Sony NEX-7 Digital Camera Review

Hi

thanks for the great report. I look forward to the upcoming reports and how well it goes in the field testing. I am keen to know of any super wide lenses (manual or auto ) that can be used with this camera. Any recomendations?? I really like the idea of having a view finder and being able to use quality manual lenses where it is easy to control depth of focus for those stunning landscape shots.

Keep up the good work

Ross

Ryan, thanks for the commentary and insights. I recently took a NEX-7 with it's three standard lens (16, 18-55 and 55-210) on an five-day trip into the Sawtooth Range in Idaho, and put the camera through it's paces. I particularly appreciate your comments on using the manual focus lenses rather than the slow kit lenses.

I found that I rarely used the long zoom. The 16 is useful, and after a quick run-through of the images, your comments are spot on. I used the kit lens the most, and found it adequate, for the weight. As a Canon 5D user, it's really refreshing to carry such a light rig! I didn't carry a full-size tripod, relying on a GorillaPod, and the built-in OSS of the camera itself.

I'm at the point where I really don't want to lug a ton of weight into the backcountry anymore. I did acquire a very small Benro tripod with a ball head, with a corresponding weight of about 1.9 pounds, but ended up leaving it behind. I carried six batteries and four 16Gb card. I carry the system in a little LowePro 110 bag attached to the hip strap on my pack, which is secure. One advantage to that pack is that it does have a built-in rain cover. It will not hold both zooms and the camera at the same time, however.

I also carried the Sony remote, which has way too many functions when all you want to do is trigger the shutter. A simple remote would be great. I found myself wishing I had carried a small macro lens, either, the Sigma 30 or Sony's offering rather than the long zoom.

Thanks again for your excellent review. I'm still on the fence with the Leica/Zeiss lenses, and your thoughts are certainly timely as I want to push the limits of this particular style of shooting in the woods.

Jim Parker
http://photo.parkerparker.info

Great review Ryan! I'm very much looking forward to Parts 4, 5 & 6 as well. It was your review that first brought this camera to my attention, and after doing a bit of further research I finally pulled the trigger on one back in May. Glad I did, it's a great camera! So far I've accumulated most of the prime lenses available, as well as the kit 18-55mm, and the 55-210mm. The standouts certainly are the Zeiss 24mm, the 50mm f/1.8, the 55-210mm, and both the Sigma primes. There may be some sample variation in the 16mm, I find mine to be quite good, at least in the f/5.6-f/8 range where I normally use it. At those apertures I find it to actually be a bit better than the kit zoom, which also isn't a bad optic.

I haven't done much hiking with this camera yet, but I fully expect it to perform very well for landscape work. So far I've mostly used it for street photography, and for that purpose it excels. I think the NEX-7 image quality is quite comparable to my full-frame Nikon D700, and it is significantly better than either of the m4/3 cameras I've owned (the Oly E-P1 and the Panny GH1).

If anyone's interested, I have a gallery of my better NEX-7 shots here.

And here's a gallery of test shots for pixel peepers that compares the kit zoom to all the primes I own.

Thanks again for the great review!

Gordon

I just picked up a Sony NEX 6 after a rather exhaustive look into the state of the market. I care about bulk, low light performance, autofocus speed, image quality, and weight not necessarily in that order. I have a Fuji X100 and it takes absolutely stunning photos in a tiny package, but I want to take quality video and be able to switch out lenses in the backcountry. I narrowed down my comparison shopping to buying a body and a standard prime lens with a large aperture. Here were the contenders from my research:

1. Olympus OM-D EM-5 with Panasonic 20mm ƒ/1.7. It's compact, very light, and with inbody 4 stop image stabilization, it'd be a very serious low-light shooter and good for video. The camera body is weather sealed too! Unfortunately while it may be weather sealed, none of the lenses are, and the electronic viewfinder is passable but not great. Ultimately, I couldn't settle for a m4/3 sensor and the resultant image quality. $1300 for camera and lens.

2. Fuji X-E1 with Fuji 35mm ƒ/1.4. It oozes old-school style, takes the best photos of any mirrorless camera currently on the market, and the lenses are fantastic, if expensive. It also has the best low light performance of any mirrorless on the market. Unfortunately, it auto focuses slowly, it doesn't have optical image stabilization, and the video is fully automatic (non adjustable). It's also expensive. $1600 for camera and lens.

3. Sony NEX-6 with Sony 35mm ƒ/1.8 OSS. This is what I ultimately settled on. Technically, the 35mm lens isn't out until the end of December, but it's an optical image stabilized large aperture standard prime lens with super fast autofocus—it sounds almost too good to be true. Preliminary reviews have found the lens is sharp and the bokeh is pleasing. The NEX has excellent image quality, excellent video, almost equivalent low-light performance to the Fuji, and (as this article stated) focus peaking! I bought a Canon FD 50mm ƒ/1.8 for $40 today from a local camera store and mounted it to the NEX-6 with a $20 adapter. For $60, I have an excellent portrait lens that's quick enough to focus that's it not even a bother thanks to the NEX. This feature alone is worth buying into the NEX system. $1300 for camera and lens.

I hemmed and hawed for a long time, but the ability to painlessly use manual focus lenses of yesteryear make the NEX system gold. I feel like I can invest in my standard lens that will be on the camera 95% of the time, and then pick up inexpensive (but still quality) manual focus lenses for telephoto or wide angle. Wide angle lenses made for the FD mount may be slightly heavier and more bulky, but they don't fringe purple like the photos Ryan illustrated and are significantly cheaper than even the Voigtlanders (the crappiest of the M mount lenses).

Timely! Many thanks!

I'm looking forward to upgrading to a system somewhat like the one that you describe, although for candids (and wildlife, on occasion) I really do want autofocus and I miss shots when I change lenses. Fun though it would be, a new camera like this would save me about 0.3 grams per dollar, whereas there are several upgrades in my list that would save me > 2 grams per dollar, and one (backpack) that runs 5 g/$. So it'll be a while. If these cameras could do anything better than my current rig, that would skew the math. Faster lenses are compelling, but compelling enough for me?

I carry a Nikon D5100 and usually bring the kit lens (18-55mm VR), and carry it in a Dana Dry Rib that I lined with thin foam (yeah, could cut 50g for cheap). Total weight (including polarising filter, cleaning cloth, lens pen, and IR remote): 974 grams with 1 battery, which is good for about 800 shots (fewer if I do night photography). It's a good rig: even the kit lens with its crappy motor focuses fast due to solid phase detect AF, and even does a credible job with microphotography. Of course I wish the kit lens had a faster aperature and a faster AF motor, and that the polarising filter were attached to the body rather than to the moving objective lens carrier out front… still, AFAICT an SLR has fewer weird quirks than Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens (EVIL) cameras such as the Sony, although I expect that that will change eventually.

Also note that Canon now has "the lightest SLR ever" at 400g for body+battery+card (Nikon's D3200 trails at 500g, and my D5100 is 550g). And if Canon is competing on weight, others will follow…

How are those lenses in the cold? Ken Rockwell did some tests of a few of his favourites. Do you notice any problems with your lens choices, or with the camera? Is it easy to operate with gloves on?
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/cold.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison-arctic.htm

BUT ALSO:

In your photo of the canoe, what is that paddle? It looks like a composite and probably ultralight Greenland-style double paddle, in this style: http://www.qajaqusa.org/QK/makegreen2.pdf Where does it come from?