Sony NEX-7 Digital Camera Review

Shutter noise is no better on the NEX-5. Hopefully they've fixed this issue in the NEX-7 or have plans to do so. I would imagine that it's a firmware issue as there is no mirror, correct?

Very thorough review. Nicely done.

BTW, any chance you can get me one of Roger's tents?

Great article, but your introduction failed to mention film cameras. A small film camera can provide SLR quality pictures at a much smaller weight than even this camera. Assuming you can get the film processed, it is probably the best option. It is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison, of course. If your intent is to display the pictures on a digital monitor, then a digital camera makes sense. If your intent is to display a slide show, then film makes sense. For glossy pictures, either will do.

Ryan,

Great article and timely for me as I am considering buying the NEX5n, which is more of the auto "idiot" camera, to replace my Canon 880IS Digital Elph pocket camera.

I am interested more in documenting my trips, but would like to have the better sensor to capture "better" looking photos without too much complication beyond point and shoot.

Anyway, questions for you….What case were you using for the NEX7?

Wondering if you have one that is lighter than the Sony case that is sold by Sony for the NEX line of cameras.

Looking forward to future articles on this camera.

Thanks!

-Tony

IMO micro 4/3 has a big advantage over these compact APS-C cameras. The slightly smaller image circle combined with an ultra-close sensor distance means a big difference to one major factor not really mentioned in this article: weight of the lenses.

Old manual lenses are great, but they are heavy metallic things, and this is the area where the most weight stands to be lost. But if you must, they can also be used very easily on most u4/3 cams with an appropriate adapter. I do this all the time on my GH1 and focus/exposure are both totally painless and nearly instant with a bit of practice.

For native micro 4/3, lenses can be designed *far* smaller and lighter, especially on the wide-angle side of things, and actually need fewer glass elements because of the closeness of the sensor. Both Olympus and Panasonic are making some truly revolutionary lenses right now, many of which are either pancakes or collapse down to pancake size when not shooting, and most have spectacular optics. The Panasonic 7-14mm is simultaneously the lightest, the widest, and one of the sharpest pro-level ultra-ultra-wides around.
Sony seems to be getting kinda close with a few NEX lenses, but still suffers from a larger image circle (heavier) and the optics don't seem to be as good in general. The selection of really good native lenses for NEX is much poorer than that of u4/3.

Anyway, great article, it's just that I think the hypothesis of "higher image quality for less weight" could use a bit of scrutiny when the whole package is looked at. This is especially true when it comes to native, autofocus lenses, which the majority will desire.

Olympus cameras and the GF series aren't using the best sensors of u4/3, yet, which is maybe where the "substandard image quality" argument comes from, but others (like the GH2) are using really nice sensors which compete really well with APS-C… especially under conditions you're probably shooting in while backpacking! The GH cams are barely heavier and much nicer to use than the smaller cams, plus you get the best possible video.

Edit: the new, smaller and viewfinder-less GX1 seems to now have a better sensor, so the best of both worlds. Have you checked it out at all, Ryan?

Personally I'm loving my NEX-5n for travel and backpacking photography.
Very light and small and beats my olympus m4/3 as far as image quality.
Low light quality is the best in this price range.

Hoping to get a scuba housing for my trip later in the year.
Happy new year guys.

@Ross – I'm with you on film. I still own a Contax T3 and I'd be awfully hesitant to say that it cannot capture better images with Velvia 50 than any digital on the market that is twice its weight or lighter…just didn't feel the need to open that Pandora's box up on this review ;)

@Tom – The GH2 just might be my pick if my primary focus was videography instead of still photography. My primary focus remains in shooting stills, for now. It's a super camera (the GH2) for video, and the tele zoom feature pioneered on it was brilliant. It's bulkier than the NEX7. Photo quality is a toss up for routine, low-contrast photos. At the "fringes" of contrast or for low light (long exposures at low ISO), the NEX-7 captures a noticeably cleaner image with better dynamic range – not a "lot" by web viewing standards, but meaningful nonetheless – to me at least.

@Tony – the case I'm using is the Lowepro Edit 100. A fine case. It doesn't have a rain cover though, so I use a shower cap (one for the case, one for the camera when shooting in the rain. I'm looking for a lighter case, yes (I may just make one), the Edit 100 is just what I have now, and it fits the NEX7 with a lens very well.

@Jacob – I don't plan on doing a side-by-side comparison with RF lenses on the 5N vs. the 7, so can't comment on that.

@Bradley – regarding the image circle on MFT sensors = smaller, lighter lenses – you are correct. This remains true as you continue to go down in sensor size. (Check out the lenses on the new small sensor interchangeable lens Nikons, the V1/J1. The lenses are tiny.) For example, the Olympus and Panny 14-42 zooms are 3.4 (the "X" << very cool lens) to 6.9 oz. The Sony 18-55 is 6.9 oz. I've used my Leica lenses on both Oly and Panny MFT bodies, all the way back to the EP1 and GF1. You are right in that it becomes easy enough in practice. Manual focusing on the NEX7 takes it to another level of joy, though. Finally, my "higher image quality for less weight" should really be taken in context with DSLR systems rather than other mirror less systems. The GX1 is also a super little camera, but gives up some nice features like dial controls (it does still have one dial) and a VF. I love how the GX1 feels in the hand with that new 14-42 lens, though.

@Duane – I love Ricoh cameras. I shot with a GRD for years, and may pull the trigger on its next iteration. The GXR has the a great UI, but no built in VF, and no vid, which for me is a deal killer. Yes, the NEX7 suffers from color fringing with retrofocus lenses like the Elmarit-M 28/2.8, but it's easily corrected. I use Cornerfix.

@Frank – buy used Leica lenses and shop around. You can get some great deals on them (not on eBay – seek out used dealers). The Voigtlander 15/4.5 is a KILLER lens, by the way, and a steal for that price.

Bradley – the main reason is that I just don't like fooling around with "building" a makeshift tripod, I like something tall enough to get me above grasses, and I like enough stability to deal with a little bit of wind. That said, my 0531 was the 'pod I paired with my D7000. I do think my requirements for the NEX-7 will go down, so I'm shopping around for something lighter.

Fair enough for sure – there's something to be said for adding a little weight if it makes something you commonly do a lot easier.
Sometimes I think we should be deciding what to bring based not just on weight, but on the caloric expenditure of carrying the weight vs. the extra caloric expenditure of a DIY (but weightless) field solution. Even from just this objective standpoint, we might be expending more energy overall by going too light on certain things.

I may have missed this, but when will subsequent parts of this review be completed?

The Voigtlander 12mm (with an adapter) works pretty well on the NEX-7 (as long as color fringing is corrected in Cornerfix, etc.), which gives you 18mm equivalent.

Currently, for autofocus, the E mount AF 16/2.8 (24mm equivalent) is your widest option.

The E mount is a much younger system. I'm sure we'll see quite a variety of lenses for it in coming years. Recall that MFT lenses were pretty slow to build critical mass as well. Now we're flooded with options.

I'll put details up in the review when I'm done with this lens, but after using a lens like the Leica Elmarit, and then going to the Sony 16/2.8 – you can't help but be disappointed.

So I approached my perspective with this lens from a different angle, and instead compared IQ to the kit 18-55/3.5-5.6 lens. The latter offers *noticeably* higher IQ throughout its aperture and zoom range, relative to the 16/2.8.

The 16/2.8 makes the ergonomics of this camera fantastic. It's such a light and small lens, autofocuses fast and well, and – at f/8 delivers very nice images. At low apertures, it turns the NEX-7 into a crippled heap of expensive and heavier-than-in-needs-to-be-junk. The lens is OK enough for Youtube videos and smallish web images, though.