Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 13, 2011, 11:48 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tclune View Post
... I haven't used the camera, but I would have very serious reservations about buying a camera with so few and so bad lenses.
Actually, the Sony 18-200 OSS is as good or better than any other stabilized superzoom lens on the market, so I wouldn't write off the NEX just because of the 16/2.8.

And one of the things that Sony has been doing (surprisingly) is helping lots of small companies make adapters so that older lenses from other manufacturers can be easily used on NEX bodies (albeit MF and ME.)
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2011, 11:50 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

the 18-55 is in the same boat as the 16mm 2.8 and the 18-200 is 800 dollars, so that blows by the op's budget if they want a good lens.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2011, 12:06 PM   #13
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Sorry, but the NEX models do not use a Touch Screen. Have you ever even picked one up? Perhaps you should try one before commenting on how one works. ;-)

As for the comments about soft photos, again, try using one.

Center Sharpness is very good with both the 16mm f/2.8 and 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lenses. If you care about the corners (which I wouldn't shooting at f/2.8, since I'd probably be shooting people photos in low light at that aperture), stop them down some.

As for the tests at slrgear.com you like to quote... guess the camera that Dave Etchells (the owner of of both slrgear.com and imaging-resource.com) picked as his favorite camera for 2010? The NEX-5. ;-)

http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1291397256.html

As for the charts, note the center sharpness. Heck, even in the corners the 18-55mm is not bad at all once you get much past 18mm and go down a stop. Just avoid the zoom extremes if you care about the extreme corners (which I don't for most of my photos).

High ISO performance is also best in class.

As for the 16mm, try finding a 16mm f/2.8 pancake for an APS-C size sensor that does any better. It's designed to be small and light. Heck, about the closest thing Nikon has to it is their 14mm f/2.8, costing about 10 times as much (and it's a much larger and heavier lens, too). See it's tests here:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...duct/88/cat/12

Any lens choice is a tradeoff (size, weight, etc.). If you want a 16mm f/2.8 lens that small and light for a camera with an APS-C size sensor, you're going to have tradeoffs.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2011, 12:31 PM   #14
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

P.S.

Here's a shot from the 18-55mm kit lens with the aperture wide open at ISO 3200 (27mm, f4, 1/80 second). Shot in RAW and processed in LR3 with NR set to 25 (very conservative settings), with all other settings at defaults (including WB, which was set to Auto on the camera), then downsized using Irfanview. Please show me another camera this small that would do as well in this lighting with a kit lens on it. ;-)
Attached Images
 
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2011, 12:31 PM   #15
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

100% crop:
Attached Images
 
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2011, 12:57 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

yes back when it first came out. but that was a while ago, might have confused it with the G2. But I still would not get a nex with the current lens option. The samsung would be a better aps-c option.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2011, 12:59 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

PS those shots looks very soft.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2011, 1:04 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
WCKSer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,857
Default

Canon T2i and Sony A55 are probably the 2 best choices out there. Both has a pretty decent kit lens and cost around $800.
WCKSer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2011, 1:04 PM   #19
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
The samsung would be a better aps-c option.
Have you looked at ISO 3200 photos from the Samsung? It's horrible at ISO 3200 (looks like someone threw sand over an image, reminding me of the NR you see with some Point and Shoot models).

JPEG images are particular bad at higher ISO speeds, due to artifacts from what appears to be oversharpening, with contrast boosted way too much which makes the noise even worse. Noise in the shadows look bad, even in broad daylight. There's a reason that Pentax switched from the Samsung 14MP sensors in their newer models (and the Pentax processing is better unless you like over sharpened images with too much contrast and noise).

IMO, there's no contest at higher ISO speeds (the Samsung is a terrible choice if you want to shoot at higher ISO speeds often) compared to a model like the NEX-5.

BTW, here's a similar shot from the Sony 16mm f/2.8 at ISO 3200. Same deal. Converted from RAW with LR3 with NR set to 25, as shot white balance with the camera set to Auto WB; 1/80 second, f/4, everything else at defaults.
Attached Images
 
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2011, 1:05 PM   #20
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

100% Crop:
Attached Images
 
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:32 PM.