NEX-7 noise is just too much!

[RichA]

It's at least 1.5 stops worse than the NEX-5N, worse than any other APS sensor including Samsung's 20MP model, worse than most of the m4/3rds gear and lastly, apparently worse than even Nikon's diminutive-sensor V10! Detail at 100-200 is very good, but once past that, cameras like the 5N actually do better despite the lower pixel count! I was going to get the 7, but for the money difference, the G3 looks better.

[docmoore]

Details Rich... details?

Like source....

Thanks,

Bob

[hot]

And this world is baaaaad ... and all people are baaaaad ... and all cameras are devil's work ... and NEX7 is a new m4/3 ....

[jonoslack]

Criteria - source - samples - methodology - proof
it's not what DxO says
It's not what Luminous Landscape says
It's not what AP says
It's not what dPreview says
. . . .
of course, if you're comparing 100% crops of a 24mp camera with 100% crops of a 10mp camera . . but you aren't doing that are you Rich?

[kwalsh]

The G3 is a great camera, and personally I have no interest in NEX until they have a lot more lenses, but I haven't seen anything across multiple sites and users that substantiates what you are saying at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

Ken

[Vivek]

Originally Posted by RichA

It's at least 1.5 stops worse than the NEX-5N, worse than any other APS sensor including Samsung's 20MP model,

I paused there.

Really?

Worse than the Samsung?

[Terry]

Isn't this a pretty typical post from RichA?

[pellicle]

must be another slow news day...

[retow]

Originally Posted by RichA

It's at least 1.5 stops worse than the NEX-5N, worse than any other APS sensor including Samsung's 20MP model, worse than most of the m4/3rds gear and lastly, apparently worse than even Nikon's diminutive-sensor V10! Detail at 100-200 is very good, but once past that, cameras like the 5N actually do better despite the lower pixel count! I was going to get the 7, but for the money difference, the G3 looks better.

Considering its sub standard sensor, it must be a spectacular camera otherwise as testers rave and customers pre-ordered it like crazy

[RichA]

Originally Posted by docmoore

Details Rich... details?

Like source....

Thanks,

Bob

Dpreview's test. They downplayed the noise with nonsense about "uprezing" the 5N images. Sorry, but the NEX-7 has pushed the APS to the limit. They not only put 24mp into an APS, they "defined" the noise more clearly! It's actually noticeably sharper (the grain) than the 5N. Now, just wait until Nikon releases their D400 and see how it compares.

[RichA]

Originally Posted by retow

Considering its sub standard sensor, it must be a spectacular camera otherwise as testers rave and customers pre-ordered it like crazy

I've handled the thing, it's nice, good build quality, not as nice as handling a good DSLR, but for a miniature camera it's good. So far (though Dpreview didn't seem thrilled with its focusing) in the small camera category, it seems to hit all the marks, except for its noise.
As usual, if there are any issues with it, the users will discover it long before the "reviewers."

[Lars Vinberg]

Originally Posted by RichA

Now, just wait until Nikon releases their D400 and see how it compares.

A Nikon D400 is purely speculative at this point, comparing to what's available on the market makes much more sense.

Noise in RAW seems a bit high though, judging from dpreview samples. The tradeoff between resolution and noise seems obvious, suggesting that there currently is a sweet spot at about 16 Mpx with APS-C/DX sensor size?

[docmoore]

Originally Posted by RichA

Dpreview's test. They downplayed the noise with nonsense about "uprezing" the 5N images. Sorry, but the NEX-7 has pushed the APS to the limit. They not only put 24mp into an APS, they "defined" the noise more clearly! It's actually noticeably sharper (the grain) than the 5N. Now, just wait until Nikon releases their D400 and see how it compares.

I don't know....I have a real problem with DPReview's test pics...they all look about the same to me...not real life subject matter...not really into coins myself. Truthfully I get frustrated when I look at their stuff...cannot tell if they are significant differences or not. Their summary rates the NEX-7 as the best APS-C chip cameras they have studied so something must be a bit off.

Please keep in mind that I use MF digital and agree that photosite size is EVERYTHING...I think. However I am very pleased with the Ricoh A12 M lens unit...I will look into the NEX-7 as it seems that many of the reviewers I respect...Michael at LuLa...seem to be pleased.

Noise is not a disadvantage...either NIK DFine or LR 3 handles it well...and I personally loved TriX with Rodinal .... edge effects do make a difference.

Time will tell and I am sure that in three months time there will be 5 clones to consider.....

Bob

[Jorgen Udvang]

It's all about needs. If you print very large, mostly take photos at low ISO and need a compact camera, it must be ideal. Or if you are a camera buff. I think I've counted at least a couple of those on this forum

Me? Nah... I'm quite happy with the L1 at the moment. With the PanaLeica zoom, I get spotless, sharp prints in A2 format, and I don't plan to buy a larger printer. Can't afford an E-5 right now (need a new Mac), so considering an L10 as well.

The problem with the NEX 7 isn't the noise. The problem is the thousands of dollars I would have to spend on yet another camera and lenses, monies that can be used for airline tickets, motorbike rentals and cozy, little hotel rooms in the middle of nowhere

--

Written on my lethargic Acer Netbook on the seventh floor of a boutique hotel in downtown Phnom Penh where I'm staying for money that I didn't spend on a NEX.

[clark666]

You are missing the point. You are not expected to make photographs with a new camera, just to have it and read the manual.

[Internaut]

When the light is not good for taking photos, I read a bit, and what I'm reading about the NEX7 is this:

- Class leading resolution for an APS-C sensor with great results at lower ISOs
- Perhaps less DR in the shadows than the superb 16MP sensor in the NEX7n
- High ISO not as good as the NEX5n
- But when you down-sample the images to 16MP, hey presto!

There's no two ways about it: Sony have produced something quite remarkable in the NEX7 and they're charging accordingly for it. Consider this though..... If you never print above A3(ish) do you need a 24MP camera?

[RichA]

It's almost impossible to see a resolution loss on a print at 16x20 if the camera has at least 8 megapixels so "need" 24MP is likely not an issue until you hit at 30x40 inch or larger print. However, apart from pure resolution, there "may" be qualitative differences that the NEX-7 at low ISO can offer above and beyond say a 12 megapixel camera with larger prints. People have to experiment and see.

[Riley]

Im as sceptical as some of you guys
I once wondered how
DxO only manage to get 10.5 stops out of 4/3rds 11.5 stop IMATEST RAWs
how large Mp cameras seemed like a great idea, until you downres to anything else

now I just think about photos...

[Amin]

All the well-done tests I have seen have shown that the NEX-7 is almost as good (close enough to be the same for practical purposes) as the 5N at high ISO. It seems to be a fantastic sensor with very little downside other than slightly worse edge performance than the NEX-5N and NEX-C3 with certain wide angle lenses.

The one thing which impairs high ISO ability with the 7 from a practical standpoint is that Sony capped the Auto ISO at a max of 1600. That is a ridiculous mistake which they ought to remedy in firmware. Heck, I keep my E-P3 auto ISO max at 6400 and got a couple usable prints at ISO 4000 from family gatherings over Christmas.

[Riley]

cooked RAWs arent they ?
not that there is anything wrong with that, but it makes the numbers game of comparison a bit lame

[Amin]

They do look to be cooked, making the comparisons more difficult. You basically have to process them to taste, do the same for the other camera, and compare at matched output size. Much harder to do a rigorous test.

[Audii-Dudii]

Originally Posted by RichA

It's almost impossible to see a resolution loss on a print at 16x20 if the camera has at least 8 megapixels so "need" 24MP is likely not an issue until you hit at 30x40 inch or larger print.

You're joking, right? I ask because my other camera is a Contax 645/Phase One P30+ combo and even with its 31 MP of AA-filter free pixels, 15x20 prints on 17x22 paper are as large as I'm comfortable printing the average photo. To my eyes, my m4/3 gear (G1, GF1, E-P1) runs out of IQ with prints larger than 12x16 (although it appears the GX1 may be good for prints a bit larger than that) and I was never happy printing my 7.5MP L1 files any larger than 7.5x10. There are exceptions to the above, of course, but not too many, so either I'm a lot pickier than you are and/or your standards are lower than mine...

[ptomsu]

Originally Posted by Audii-Dudii

You're joking, right? I ask because my other camera is a Contax 645/Phase One P30+ combo and even with its 31 MP of AA-filter free pixels, 15x20 prints on 17x22 paper are as large as I'm comfortable printing the average photo. To my eyes, my m4/3 gear (G1, GF1, E-P1) runs out of IQ with prints larger than 12x16 (although it appears the GX1 may be good for prints a bit larger than that) and I was never happy printing my 7.5MP L1 files any larger than 7.5x10. There are exceptions to the above, of course, but not too many, so either I'm a lot pickier than you are and/or your standards are lower than mine...

While I appreciate your opinion I must say that my mind has significantly changed over the past few years, since I started doing my own fine art large size prints. For 50x50 print sizes I found that 40MP are MORE than enough without any uprezing. For normal print sizes - say 30x20 you can achieve outstanding results even with 12MP from 43 or m43. Everything in between will be good if you want to do crops, but otherwise not needed.

The most important thing for IQ is NO AA filter! So I hope to see the next generation of 36MP DSLRs (Sony, Nikon) without such a filter.

Coming back to NEX7 and 24MP from APS-C sensor, this seems to be ok, if your main goal is not just high ISO.

[Tim]

Originally Posted by ptomsu

this seems to be ok, if your main goal is not just high ISO.

Sounds like an much earlier discussion on the Sigma DP1/2 when they came out.

[Jorgen Udvang]

Originally Posted by Audii-Dudii

You're joking, right? I ask because my other camera is a Contax 645/Phase One P30+ combo and even with its 31 MP of AA-filter free pixels, 15x20 prints on 17x22 paper are as large as I'm comfortable printing the average photo. To my eyes, my m4/3 gear (G1, GF1, E-P1) runs out of IQ with prints larger than 12x16 (although it appears the GX1 may be good for prints a bit larger than that) and I was never happy printing my 7.5MP L1 files any larger than 7.5x10. There are exceptions to the above, of course, but not too many, so either I'm a lot pickier than you are and/or your standards are lower than mine...

Interesting that you mention the L1. I have a print in front of me taken with that camera and the kit-lens. It's 17x13 on A2 paper and it looks as perfect as it can be. It is of course possible that there would be even more details available if it had been taken with a NEX 7, but people already say WOW! when they see it, so for me there's no point.

I have to agree with Peter though that no or a weak AA filter is an absolute must. Let me also add a high quality lens. I bought the L1 mostly for the lens, but find the results I get with the camera so good that I use the lens on the L1 rather than on a m4/3 camera.

[Audii-Dudii]

Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang

Interesting that you mention the L1. I have a print in front of me taken with that camera and the kit-lens. It's 17x13 on A2 paper and it looks as perfect as it can be. It is of course possible that there would be even more details available if it had been taken with a NEX 7, but people already say WOW! when they see it, so for me there's no point.

I have to agree with Peter though that no or a weak AA filter is an absolute must. Let me also add a high quality lens. I bought the L1 mostly for the lens, but find the results I get with the camera so good that I use the lens on the L1 rather than on a m4/3 camera.

The L1 was my first "serious" digital camera and to my surprise, the kit lens that Panasonic shipped with it remains one of my favorite 4/3 (and via an adapter, m4/3) lenses to this day. In fact, in many ways, I prefer it to the Olympus 14-35/f2, which is no slouch of a performer. I even bought an E-P1 body to use with it because none of the Panasonic bodies I had could autofocus it (since solved with a GX1 btw, which arrived last week).

That said, I can't imagine making a 13x17 print from an L1. While I'm sure it looks great from some distance, I also know that it has to be somewhat less spectacular when viewed from the 18" or so distance that I generally prefer. You see, I prefer to look at my photos portfolio-style, unmounted and unframed, while sitting at a table or in the big, comfy chair in my family room. And for viewing prints at that distance, my standards have to be high ones, which is why I could never print an L1 file any larger than 7.5x10 and still be happy with the resulting print. Obviously, YMMV, though...

[RichA]

Originally Posted by Audii-Dudii

You're joking, right? I ask because my other camera is a Contax 645/Phase One P30+ combo and even with its 31 MP of AA-filter free pixels, 15x20 prints on 17x22 paper are as large as I'm comfortable printing the average photo. To my eyes, my m4/3 gear (G1, GF1, E-P1) runs out of IQ with prints larger than 12x16 (although it appears the GX1 may be good for prints a bit larger than that) and I was never happy printing my 7.5MP L1 files any larger than 7.5x10. There are exceptions to the above, of course, but not too many, so either I'm a lot pickier than you are and/or your standards are lower than mine...

Not joking, really. Quality is somewhat indefinable, but resolution isn't. There is simply not much gain in the 16x20 paper size above 8 megapixels. If we refer only to resolution, the same thing is obtainable with 30x40 prints and 24 megapixels. Having said that, a medium format camera's image quality is definitely higher than a 35mm sensor with the same pixel count. But that's back to quality again.

[Riley]

not to mention, when you downres an image to something less than the 1:1 the sensor is capable of, you lose resolution. It just could be that another sensor choice of lower resolution defeats the higher resolution downressed. And then all those proclivities about DR and noise come into the equation too. It is not as flat a landscape as high Mp sensor advocates would have you believe

what did Fossum call it, 'the force of marketing is stronger than the force of engineering'

[Amin]

Michael Reichmann is no noob, and his tests clearly demonstrate that the NEX-7 is great at high ISO and class leading in resolution.

[Riley]

yes but arent MTF50 test done at max size? But this isnt hard to work out, find yourself a res chart like those shot at dpr, downres it to one of your favourite camera image sizes, and check out the difference. Last time I tried it with the 24Mp sensor, it lost...

[Amin]

I wasn't referring to any MTF50 tests or res charts. I was referring to the samples Reichmann posted and the judgments which he expressed.

[Riley]

fine..

[RichA]

Originally Posted by Amin

Michael Reichmann is no noob, and his tests clearly demonstrate that the NEX-7 is great at high ISO and class leading in resolution.

Too bad he also showed, convincingly, that a $6000 Leica 24mm was required to get the most of our that camera.

[Ben Rubinstein]

Originally Posted by RichA

Too bad he also showed, convincingly, that a $6000 Leica 24mm was required to get the most of our that camera.

I think that this puts into perspective your other arguments.

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by RichA

It's almost impossible to see a resolution loss on a print at 16x20 if the camera has at least 8 megapixels so "need" 24MP is likely not an issue until you hit at 30x40 inch or larger print.

Originally Posted by Audii-Dudii

You're joking, right? I ask because my other camera is a Contax 645/Phase One P30+ combo and even with its 31 MP of AA-filter free pixels, 15x20 prints on 17x22 paper are as large as I'm comfortable printing the average photo.

Originally Posted by ptomsu

For 50x50 print sizes I found that 40MP are MORE than enough without any uprezing. For normal print sizes - say 30x20 you can achieve outstanding results even with 12MP from 43 or m43. Everything in between will be good if you want to do crops, but otherwise not needed.

Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang

Interesting that you mention the L1. I have a print in front of me taken with that camera and the kit-lens. It's 17x13 on A2 paper and it looks as perfect as it can be.

Originally Posted by RichA

Not joking, really. Quality is somewhat indefinable, but resolution isn't. There is simply not much gain in the 16x20 paper size above 8 megapixels. If we refer only to resolution, the same thing is obtainable with 30x40 prints and 24 megapixels. Having said that, a medium format camera's image quality is definitely higher than a 35mm sensor with the same pixel count. But that's back to quality again.

. . . . . etc. etc. etc.

C'mon guys - it all depends on the

Subject

I've got some good A2+ prints from the humble 5mp Olympus E1, perfect in fact, with no obvious loss of resolution.
On the other hand - if you want a landscape with lots of foliage in it, then the 18mp of the M9 (without an AA filter) is pushing it.

Pictures of people don't need huge resolution, pictures of plants certainly can . . . . this kind of argument really does depend on the subject matter.

Personally I appreciate the 24mp - it makes a lot of difference to me with what I shoot - at least, to some of what I shoot. Definitely horses for courses here.

all the best

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by RichA

Too bad he also showed, convincingly, that a $6000 Leica 24mm was required to get the most of our that camera.

Rich - I think you should read his report again - he didn't say that - and it's misleading for you to put the words into his mouth.

For those who are interested:
Luminous Landscape 24mm comparison

He says (is it alright to post this?)

I have held the new Sony Zeiss e Mount 24mm to a very high standard. The 24mm f/1.4 Summilux is a world-class benchmark lens, one of the finest fast wide angle lenses made. It is of course a full frame lens, while the E mount Zeiss covers APS-C. Also, the Zeiss is an autofocus lens, so in some ways we're comparing peaches and apricots. Also, there is more than a $5,000 price difference between the lenses.

Given all of the above, the 24mm Zeiss stands up to the Leica Summilux very well indeed. It bests it in some areas, holds its own in some, and falls slightly behind elsewhere. Overall this is a stunning performance. There is little vignetting, even wide open, and corners have very good resolution for a lens of this focal length and format. CA and flare is more of an issue with the Zeiss though.

Added to which - you might say it requires that lens to get the best out of any camera - it's quite a good lens!

[RichA]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

Rich - I think you should read his report again - he didn't say that - and it's misleading for you to put the words into his mouth.

Added to which - you might say it requires that lens to get the best out of any camera - it's quite a good lens!

His standards are lower than they seem. The Zeiss from the images he posted really does not stand up to the Leica, hence my observation that in order to get the most out of a 24mp APS, you need the very best lenses. I also question his assertion that the Leica is somehow dealing with microlens effects of the NEX-7. It's simple; It's a better lens, it is better corrected and does a better job. You just see it more on the high MP 7 than the 5.

[etrigan63]

I've found my own observations to echo those of Mr. Reichmann, plus stuff I've gleaned from the fine folks in the Medium Format sections and chats I've had with Doug Petersen of CI: The more pixels you have (regardless of format), the better quality of lens you need. More importantly, you need to use a tripod more because the sensor is less forgiving not because the sensor is bad.

My father always preferred carpentry to steelwork because "wood forgives" (his words).

The NEX-7 has qualities of many different cameras all rolled into one. It's more chimera than camera. It's got rough spots, but nothing that a firmware patch can't fix. But it's going to take some time before everyone figures out how to really make it sing.

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by RichA

His standards are lower than they seem. The Zeiss from the images he posted really does not stand up to the Leica, hence my observation that in order to get the most out of a 24mp APS, you need the very best lenses.

Well, of course you're entitled to make your own conclusion from his results - but it's better to actually say that's what you're doing, rather than implying that they are his conclusions.

Originally Posted by RichA

I also question his assertion that the Leica is somehow dealing with microlens effects of the NEX-7.

I don't understand that remark - please could you explain it properly

Originally Posted by RichA

It's simple; It's a better lens, it is better corrected and does a better job. You just see it more on the high MP 7 than the 5.

When comparing two lenses nothing is simple - certainly a blanket statement like "does a better job" .

Mind you, it would be strange if the Leica wasn't better corrected - after all, it's nearly 4 times the price! I can't unfortunately do a comparison - I only have the 24 'lux (which, being reasonably tele centric does a good job on the NEX7). I'm too stingy to buy the Zeiss lens as well.

Interesting though, that you dislike the extra MP on the NEX7 . . . . but you assert that it does a better job at distinguishing between what are clearly two excellent lenses?

[Vivek]

..

[Gio]

Could a moderator move this thread into the right forum. Thank you.

[pegelli]

Originally Posted by etrigan63

The more pixels you have (regardless of format), the better quality of lens you need. More importantly, you need to use a tripod more because the sensor is less forgiving not because the sensor is bad.

I read this a lot, but my take on it is different in that this is only true when pixel peeping at 100%.

Comparing at the same output (print) size it makes no difference.

This famous WTD came back to mind reading this thread:

[Vivek]

Originally Posted by Gio

Could a moderator move this thread into the right forum. Thank you.

Thanks for making that request!

If I could, I would request the thread be completely banished because it just starts with no noble notion (to put it mildly ), in my view.

[Quentin_Bargate]

Originally Posted by RichA

Too bad he also showed, convincingly, that a $6000 Leica 24mm was required to get the most of our that camera.

No he did not. He showed, convincingly, that the cheaper (but still pricey) Zeiss 24 mm nearly matched the 6x more expensive Leica and was a great match. Each lens had its strong points; both were excellent. i agree with him. I think you should re-read his article.

The Nex-7 is not unique in requiring good lenses. Hasselblad ugraded their 50mm and Macro lenses to meet the higher resolution available from newer H series cameras. Other manufactureres have done the same.

I would also add that I am impressed at the absence of noise with the Nex-7. It was one of the first things that struck me - how Sony have improved their sensors even since the A900 line was introduced.

[Quentin_Bargate]

What is particulary impressive about such noise as there is with the Nex-7 is that it is very even, and thus relatively easy to minimise with a noise removal programme like Neat image. I tried this with a 1600 ISO image and the result was very impressive. In fact I rarely shoot at higher than 400ISO (must be a lagacy from my film days, when 400 was considered quite fast..).

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by pegelli

I read this a lot, but my take on it is different in that this is only true when pixel peeping at 100%.

I agree with this so completely. I think it has had some interesting and not necessarily good results as well - it seems to me that some camera manufacturers are actually making cameras with lower pixel counts just because they realise that they will be judged by their performance at 100% NOT by the image performance overall.

Of course, you will need better lenses to take FULL advantage of the extra resolution - but lesser lenses will still give you just as good results over the frame as a whole as a sensor with less resolution (just not when pixel peeping)

Originally Posted by pegelli

Comparing at the same output (print) size it makes no difference.

This famous WTD came back to mind reading this thread:

Thank You.
Excellent

[Lonnie Utah]

Originally Posted by Audii-Dudii

You're joking, right? I ask because my other camera is a Contax 645/Phase One P30+ combo and even with its 31 MP of AA-filter free pixels, 15x20 prints on 17x22 paper are as large as I'm comfortable printing the average photo. To my eyes, my m4/3 gear (G1, GF1, E-P1) runs out of IQ with prints larger than 12x16 (although it appears the GX1 may be good for prints a bit larger than that) and I was never happy printing my 7.5MP L1 files any larger than 7.5x10. There are exceptions to the above, of course, but not too many, so either I'm a lot pickier than you are and/or your standards are lower than mine...

I print 24x36 from my A900 all the time. They look awesome.

[kuau]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

On the other hand - if you want a landscape with lots of foliage in it, then the 18mp of the M9 (without an AA filter) is pushing it.

+1 on the M9 for Landscape, Though I had trouble focusing it with the 90, I wish I never sold mine....

-Steve

[Show Performance]

Can I have the last 10 minutes of my life back please

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by Show Performance

Can I have the last 10 minutes of my life back please

Actually . . what with Pegelli's cartoon I think things are rather looking up.