NEX-7 + CV, and Zeiss ZM lenses

[kuau]

Just curious, for those who were lucky enough to have received the NEX-7, I foolishly ordered mine from Amazon the day it was announced and still no ship date

Oh well I saw the original post from the picture desk teasing all the Zeiss ZM lenses on a pre production NEX -7, but have not seen many tests using CV M lenses only leica m glass..

Steve

[Godfrey]

Photos made with the small, symmetrical design CV lenses should show up the same issues that the Zeiss Biogons show.

[kuau]

Godfrey,
sorry could you be a little more specific, I don't understand lens design to much.
Maybe a quick list of M mount lenses to stay away from would be helpful.
I read somewhere that the zeiss zm 18 is a good performer, though not sure.

[Vivek]

Originally Posted by Godfrey

Photos made with the small, symmetrical design CV lenses should show up the same issues that the Zeiss Biogons show.

This may be considered a nit-pick (to me it isn't).

No biogon that I know is really "symmetrical". None of the oft discussed CV (superwide to wide range) lenses are symmetrical in design either. This "symmetric" design and hence the problem is a vast oversimplification of the issues at hand.

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by Vivek

This may be considered a nit-pick (to me it isn't).

No biogon that I know is really "symmetrical". None of the oft discussed CV (superwide to wide range) lenses are symmetrical in design either. This "symmetric" design and hence the problem is a vast oversimplification of the issues at hand.

HI Vivek - Like Steve, I'm no expert in lens design. I understood 'symmetrical' to refer to the fact that the distance from the diaphragm of the lens to the front was the same as the distance to the film plane - whereas retro-focal lenses have a larger distance to the film plane (like SLR lenses). Probably it's a generalisation. As such the wide angles will have an exit pupil much closer to the film plane (and thus much steeper angle of incidence)

Still - Steve - most of the modern leica lenses are 'definitely' retro-focal, and these will work well on the NEX7 (e.g. the 24 'lux, WATE) an exception is the 28 elmarit.

I guess this doesn't help at all . .

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by Vivek

This may be considered a nit-pick (to me it isn't).

No biogon that I know is really "symmetrical". None of the oft discussed CV (superwide to wide range) lenses are symmetrical in design either. This "symmetric" design and hence the problem is a vast oversimplification of the issues at hand.

Yes, it is a nit-pick. You in particular know exactly what I meant ... I don't know a better way to express it quickly.

Unfortunately I don't have time for a longer, clarifying post. Nor do I have extensive information about precisely which CV lenses have been tested on the NEX 7 ... I don't own a NEX 7 to test with. However, from what I have seen with other lenses of design similar to the Skopar 21, 24, 28, Heliar 12 and 15, I believe the NEX 7 will have problems with them just as the NEX 5 does. The NEX 5n has a different sensor which, either by design or happenstance, seems to do much better with these lenses than other NEX models.

[clark666]

Has anyone tried Canon EF lenses such as the 50mm f/1.8 or the 28mm f/2.8 on the NEXs?

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by clark666

Has anyone tried Canon EF lenses such as the 50mm f/1.8 or the 28mm f/2.8 on the NEXs?

I don't know whether a mount adapter even exists for Canon EF to NEX.

The issue with these lenses is that the iris mechanism is actuated electronically, so the lens needs power and the correct signals from the body in order to be able to set the lens opening to anything other than wide open. For this reason they are generally not a particularly good choice for adaptation to other lens mounts.

[kuau]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

HI Vivek - Like Steve, I'm no expert in lens design. I understood 'symmetrical' to refer to the fact that the distance from the diaphragm of the lens to the front was the same as the distance to the film plane - whereas retro-focal lenses have a larger distance to the film plane (like SLR lenses). Probably it's a generalisation. As such the wide angles will have an exit pupil much closer to the film plane (and thus much steeper angle of incidence)

Still - Steve - most of the modern leica lenses are 'definitely' retro-focal, and these will work well on the NEX7 (e.g. the 24 'lux, WATE) an exception is the 28 elmarit.

I guess this doesn't help at all . .

Jono it helps, If I want to go wide with my yet to be received NEX-7 looks like I need to start saving my pennies for a Leica WATE..
On my NEX-5n which I have now I use a CV 25mm Skopar, CV 40mm Nokton, and a Contax/Zeiss G 90mm F2.8 lenses, all of the above work very well with my NEX-5n.

I assume my CV 40, and Contax G 90 will work fine with the NEX-7.

Steve

[clark666]

Originally Posted by Godfrey

I don't know whether a mount adapter even exists for Canon EF to NEX.

The issue with these lenses is that the iris mechanism is actuated electronically, so the lens needs power and the correct signals from the body in order to be able to set the lens opening to anything other than wide open. For this reason they are generally not a particularly good choice for adaptation to other lens mounts.

Ok Thank you The plastic EF primes are nice because they are so light and small. There is an adapter available on eBay. So, the NEX will just set the exposure for a wide open lens unless the manual aperture on the adapter is reduced.

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by clark666

Ok Thank you The plastic EF primes are nice because they are so light and small. There is an adapter available on eBay. So, the NEX will just set the exposure for a wide open lens unless the manual aperture on the adapter is reduced.

Ok, I did a search. All of the ones I see include a warning like this:

Note: when using EOS lenses, you can only shoot with max. aperture of your lens.

The main reason I think these exist is that there are many mount adapters which enable other SLR lenses to be used on Canon EOS SLRs. So if you own, say, Nikon, Pentax and Contax lenses and have been using them with adapters on your Canon 5D, you can use all of them on a NEX camera for the price of a single dumb adapter.

There are many other choices that are better for adaptation than the Canon EF lenses because they allow aperture control. :-)

[Vivek]

OK, Godfrey, nit-pick on my part since there isn't much more useful information. When I get some time, I will post some at length with actual examples of true symmetrical lenses and the ones being discussed here.

FWIW, the CV15 does poorly (ie., past ~1.5m focus) on the NEX-7. Some may consider this useful for artistic expression though. LOL.

At close ranges up-to 0.7meters, it is quite decent! If one can put up with a slow lens with a fairly restricted range or is going to do close range shooting, it is OK.

I don't have a CV21 anymore but I would expect to be poorer (it is a less sharp lens than the 15mm).

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by kuau

Jono it helps, If I want to go wide with my yet to be received NEX-7 looks like I need to start saving my pennies for a Leica WATE..
On my NEX-5n which I have now I use a CV 25mm Skopar, CV 40mm Nokton, and a Contax/Zeiss G 90mm F2.8 lenses, all of the above work very well with my NEX-5n.

I assume my CV 40, and Contax G 90 will work fine with the NEX-7.

Yes, the NEX 5n seems to do pretty well with most RF lenses. I think you're save with the 40 and 90 mm lenses on the 7.

I haven't seen results from the WATE on the NEX 7 yet ... Have you tried that setup, Jono? (It's not necessarily true that a particular retrofocus design RF lens will always work well, it's just more likely.) I'd hate to see you save up for such an expensive lens and have it turn out not to work very well.

Probably the best short focal length lenses for the NEX 7 are adapted SLR lenses if the native mount 16mm isn't up to snuff. There's also the Zeiss 25/1.8 lens that Sony is offering. I'd probably look carefully at those two first if I were going to buy a NEX 7.

Other than those, there are some beautiful, compact Olympus OM lenses that are the equal of anything, as well as some great Nikkors, Contax/Zeiss and Leica R lenses that should fulfill your needs for a wide-angle focal length nicely. (The Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 AI-S is one of my long-time favorites ... I used it on Olympus and Panasonic FourThirds SLR and Panasonic Micro-FourThirds with very satisfactory results for a couple of years.)

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by Vivek

.. FWIW, the CV15 does poorly (ie., past ~1.5m focus) on the NEX-7. ...
I don't have a CV21 anymore but I would expect to be poorer (it is a less sharp lens than the 15mm).

Interesting comment about the CV 21. Mine performs beautifully with the Ricoh GXR, extremely sharp and contrasty edge to edge. I have a 20x35 inch canvas wrap hanging in the living room which was made from about 2/3 of the area of a Ricoh GXR exposure using this lens. It's wonderfully sharp everywhere.

Similarly, a bunch of exposures made last month with the Leica M4-2 seem very sharp and contrasty edge to edge.

Was yours the current M-bayonet lens or an older LTM lens? Perhaps there's a difference.

I'll be interested to see your examples when you get around to it.

[Vivek]

Ahh, the GXR, I am really going to get one when it is possible.

The 15 vs 21 comment should be qualified, I think.

On film, (at one point I was walking around with a Bessa or a Leica CL) and 3 lenses. The CV-15, CV-21, and an Orion-15 28/6 (all LTM lenses, and coincidentally silver colored, not that it makes any difference in their optics/performance). The CV15 showed an noticeable edge over the CV21.

I also have several LTM/M mount lenses. Most aren't used or won't be used on the NEX-7 only because the lenses with the corresponding focal lengths from Olympus pen F are so much better, in terms of versatility and performance, for my use.

Pen F lenses: I have already mentioned that the 40/1.4 is simply superb. The 38/1.8 appears to be poor. Have to recheck the 42/1.2. The 60/1.5 is nothing but stellar. Better on the 7 than the 5! Have to check the 25/2.8, 70/2, 100/3.5, 150/4, etc. after I locate them.

There are also odd adapted lenses I have around. Some are so tiny, I hope I can locate them! I am not kidding about this:


More compact than a body cap. by Vivek Iyer, on Flickr

Sample using the above set-up from last December (we are a balmy +10C now):


Untitled by Vivek Iyer, on Flickr


Untitled by Vivek Iyer, on Flickr

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by Vivek

Ahh, the GXR, I am really going to get one when it is possible.

The 15 vs 21 comment should be qualified, I think.

On film, (at one point I was walking around with a Bessa or a Leica CL) and 3 lenses. The CV-15, CV-21, and an Orion-15 28/6 (all LTM lenses, and coincidentally silver colored, not that it makes any difference in their optics/performance). The CV15 showed an noticeable edge over the CV21.

I also have several LTM/M mount lenses. Most aren't used or won't be used on the NEX-7 only because the lenses with the corresponding focal lengths from Olympus pen F are so much better, in terms of versatility and performance, for my use.

Pen F lenses: I have already mentioned that the 40/1.4 is simply superb. The 38/1.8 appears to be poor. Have to recheck the 42/1.2. The 60/1.5 is nothing but stellar. Better on the 7 than the 5! Have to check the 25/2.8, 70/2, 100/3.5, 150/4, etc. after I locate them.
...

I used the CV 15 with the CL too. It performed well and proved much handier (if not quite as competent) as the Contax G Zeiss Hologon 16mm. But I didn't have a 21mm until I bought the latest with M-bayonet mount, and I sold the 15mm ages ago when I sold all of my Leica equipment (2002 ...). Yeah, should have hung onto it. All of it. Oh well.

Yes, you really should try the GXR. It seems a pretty special camera to me.

I had the Pen F 40mm f/1.4 when I was shooting with the G1. It's a fine piece, but not a lot different from the Konica 40/1.8 which I could use on both G1 and E-1. Unfortunately, Olympus Pen F lenses don't adapt easily to M-bayonet mount so I've sold all of them. The M-bayonet lenses I've used on the GXR are proving to be just fine so I don't miss the others.

[kit laughlin]

@ Vivek and Godfrey: what lens, then, might give us 20-24 EFOV on a NEX 7?

I have the other focal lengths covered, but I really need one UWA, and moreover, one free of distortion, or having simple-to-correct distortion. I had been hoping that the CV 15 might be that lens, but it seems not.

Cheers and Happy New Year to you both
kl

[Michiel Schierbeek]

Originally Posted by kit laughlin

@ Vivek and Godfrey: what lens, then, might give us 20-24 EFOV on a NEX 7?

I have the other focal lengths covered, but I really need one UWA, and moreover, one free of distortion, or having simple-to-correct distortion. I had been hoping that the CV 15 might be that lens, but it seems not.

Cheers and Happy New Year to you both
kl

What I red is that the Zeiss zm 18/4 works good on the NEX 7, not the the Biogons and the VC 15/4.5
Look in the Ricoh thread of the Rangefinderforum. Malland uses it a lot and likes it very much. Good info.
He is also very enthousiastic about the GXR with the A12 module.

Michiel

[Chris C]

Originally Posted by Godfrey

.... there are some beautiful, compact Olympus OM lenses that are the equal of anything..........

Maybe I've missed the answer, but would a Nex/OM adapter deliver stopped down use of OM lenses? If yes; I can see the price of these legacy OM lenses rising.

Apologies if I'm being thick about how adapters work.

............ Chris

[Jonas]

Originally Posted by Chris C

Maybe I've missed the answer, but would a Nex/OM adapter deliver stopped down use of OM lenses? If yes; I can see the price of these legacy OM lenses rising.

Apologies if I'm being thick about how adapters work.

............ Chris

Yes.
A longer reply is Yes and No; When the micro 4/3 entered the world (the G1) there were some OM--> µ4/3 adapters sold which lacked the pin needed for locking the aparture function in the stopped down position but of lately I haven't heard of any OM--> E-mount adapters not having the pin. So, the iris closes down and opens up as you turn the aperture ring on those lenses.

[etrigan63]

I use the Fotodiox adapter for OM-to-NEX and it does stop down the aperture. It also includes a tripod mount of the adapter so you don't stress the camera with the weight of the lens.

Here it is with my Zuiko OM 135mm f/2.8


NEX-7 + Zuiko OM 135mm f/2.8 by Carlos Echenique, on Flickr

and here is a sample shot with that lens


Orange Geigers by Carlos Echenique, on Flickr

[Chris C]

Jonas, and Carlos. Thank you for your speedy and helpful replies. The Fotodiox adapter certainly opens up possibilities for reinvigorating those sweet OM lenses for use on a Nex. Thank you for the illustration Carlos, it's greatly appreciated.

There goes the 'used' OM price.

............. Chris

[kit laughlin]

All this is so interesting. What pops into my mind is that we might need a GXR with the M mount module, and then the CV 12 or 15, and then the NEX for the normal and portrait lengths. But the GXR would need the external finder, and none of these that I have seen so far are practical (they add a large amount of bulk; they tend to come out of the hotshoe when taking camera out of whatever you are carrying it in, etc.). I am thinking of the GF-1's finder in particular.

It seems my dream of one camera with a really good EVF that can do justice to CV UWAs and other lengths is not quite here yet. Perhaps a wait is in order?

Michiel, the 18/4 ZM would not be wide enough for what I need, unfortunately.

[Michiel Schierbeek]

Well I have two cameras now The Ricoh and the NEX7.
The VC 15 works like a charm on the GXR and the files are beautiful.
The external viewfinder is sticking out of course but I grab the camera and viewfinder together out of my bag and see no problem.

But sorry this is a Sony forum and I like the NEX-7 very much. I am polygaam! (Usually only with cameras and other tools)

Michiel

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by kit laughlin

All this is so interesting. What pops into my mind is that we might need a GXR with the M mount module, and then the CV 12 or 15, and then the NEX for the normal and portrait lengths. But the GXR would need the external finder, and none of these that I have seen so far are practical (they add a large amount of bulk; they tend to come out of the hotshoe when taking camera out of whatever you are carrying it in, etc.). I am thinking of the GF-1's finder in particular.

It seems my dream of one camera with a really good EVF that can do justice to CV UWAs and other lengths is not quite here yet. Perhaps a wait is in order?

Michiel, the 18/4 ZM would not be wide enough for what I need, unfortunately.

I've been pushing the GXR-M + VF-2 in and out of my camera bag for months now and have yet to have the viewfinder fall off. It's not like the GF1 finder.

Of course, if it did, a little bit of sticky tape would solve that pretty fast. Or a more secure solution: tap a small hole in the hot shoe and make a securing bolt that locked it in place, removal only with a small screwdriver. The VF-2 does add some bulk, but I love the fact that it swivels up for low angle and copystand work. With wide lenses, I often remove it and use the LCD and an optical viewfinder... set focus by the LCD and using the scale for DoF markings, then turn off the LCD and shoot, using the viewfinder to frame.

Once you have the GXR-M + EVF, you don't need the other camera as it also works beautifully with longer focal length lenses. Including the Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4 ED-IF I picked up:

It's performance with the CV 12 and 15 is outstanding. :-)

[kit laughlin]

Godfrey and Michiel—I will look into this camera seriously.

What of the new sensor module though?? Although, 12Mp is enough for all my work, I admit, and perhaps there will be lots of the current M-modules for sale!

Cheers and thanks—Godfrey, that is a VERY BIG lens you have there!

[kuau]

How does the GXR-M compare to a Sony NEX 5n?

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by kuau

How does the GXR-M compare to a Sony NEX 5n?

I don't own a NEX 5n to compare directly, but this report by Sam Waldren, a NEX 5n owner/user, is quite objective:

http://ricoh-gr-diary.blogspot.com/2...ny-nex-5n.html

It was originally posted to DPReview in the Ricoh Forum, but this site is a much nicer reading experience.

Given what Sam has to say, I know that both cameras are quite good on performance, but with different strengths. Which you choose to work with depends upon what's more important to you.

(Of course, the GXR has another capability: it's a chameleon. By changing camera units, you can have one of two small sensor zoom cameras, two APS-C prime lens cameras with AF, or a Leica M-bayonet camera. Each of these configurations has its own unique identity as a camera, yet they all share the same ergonomics and control interface. It makes for a very tidy, small, configurable, modular system, different from the traditional body+lens kits we're all so accustomed to.)

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by kit laughlin

Godfrey and Michiel—I will look into this camera seriously.

What of the new sensor module though?? Although, 12Mp is enough for all my work, I admit, and perhaps there will be lots of the current M-modules for sale!

Cheers and thanks—Godfrey, that is a VERY BIG lens you have there!

The new "A16 Camera Mount" is still a rumor. While I have no doubt that something like this will come about, and not too far into the future, because of the successful sales of the A12 Camera Mount and the likely intent by Sony to retire the A12 sensor production line, I don't think it's coming immediately. The GXR A12 Camera Mount was only introduced last October, I suspect they'll go through at least two more production runs before a successor is ready.

The A12 Camera Mount's lack of AA filter means it achieves remarkable acutance with its 12 Mpixels. I'm sure that my work rarely needs more than that. It also means that, without any AA filter in the light path to blur the image, it respects the particular drawing qualities of a lens well: the lenses I've used on it image very very similarly to how they image on the M4-2.

The Micro-Nikkor 200mm looks larger in these photos than it is in reality because the GXR is so diminutive and the lens hood is extended. It's 7.5 inches long by 2.75 inches in diameter, and not particularly heavy (a little over a pound). It is somewhat long, however, because it is an internal focusing macro lens capable of achieving 1:2 magnification with no accessories ... stick the TC-300 teleconverter on the back (another 5" in length) and it becomes a 400mm macro lens capable of 1:1 magnification.

[kit laughlin]

Godfrey, that Waldren link is compelling, for me. I have been convinced!!!

Two final questions before ordering:

1. what flash options are available for the Ricoh (and which must be able to trigger remote flash units), and

2. considering a three-lens kit, and starting with either the 12 or the 15 CV, what are your recommendations? I am thinking a ~40—50 EFOV normal, and one short tele (80–100mm EFOV); this covers most of what I need.

And a final Q. before ordering: how does the Ricoh EVF compare to the Panny one for the GF-1? Up until reading the Waldren link, I was inclining to the 5N, but now to the A12 (the lack of an AA filter is really a plus with decent lenses, IMHO).

Cheers and thanks: I had not even considered the GRX until I read your posts.

[kuau]

so no one here has yet tested the ziess 18mm zm on the nex-7 yet?
for me this is wide enough.
I noticed over at digilloyd, he has been testing a lot of lenses, but nothing wider then 25mm so far

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by kit laughlin

...
1. what flash options are available for the Ricoh (and which must be able to trigger remote flash units), and

2. considering a three-lens kit, and starting with either the 12 or the 15 CV, what are your recommendations? I am thinking a ~40—50 EFOV normal, and one short tele (80–100mm EFOV); this covers most of what I need.

And a final Q. before ordering: how does the Ricoh EVF compare to the Panny one for the GF-1? ...

1- Ricoh makes a dedicated flash but I don't own or use much in way of dedicated flash units. I usually use simple manual or on-board auto flash units triggered by either optical or RF remotes.

a- If you want to use the EVF while shooting with a flash, using optical remotes is easiest: the popup flash on the camera can be set into manual mode and you can adjust power output down to 1/64 power. Add a little IR shield and fit optical slaves to your flash heads and you're off and away.

b- If you don't need to use the EVF, you can fit an RF transmitter to the hot shoe and receivers to your flash heads. You're off and away.

c- If you want to use both EVF and an RF trigger, it's a little more fussy to set up. I got this trick from someone using a GF1 with RF flash triggers: take any hot-shoe extender cable (you know, one that slides in the hot shoe and allows you to put the flash on the other end) and cut off the end that fits in the camera hot shoe. Glue or bolt the shoe to a bracket that you can bolt onto the camera using the tripod socket. Determine the wires going to center and side terminal ... those are the flash trigger trigger wires, not the control protocol terminals ... and mark them out. Trim back the other wires. Bare the ends and tape them to the center terminal and to the hot shoe shoe itself with thin tape. Be careful not to connect one wire to two terminals. Now carefully slide the EVF in over the taped connections. Voila! you have a remote RF trigger hot shoe camera.

(This works because the EVF does not use any of the flash terminal connections, it connects to the camera through its own rear mounted plug and just uses the accessory shoe to physically secure it to the camera. It might take a little fussy work to make the connections fit, but once you've got it set up it'll work great. And yes, I wish they'd put another flash*sync terminal on the body ...)

I mostly use method c as I most usually use flash when shooting tabletop work on a tripod where I prefer the LCD or at parties where precise framing isn't such a big deal. I have both Cactus V2 and Cactus V5 RF remotes and they both work very well.

2- What lenses and focal lengths you want is always a very personal choice. My three lens kit, what I use more than anything else, consists of a 21, 40 and 90 mm. IN 35mm equivalents, that's about a 30, a 60 and a 135 mm FoV. I only rarely want wider ... I have the A12 28mm camera unit (18mm optically) for a bit wider FoV.

If you're a 'wide' person, starting with either the CV 12 or 16, the next lens I'd want is the Zeiss 25/2.8 ZM for a roughly 38-40mm equivalent or your favorite 35mm for a normal, and then a 50mm for a roughly 75mm FoV. But I like the 21-40 pairing on APS-C a lot.

The Ricoh VF-2 is much nicer than the original Panasonic EVF for the GF1 and somewhere just shy of the quality of the Panasonic G1 and Olympus VF-2 EVFs. I think it's more a matter of magnification than actual imaging performance ... it looks smaller than those two (which actually helps me due to my glasses). It's not up to the NEX 5n optional EVF; I'm hoping Ricoh updates it.

Have to tell you, I'm delighted with the GXR kit. Best compact digital camera I've owned in all respects. It's not a pro-grade DSLR in various ways, but for what I do it's responsive enough and the image quality it produces is right up there.

[Nettar]

kau, an assessment of ZM lenses on the NEX-7 is accessible from the first post here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=39561849

The first two urls there will take you to an assessment of the ZM 4/18mm lens:

http://thepicturedesk.blogspot.com/2...t-18mm-zm.html

http://thepicturedesk.blogspot.com/2...t-18mm-zm.html

It's not particularly easy to determine corner sharpness from those images, but you do get a good impression of the extent of colour shift. To me, colour shift on the NEX-7 looks worse than I got on my NEX-5, and much worse than on the NEX-5N, where there there is essentially no problem with colour shift, and no problem at all (that I can discern) with corner sharpness. Nettar

[douglasf13]

You can add Bjorn Utpott's comparisons to the list of concerning evidence agains the NEX-7 with rangefinder lenses. Here is a link to his test with the ZM 35/2, which is among the best of the 35mm rangefinder lenses for my NEX-5N in the corners. The corners of the 7 don't catch up to the 5N until f5.6-ish. This is of particular concern to me, because, if this ZM is having such problems on the NEX-7, it doesn't bode well for the wider ZM and CV lenses, which even have some issues on the 5N.

http://www.bmupix.com/journal/2012/1...-35mm-f20.html

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by Godfrey

...
b- If you don't need to use the EVF, you can fit an RF transmitter to the hot shoe and receivers to your flash heads. You're off and away.
...
I mostly use method c as I most usually use flash when shooting tabletop work on a tripod where I prefer the LCD or at parties where precise framing isn't such a big deal. I have both Cactus V2 and Cactus V5 RF remotes and they both work very well.
...

Oops. I meant method b. ;-)

[nex100]

hi guys,

Assuming I use a nex-7 with a cv 12mm heliar (haven't got a nex-7 in my region, still waiting for shipment unfortunately) the corners will be bad right? But if the resolving power of the 24 MP sensor is as good as what dpreview says, we can then crop extensively the corners that vignette, shifts color or smears and still get a reasonably wide angle pic right?

The whole idea is at least we get still a reasonably wide angle picture after cropping and also almost distortion free or easy to correct distortion. But what will be angle of view after cropping? Wonder if anyone with a 12mm heliar and nex-7 can help with the test.

[Vivek]

nex100, Better to use the Sony 16/2.8.

[k-hawinkler]

Originally Posted by Vivek

nex100, Better to use the Sony 16/2.8.

... or perhaps the Leica WATE 16-18-21/4?


NEX-5N + WATE Tri-Elmar-M ASPH 16-18-21/4

Regards, K-H.

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by k-hawinkler

... or perhaps the Leica WATE 16-18-21/4?

Attachment 53633
NEX-5N + WATE Tri-Elmar-M ASPH 16-18-21/4

Regards, K-H.

yes, absolutely - it seems to be fine on the NEX7 - it's actually a zoom as well (although that's not a huge range).

Sorry - Godfrey - I see you asked that question before.

it's a favourite of mine, on the NEX7 too.

all the best

[Vivek]

Originally Posted by k-hawinkler

... or perhaps the Leica WATE 16-18-21/4?

Attachment 53633
NEX-5N + WATE Tri-Elmar-M ASPH 16-18-21/4

Regards, K-H.

I guess if you have it. Better on an M9 when you have that too!

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

yes, absolutely - it seems to be fine on the NEX7 - it's actually a zoom as well (although that's not a huge range).
Sorry - Godfrey - I see you asked that question before.
it's a favourite of mine, on the NEX7 too.

Not sure which question I asked before, but it's good to hear it works well on the NEX 7. I'd enjoy it with the GXR and M, if I could afford it. But it's out of the ballpark for 2012 - other things have taken precedence.

[jonoslack]

I guess this doesn't prove anything
here is the WATE at 16mm with the hawks adapter:


(working late again)

[douglasf13]

I dunno, Jono, it's hard to tell in regards to detail, but that bottom right corner of the keyboard looks pretty darn purple.

Overall, I've seen a lot of other comparisons, now that the 7 is in people's hands, and it seems that, if you want evenness and less color shift with most 35mm rangefinder lenses, and just about all of them wider than 35mm, the 5N is the better choice. Granted, you'll get more center detail with the 7, which some may prefer, but you'll have a much steeper fall off at the edges and more color shift to deal with.

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

I dunno, Jono, it's hard to tell in regards to detail, but that bottom right corner of the keyboard looks pretty darn purple, to me.

HI Douglas
ouch - looks nasty, but I don't think that's actually anything to do with anything - the top and left of the image is lit with a nasty low energy (and very warm) light. The bottom right is lit with a computer screen with white on it from further away. Added to which I cooled things down a little. . I have lots from the same lens without an issue. It even looks purple with the naked eye! I've tidied up the white balance a bit and reposted - you can still see the shadow.

Here is another without the addition of the computer lighting:



Mind you, I don't disagree that the NEX5n was better with wide lenses - but I've had pretty good success (and very little trouble) shooting wide with the NEX7 and the more modern leica lenses

[PeterA]

That was an interesting link to the comparison between the two cameras. Lets leave aside the possibility that the Sony camera was a bad camera as far as the as displayed massive difference in presented sharpness and detail goes and take it as a given ..

It begs the question does it not- why would anyone wish to buy a Ricoh - with the Sony 16 megapixel chip in it - after this demonstration...??

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by PeterA

That was an interesting link to the comparison between the two cameras. Lets leave aside the possibility that the Sony camera was a bad camera as far as the as displayed massive difference in presented sharpness and detail goes and take it as a given ..

It begs the question does it not- why would anyone wish to buy a Ricoh - with the Sony 16 megapixel chip in it - after this demonstration...??

A couple of points.

First, the problem isn't so much the underlying sensor as it is the filter pack on top of it (and possibly the micro lens design,) so I'd expect a 16MP GXR to perform similarly to the 12MP GXR M module.

Second, take Sam's findings with a grain of salt. He compared the GXR and 5N using the same sharpening settings, which is a no-no when comparing cameras with and without an AA filter. Sam sent me RAWs of the CV 15 on the NEX-5N and GXR, and, while the GXR did do a little better job in the corners than the 5N, it wasn't a mind blowing difference, once sharpening was optimized for each file (AA filtered cameras require more aggressive deconvolution sharpening.)

For many CV and ZM M lenses, the GXR seems tops in total IQ, with the 5N close behind and the NEX-7 a ways back. If the GXR had the same quality EVF as the 5N, I'd likely be shooting one, but, as it stands now, I don't mind a slight corner hit for the better EVF of the 5N.

[retow]

Originally Posted by PeterA

That was an interesting link to the comparison between the two cameras. Lets leave aside the possibility that the Sony camera was a bad camera as far as the as displayed massive difference in presented sharpness and detail goes and take it as a given ..

It begs the question does it not- why would anyone wish to buy a Ricoh - with the Sony 16 megapixel chip in it - after this demonstration...??

As Douglas said, plus better UI (for my liking actually much better), ergonomics, haptics, build quality, no wobbly adapters, integrated small flash. And lastly, knowing Ricoh, I expect them to already work on an improved EVF version. I wished, however, the Ricoh 12MP GXR m-mount had the same high iso performance of the NEX5N. That alone will be reasons enough for me to upgrade to a 16MP m-module.

[k-hawinkler]

Some useful links about lens designs and names:

http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-arti...ens-genealogy/
http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/wp-c...s_Distagon.pdf
http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/wp-c...mes_Planar.pdf
http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F..._en_tessar.pdf

K-H.

[kit laughlin]

Interesting. Douglas, that's a helpful addition to Sam's test.

Godfrey, thanks for that detailed reply; I will be ordering a GF-1 flash for the GXR, because it turns out that the little inbuilt flash can trigger that unit. The CV 15 works very well, too.

I have found that, set up a particular way, the GXR is remarkably easy to focus; if I can work how to upload, here's an image that a friend took the very first time he handled the GXR (MF magnify + Predator mode):



and 100% crop, tiniest sharpening via Aperture:



I find the interface of the GXR to be remarkably intelligent, but have to admit that I have never handled one of the Sonys being discussed here!

The lens was a CV 35/1.7, I believe

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by retow

...no wobbly adapters...

This is actually a disadvantage to those using a Hawk's adapter on NEX. Being able to close focus M lenses to .3m is pretty nice.