ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
I want!
- Thread starter Brazo
- Start date
That looks perfect, only needs a fast pancake prime and it'd be amazing.
But MSRP $1199 = probably £1200 and for that reason I'm out, GF3 here I come!
p.s. that is one smart adapter!
But MSRP $1199 = probably £1200 and for that reason I'm out, GF3 here I come!
p.s. that is one smart adapter!
Last edited:
Blue Pete
Maybe you should look at the new Sony 5n, not only does it make the m43 cameras look like over priced compacts it takes on and beats (just) a 5D mkII in image quality! And at half the price of the nex7!
http://www.eoshd.com/content/3802/which-is-best-for-low-light-sony-nex-5n-or-nex-7-and-a77
Maybe you should look at the new Sony 5n, not only does it make the m43 cameras look like over priced compacts it takes on and beats (just) a 5D mkII in image quality! And at half the price of the nex7!
http://www.eoshd.com/content/3802/which-is-best-for-low-light-sony-nex-5n-or-nex-7-and-a77
Lol at it beating the 5DII on image quality. It can probably do a lot of things well, but not that.
I've read a couple of reviews of the upcoming Sony cameras and the majority seem to have a "fanboy" feel to them. I'm not going to knock the cameras or functions, but the contents of some Ken Rockwell reviews have better fundamentals!!
I've read a couple of reviews of the upcoming Sony cameras and the majority seem to have a "fanboy" feel to them. I'm not going to knock the cameras or functions, but the contents of some Ken Rockwell reviews have better fundamentals!!
Admittedly I can only go on what other reviewers are saying which is why i posted an EOS link, heres another high iso comparison
http://www.eoshd.com/content/3784/n...-at-high-isos-even-beats-5d-mk-ii-nikon-d7000
http://www.eoshd.com/content/3784/n...-at-high-isos-even-beats-5d-mk-ii-nikon-d7000
The high ISO IQ does look superb on the new Cameras but convenience is the winner for me and Sony vs M43 on pancakes; its f/2.8 vs f/1.7 so less need for that High ISO with Panasonic anyway!
Ordered the GF3 yesterday and 20 f/1.7, size wins and the great thing is you can swap the lens between two systems further down the road.
Oh and Panasonic are really pushing the size thing, the new pancake zoom, whilst slow, is a fantastic achievement. That slightly bigger sensor will keep the Sony pixel peepers happy but this thing needs to go in my pocket, be it a large one.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1108/11082615panasonic14-42Xpreview.asp
Ordered the GF3 yesterday and 20 f/1.7, size wins and the great thing is you can swap the lens between two systems further down the road.
Oh and Panasonic are really pushing the size thing, the new pancake zoom, whilst slow, is a fantastic achievement. That slightly bigger sensor will keep the Sony pixel peepers happy but this thing needs to go in my pocket, be it a large one.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1108/11082615panasonic14-42Xpreview.asp
A camera outperforming an older one at ISO12800 when examining the .jpg files out of the camera is a very narrow way of looking at image quality. It is misleading to state that the new Sony's have better image quality (full stop) as it is not the case for most other settings. It is not surprising that newer algorithms can clean up an image at high ISO better than the old software/ hardware of the older models.
It's also worth noting that the 5DII only goes up to a native ISO6400. Anything after that is "boosted" in the software rather than direct sensor capture. That in itself will increase noise, in the same way that upping the exposure on the computer will do the same. I had a quick look in Lightroom and of the 61,000 images I have less than 200 using ISO6400 and above, with a large majority of those being test shots to see what various cameras can do (the ISO 120,400 of the 1DIV is not pretty!) so the (super) high ISO performance of a camera is not so important to me, for sports/ concert or other photographers, I am sure it will be useful though.
A lot of the tests are also flawed as they are not making the correct comparison, i.e. the extra crop required from a 5D image to get the same shot from APS-C sensors etc etc. Some get it right, some get it wrong, but it all depends on what point you want to prove.
I have been pixel peeping at various images from the new models that come out, but there is a fair difference in quality when looking at something from full frame or something from an APS-C. It could be argued that the difference at a pixel level makes no difference in practical use, as the majority of images will only be displayed at screen resolution or on a small/ medium print, but the difference is still there.
I would love it if smaller cameras and sensors could beast the full frame models, but they aren't there yet IMHO. One thing is clear though, the next generation of the D700/ 5DII need to pull some heavy punches in order to keep their high price tags justified. Technology is getting better and more affordable by the month!
It's also worth noting that the 5DII only goes up to a native ISO6400. Anything after that is "boosted" in the software rather than direct sensor capture. That in itself will increase noise, in the same way that upping the exposure on the computer will do the same. I had a quick look in Lightroom and of the 61,000 images I have less than 200 using ISO6400 and above, with a large majority of those being test shots to see what various cameras can do (the ISO 120,400 of the 1DIV is not pretty!) so the (super) high ISO performance of a camera is not so important to me, for sports/ concert or other photographers, I am sure it will be useful though.
A lot of the tests are also flawed as they are not making the correct comparison, i.e. the extra crop required from a 5D image to get the same shot from APS-C sensors etc etc. Some get it right, some get it wrong, but it all depends on what point you want to prove.
I have been pixel peeping at various images from the new models that come out, but there is a fair difference in quality when looking at something from full frame or something from an APS-C. It could be argued that the difference at a pixel level makes no difference in practical use, as the majority of images will only be displayed at screen resolution or on a small/ medium print, but the difference is still there.
I would love it if smaller cameras and sensors could beast the full frame models, but they aren't there yet IMHO. One thing is clear though, the next generation of the D700/ 5DII need to pull some heavy punches in order to keep their high price tags justified. Technology is getting better and more affordable by the month!
Looks an interesting camera, and on a general note greater market competition should be good for all of us. At the end of the day you really do have to pixel peep to see the differences which is hardly comparable to the intended use of most photos, and in any case a camera is only as good as the person peeking through the viewfinder.
Yes you do need to pixel peep and its obviously not a better camera overall than a 5d but an interesting comparison nonetheless on the onslaught of technology.
There is talk that the 16mp Sony 5n may be better than the 24mp Nex 7 due to too many mp squeezed onto the sensor. Time will tell!
There is talk that the 16mp Sony 5n may be better than the 24mp Nex 7 due to too many mp squeezed onto the sensor. Time will tell!
