New NEX-7 versus X PRO1 versus E-M5 versus GXR.
The video on top is made by Kai from Digitalrev and shows a NEX-7 versus Fuji X PRO 1 and Olympus E-M5 comparison.
Bmupix (Click here) tested the Voigtlander 12mm f/5.6 on the NEX-7 and Ricoh GXR. As you know the NEX-7 really needs high quality lenses and particularly the image borders risk to degrade much more than on other cameras with lower resolution sensor. Björn Utpott writes: “Comparing the 24 megapixel crops, it’s obvious that the NEX-7′s native 24 megapixel sensor is capturing more fine detail in the central area of the frame. As you move to the edge of the frame, the output from the GXR starts to match (or even exceed?) the resolving power of the much higher resolution NEX-7.”
The Voigtlander lens can be found on eBay (Click here).
SonyAlphaRumor friend Mike Kobal (Click here) made a short NEX-7 versus Fuji X PRO 1 comparison.
Despite all buzz around the new X PRO and E-M5 the most sold mirrorless cameras at Amazon US remains the NEX-7: Amazon US (place 1), Amazon Germany (place 2), Amazon France (place 9) and at Amazon UK (18). Result do change hourly!
Steve
2 years ago |Lenses
Sony can release the best cameras in the world but if the optics are there…
at least with the NEX you have options, but the Alpha the third-party choices are nott always the best quality.
I’m waiting to see if Sony does something about this before I buy a new FF or NEX.
c
2 years ago |i have the 12mm voigtlander heliar m-mount from the ebay link above, and it is CRAP!! heavily distorted and not too sharp, low mtf resolution, zero depth of field, flat distorted images.
but the voigtlander 35mm f1.2 version 2 is very very nice.
IHUR
2 years ago |Thanks for the info. I was about to get myself one of those 12mm
c
2 years ago |heard the 15mm heliar reviews is pretty decent, but havent tried it yet.
i will probably settle with the zeiss 18mm f4 distagon m-mount. extremely good reviews on those.
one more thing about ultrawide m-mounts is the lack of close focusing distance. although some adapters have macro rings that will let you focus a little closer – which is what most ultrawides are supposed to be used for.
c
2 years ago |slr magic, maker of the 50mm t0.95 m-mount lens will soon to be releasing such an adapter, that allows for even closer focus distance than the m-mount lens was designed, for use on nex7.
fongios
2 years ago |alpha lenses are top notch i dont know what u want more. yes they do need to refresh some of them but in terms of IQ Alpha lenses worth any Canikon or are better for some.
This is why i chose the A77 over the NEX that i find a much less mature system (im convinced tho that NEX is the future but a far future )
NEX have two fail. You can put any lens but u wont have AF and even expensive lenses are not resolving that well on the NEX sensor and its more or like a guess when buying a lens. Of course u can try before but in shop u cannot really try and judge a lens in 10 seconds… For me this is why the EM-5 is by far the best choice they have amazing lenses. FUJI with his 3 primes is too hipster for me.
Kylberg
2 years ago |“alpha lenses top notch” do you live in another world? I have compared lenses test on several sites and it is obvious that in terms of resolution Sony lenses are far behind. That applies on most price levels.
There are a few G lenses that are great. Most of Zeiss-branded lenses are great but not all. Sony has a trillion kit-lenses which are shit lenses.
Of m43 lenses, the “Leica”/Panasonic is great, the Oly 12mm very good followed by the overhyped 45mm. This is what lens reviews tell + my own experience as theese three lenses are what I always bring when I do photo.
c
2 years ago |sony basic lenses are crap, but so are m43 lenses. well even canon nikon plastic barrel lenses are all crap.
m43 lenses are not “naturally” good. they are in-camera corrected. un-corrected, even the m43 primes are heavily distorted. m43 lenses SUCK!!!
12mm m43 only is 24mm equivalent. the zeiss 18mm f4 (also a 24mm equiv) is much better as it is a “true” full frame lens. zeiss 18mm on nex5n is distagon design so much less color shift.
Hhom Togan
2 years ago |Sincerily I don’t know in under what rock you are living… but let’s thing straight, until the A700 most Sony Camareas were crap (comparable with the Pentaxes) the A900 and A850 were really great cameras and the newer SLT cameras are great too, the first NEX cameras were meeeeh… but now the new ones are great, Sony has learned from its mistakes in terms of cameras.
However in terms of lenses they are too dumb, their roadmap is really incomplete and full of holes which is damaging their ability to steal either Canon or Nikon a position (with the Cameras Sony is producing they could easily do it) the main reason as said before is the lack of key lenses that are must for professionals.
The Alpha and E mount suffer for too many kit lens like crap, Sony needs to step up on the gas of lenses and reduce the throttle on how many updates they present to the same entry level camera
.
There are gems in the Alpha mount (85mm f/1.4, 70-200mm f/2.8G, 135mm f/1.8) but there’s tons and tons of lenses that could be replaced for something more useful
C
2 years ago |Inb4 DRTV bashing
wth
2 years ago |What do you want… a fking medal?
C
2 years ago |http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvdf5n-zI14
Just dropping in before the inevitable.
wth
2 years ago |I do apologize… I was way out of line and venting out my frustration at why Kai refuses to acknowledge that the Nex-7 is a very good camera.
He always brands it as an average camera… a very underwhelming response for something good.
Sina
2 years ago |What a pathetic comparison.
Using a slow zoom lens on the Olympus, a fast prime on the Fuji, and using arguably the worst lens in the NEX lineup (the 16mm) on the NEX-7. How fair …
I get that DigitalRev isn’t very serious, and all of these are done for fun and advertisement, but really? REALLY?
Alfonso Cuitiño
2 years ago |I don’t know why you get angry, you said it yourself, they do it because they are a camera store. Not because they review them seriously. DRTV is ALL about fun and advertisement
armando
2 years ago |agree with sina , was one sided, think they need to read the comments on that yt video and do a redo pt-II
Hhom Togan
2 years ago |Bravo, someone said it at last! people take this stuff too seriously often and in reality they should be willing to accept not everyone is a fan of Sony (like us) but we could share the fun if we open up a little to anyone else.
Mike
2 years ago |I am not sure if this is a review or a wannabe comedy show.
Denis
2 years ago |> As you know the NEX-7 really needs high quality lenses and particularly the image borders risk to degrade much more than on other cameras with lower resolution sensor.
WHAT? Why can’t you admit Sony has made a waste? It’s a nice body, but the sensor is underwhelming: even kit lens causes color shifts.
Sina
2 years ago |When you have the pixel density the NEX-7 has, you will run into such problems with lower-end lenses. It is as simple as that. I do agree that Sony should have incorporated the same microlens tech on the NEX-5N onto the 7 … but perhaps the next version.
BozemanMark
2 years ago |What fluff. About 1/3 somewhat interesting content, and the rest irrelevant.
Yong
2 years ago |NEX-7 looked so useless in that video… lol…. *i wonder why…*
wth
2 years ago |Very odd indeed, if I had to purchase 1 of the 3, I would reach for the NEX-7.
It isn’t the best camera out there, but it is the best mirrorless aps-c camera available for a very deacent price point.
Kai really needs to give Sony a bit more credit where it is due… But that is just my opinion.
Yong
2 years ago |ya… but he seems like care-less of sony product..
Sky_walker
2 years ago |More like best compromise between all factors – for me this would be an important thing.
armando
2 years ago |The sony 16mm was one of their first lens and needs to be redone to be honest. if they used the sony 50mm 1.8 oss or even the sigma 19mm or 30mm it would have won easy. that nex-7 with those lens all have but wowed me
JonasM
2 years ago |Do you actually have any of those lenses? The 16mm is pretty decent IMHO and the others I just haven’t seen on sale yet and I’m not gonna make statements based on online reviews. You have the 50mm and the new Sigma? Good for you.
kevin
2 years ago |review seems to enforce all the known weaknesses:
x pro 1: slow AF, amazing noise performance at high iso
od-m: fast af, as expected noise performance at high iso
nex 7: best overall camera, tends to under expose pictures
glad i bought the x pro 1
Zstan
2 years ago |All Sony cameras tend to underexpose to preserve details…
Amir Kh
2 years ago |The ISO comparison is invalid. Nex-7 (from 16mm) was cropped much tighter than Fuji that was cropped from 35mm (much lighter crop). Look at the video at 8 minutes to see how they were cropped.
Vlad3D
2 years ago |Completely true, Digitalrev looks unreliable for me after such “compare”.
NC
2 years ago |I don’t like digitalrev. They just don’t review very well at all… They are just mild entertainment. I tried to make myself laugh, I really did.
Sky_walker
2 years ago |Ah, why all ppl think that reviews are all about maths, pixelpeeping and browsing specification point by point?
Sometimes good review is the one containing subjective opinion.
And that’s what I like in digital review – guy says things you won’t find in other reviews and honestly says what he likes and what he doesn’t. I couldn’t care less if this would be yet another review site. Instead we got something unique, perspective unseen in other 5000 reviews.
romeno
2 years ago |Digital Rev is Topgear about photography. Their meaning is to entertain not educate.
grizzler
2 years ago |and they spectacularly manage to do neither.
Vlad3D
2 years ago |Sky_walker,
Yes, I also like Digitalrev for subjective opinion. But showing to million of people some completely wrong technical test is unforgivable.
Amir Kh
2 years ago |A tighter crop from the 16mm for Nex-7 vs lighter crop from the 35mm for Fuji. Obviously Nex-7 is going to look noisier in such a comparison.
rascal
2 years ago |yes, DRTV is much more entertaining BUT, other serious test have conclude in the same way for noise aren’t they ?
crazydoctor
2 years ago |i have both nex 7 and fuji x1. The fuji is a lot better in high iso even after downsizing nex images. I really wish nex 7 had so good noise performance instead of 24 mpixel, maybe next generation of nex will be better instead of cranking more pixels. Apart from that, both camera are very good.
Marek
2 years ago |“Never believe salesman” is what should everybody remind when watching any review published by DRTV or any other media. They are always biased because they are paid for showing new product look better.
Vlad3D
2 years ago |Btw it seems Fuji and Sony have completely different ISO standards. On same ISO settings Fuji uses twice longer exposure. This makes ISO noise compare unfair.
As example check properties of those 2 images:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-x-pro1/FULLRES/XPRO1INBI06400.JPG
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEX5N/FULLRES/NEX5NINBI06400.JPG
It means that ISO 6400 of Fuji has to be compared to ISO 3200 of Sony and this makers advantages of Fuji sensor not so obvious.
Sky_walker
2 years ago |O_O lol
this explains… a lot…
LifeStoryImages
2 years ago |This is the first time someone has given an example where high ISO actually IS a gimmick!
William Kramer
2 years ago |It seems that most reviewers test a camera using parameters that will almost never be used by a shooter. ISO 12,800 will be needed in maybe 1 out of every million shots taken by all users. High ISO is a gimmick used to sell cameras. Lets have tests done that represent 98% of the shots that people will be taking. Based upon those standards the Nex 7 will come out beating most other cameras in its price range even with native lens’.
LifeStoryImages
2 years ago |High (and accurate) ISO ***with great image quality*** is not a gimmick.
Think back 8 years, when ISO 800 was “unusable.” Now, 1600 is often usable.
It will get better, and by the end of the decade, 6400 and 12800 WILL BE (not “might be”) fully usable, and used. Build it and they will come.
William Kramer
2 years ago |When I say “High ISO” I mean anything above 3200. When you hear 12800 to 112500 you are seeing ISO’s that are meaningless numbers to most shooters. The vast majority of shooters will never use these high ISO’s for anything but experimentation. 99.9% of pictures will be taken with ISO’s of 3200 or less, most with 100 – 800. This is the range I expect great performance from.
dhansen
2 years ago |unless you have kids and want to take pictures of your family indoors… ISO 3200 will often give you a fast enough shutter speed, but not always.
C
2 years ago |only because they only shoot in “auto” mode. noobs