5n iso 3200 to a77 and a65 iso 1600 + Super Steady shot turned on. that should be fair. Iguess a65 and a77 will perform much better.
But still A777 and A65 are very different cameras compared to the nex-5n. A65/77 is for people that want the stabilizer, cdaf+pdaf af and the form factor. Nex-5n is for those who want a small camera.
In addition to that really take into account that you don’t have to compare noise at pixel level when you compare sensors with same size and different megapixel counts….
i guess noise will not be that bad with the new cameras in pratical use.

Seriously guys when do you really need high iso and the nex-5n can be superior to the stabilized cameras? only when the movement of the object is so fast that you need short exposure times….

All this talk of noise and still no real evaluation of dynamic range at higher or even lower ISOs. I wonder if the a65/77 will shine in that department…?

I like the review but I think he mixed up his calculation: 50 weeks of 200 frames is 10,000 so the 65 has a 100,000 in 10 years, not 15. Still it is probably the minimum number the shutter can take and a 100,000 frames is still a lot, and 10 years still a long time.