Camera Labs

well, at least you can get an adapter to use minolta lenses as well as alpha. not thrilled with the lack of in body stablization, or viewfinder. at least there is a flash for emergencies. i like the idea of the camera, but will wait to see what the future holds.

_________________
Sony A37, Minolta 70-210 F4, Minolta 50 F1.7, Sigma 28-105 F2.8-4, Zenitar 16mm Fisheye 2.8, Sony 35mm 1.8, Tamron 18-200 and Sony 18-55 kit lens

For low light Nex thouroughly outperforms m 4/3s


http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/news/4 ... eview.html

excelent low light!

_________________
Ruben

Panasonic DMC-FZ18, Panasonic DMC-FZ28, Canon G5, Canon 350D, Canon 50D + BG-E2N
Tamron 17-50 2.8, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM,
Canon 18-55 II plus lots of Minolta MD/M42 lenses and bodies

That seems to show a bigger difference than other reviews/previews although I haven't paid attention to the exact models or test methodology. I think the Panasonic output isn't a pleasing as Olympus for example so that might contribute. In "big picture" terms the NEX should be about 2/3 of a stop better than m4/3 purely on sensor area alone.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

Like Popo says the sensor sizes are different.

Its like comparing a crop frame sensor to a full frame sensor, its obvious where the low light advantages will be.

They are decent results though, I wonder how it compares to Canikon crop sensors

_________________
Nikon D5000 and D300 with 12-24mm, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 60mm f2.8 Macro, 18-200mm, 17-55mm f2.8 (all Nikon)

Probably nearly the same. Theoretically Nikon and Sony should be the best, since Canon's sensors are a little smaller (crop factor of 1.6 vs 1.5).

_________________
Sony α77V/VG-C77AM/α350/18-70/70-400 G SSM/NEX-5/18-55 OSS/Lowepro Pro Trekker 600 AW/CompuTrekker AW/Nova 140 AW/Street & Field gear/Toploader Pro 75 AW. And a huge wishlist...

My photos on Flickr...

Really though, Nikon is about 1.54, and canon about 1.58 (I think) so not as much as you might think difference. Also in practice noise wise they are very similar.

_________________
Nikon D5000 and D300 with 12-24mm, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 60mm f2.8 Macro, 18-200mm, 17-55mm f2.8 (all Nikon)

.
IMHO those What Digital Camera results may be misleading if viewed casually. Compare the amount of texture in the wall at ISO 200 and ISO 3200 for the NEX-5. The ISO 3200 is a lot softer and, to these old eyes at least, there's more softening going on than with the GH1. Comparison between the two sets of images would have been a lot easier if the same scene had been featured. I would hope that the larger sensor in the NEX cameras would prove superior but until we can see results from, say, Adobe Camera Raw with RAW files processed from the two systems using the same software I think the jury, or at least this potential member of same, is still out.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

I don't think it's as straightforward as it looks. Looking at ISO800 as an example (I think this is the highest the NEX goes before noticeable NR kicks in) the GH1 holds significantly less detail but there was a lot less detail to begin with. The GH1 is probably softer in all kinds of tests so I don't think this test shows that the NEX is better in noise performance.

_________________
Graham
Flickr

Result vs GH1 in low is impressive, i had GH1 and sold it, cause it has horrible noise indoor low light. outdoor does okay but indoor just suffer horrible.

Is it possible you can put side to side GH1 with 14-42mm and Nex-5 with 18-55 and gh1 with 20mm vs nex-5 with 16mm.

here are full size photos (comparison with GF1, EPL1, 550D)

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/revi ... 68000.html

the high ISO looks much better than m 4/3 and probably even better than 550d

but at low iso, i think lens kit is not doing justice to the camera (more fuzzy than the rest)

I only had a quick look at the night and day ISO3200 shots there. On the night ones, the Oly seems to have the most detail to me, at the cost of more noise too. The day shots do initially appear in Sony's favour, but I just checked the exif and they used f/22 on the Oly shot! Well into diffraction softening there. The Sony was at f/11 and Canon at f/16.

Need to do more pixel peeping on the rest later to even try and form an opinion, but its pretty damn close.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

.
and for those whose Japanese isn't so hot here is the site in Googlish.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

they were probably using program mode. if so, why would m 4/3s choose f 22?

I've asked it elsewhere, but could someone explain me why DSLR's (and EVIL cameras ?) have a video recording limit of 29 minutes 59 seconds ?

I'm wondering if the NEX cameras will have this too.

Edit: I found why, I reckon. Limit of the EU, they charge extra taxes on videocameras made outside the EU . Silly bunch of ...err, protectionists .

_________________
Sony α77V/VG-C77AM/α350/18-70/70-400 G SSM/NEX-5/18-55 OSS/Lowepro Pro Trekker 600 AW/CompuTrekker AW/Nova 140 AW/Street & Field gear/Toploader Pro 75 AW. And a huge wishlist...

My photos on Flickr...