NEX-7 and the RX1

[Bill]

DPReview.com has a preview of the RX1, and as a a part of that they provide their studio scene comparison. I suggest you use that utility to compare the RX1 results to the NEX-7. To my eye the NEX-7's low ISO (100 and 200) output (in both RAW and JPEG) is as good as, or better than, the RX1. Of course, with only a slight increase of ISO the RX1 races ahead.

 

[Jefenator]

I agree, the RX1 doesn't seem to compete particularly well against the N7 with that dpreview test scene. I would certainly like to see a rematch, though - hopefully someone will share some side-by-side captures with the RX1 and N7/SEL24 in various scenarios.

 

[mobias]

That DPreview article is from September with a pre-release model. The version of the camera that has just come out is noticeably different from what I've read. I would doubt the NEX 7 with Zeiss glass fitted would match it in any area. Most of the reviews of the RX1 I've read are pretty much saying its the possibly the most perfect digital camera yet made.

 

[Bill]

It's my understanding that dpreview won't do studio tests on pre-production equipment unless they have the permission of the manufacturer.

 

[Poki]

Why should the RX1 be significantly better? Sure, it got FF, but the NEX-7s sensor is simply stunning at base ISO in almost all areas. I don't expect landscape shootes to get out more from the RX1 than from a NEX-7, and cos of the lens mount, the 7 will be better for macro and portrait.

Of course the RX1 still is probably the best camera for street photography, I don't doubt that.

 

[mobias]

Why should the RX1 be significantly better? Sure, it got FF, but the NEX-7s sensor is simply stunning at base ISO in almost all areas. I don't expect landscape shootes to get out more from the RX1 than from a NEX-7, and cos of the lens mount, the 7 will be better for macro and portrait.
.

One of the reasons people are falling over themselves in awe of the RX1 is that its pretty much the first time that a full frame digital camera has had a sensor and lens made for each other and paired up for absolute total perfect optical performance. Ok Leica have done it before but you have to spend 8 grand on the thing. The sensor on the RX1 is something like 2mm away from the rear lens element. Impossible to do with an interchangeable lens camera. Everything about the RX1 has been designed uniquely to get the best out of both the sensor and lens. Its simply a revolutionary camera which is why there are a lot of traditional photographers out there who still gob smacked that Sony are the first to do it. Its the camera some people have been waiting since the dawn of digital photography for a manufacturer to produce at a relatively affordable price. A NEX 7 paired up with some Zeiss glass will get you great results too of course but the bokeh won't be anything like what the RX1 is capable of and that of course is a huge part of what the RX1 is all about it. Also colour definition is mind blowing with the RX1, it pretty much beats the Canon 5D from the tests I've seen and look at the size difference. Its in a totally different league to what you can do with even a high end APSC camera like the NEX 7.

 

[freddytto]

Of course the RX1 still is probably the best camera for street photography, I don't doubt that.

Although Sony has done an excellent job with a FF camera, almost perfect, ideal for lovers of photography Street, but the AF needs to be more fast, like a DSLR and thr accessory prices are insane, $499 for viewfinder, $180 for the lens hood and $250 for the thumb grip, that's crazy plus taxes.
With 35mm, to me this is very appealing.(I'm a Street Shooter).

I'm a follower of Steve Huff, and he did a some reviews on the RX1 and published without an EVF built in this camera was a no go. In addition, the EVF mounted on top of the camera looks awful, in my IMO, so I've seen before the first photos of RX1 - and I was surprised how weak corner resolution for such expensive camera. I don't think it's better than the NEX 7, seeing some comparisons, raw/jpg.

 

[Dioptrick]

I've seen before the first photos of RX1 - and I was surprised how weak corner resolution for such expensive camera. I don't think it's better than the NEX 7, seeing some comparisons, raw/jpg.

I think you could be right. I reconfigured the DP image test to show the...

RX1 (top left) RAW ISO100
NEX7 (bottom left) RAW ISO100
NEX-5N (top right) RAW ISO100
NEX-F3 (bottom right) the F3's lowest ISO is 200

...and the comparatives are quite revealing!

   ---            

 

[mobias]

I think you could be right. I reconfigured the DP image test to show the...



...and the comparatives are quite revealing!

Remember though that test was from a prototype camera done in September. Even Steve Huff said in one of his reviews that the finished camera is noticeably better than the one he played with back in September.

There's no way the NEX 5N let alone the NEX 7 will come near to out performing the RX1.

Check out the depth of field and colour saturation in these shots. That's what you're spending the better part of £3000 to have with a compact camera. You won't get that with any NEX camera http://www.flickr.com/photos/sonyelectronics/sets/72157631631658271/with/8028081838/

 

[ChangshaNotes]

The RX1 looks awesome but it can't compete with the NEX-7 for me because it couldn't be my only body and it's too expensive (justified or not) for me to buy as a second camera. The whole point of the NEX system for me was the size with interchangeable lenses and high quality output. The ability to use legacy glass was something I learned only after. While the output may be arguably better, the RX1 only ticks off two of those four boxes. Nice size but it's still easier for me to carry a nice 35mm lens than a whole extra camera.

It makes a lot of sense as a second camera for a pro or serious amateur photographer who uses a DSLR as their main camera.

Now a full-frame NEX .......

 

[ChangshaNotes]

Here's an interesting real world account about the RX1 after using a 5N.

Sony RX1: My Full Frame Experience

 

[mobias]

The RX1 looks awesome but it can't compete with the NEX-7 for me because it couldn't be my only body and it's too expensive (justified or not) for me to buy as a second camera. The whole point of the NEX system for me was the size with interchangeable lenses and high quality output. The ability to use legacy glass was something I learned only after. While the output may be arguably better, the RX1 only ticks off two of those four boxes. Nice size but it's still easier for me to carry a nice 35mm lens than a whole extra camera.

It makes a lot of sense as a second camera for a pro or serious amateur photographer who uses a DSLR as their main camera.

Now a full-frame NEX .......

There's no doubt obviously with the RX1 that you've got to be able to live with one lens. But that's why its been such a sought after camera, its a purist photographers dream come true. There's still a school of thinking in photography, particularly amongst street and reportage photographers, that the SLR is/was the work of the devil and that any truly good photographer should be able to everything they need to do with a 35mm prime lens. Its the lens that defined photography for a long time.
Personally I think it would great fun trying to only use one lens and get the absolute best out of it. I do love my wide angles though like the 16mm.

A full frame NEX will arrive eventually I'm sure. Looks like it will simply be impossible to use E mount lenses on it though so it'll be a whole different system of lenses entirely, probably A mount I would guess. There's big technical challenges in it for Sony but if they can nail it then it'll be a great camera.

 

[Jefenator]

"Specialist" is a good way to summarize the RX-1. It is worth mentioning that the whole package costs less and may perform equally if not better than the comparable Leica - just the lens!

 

[Poki]

"Specialist" is a good way to summarize the RX-1. It is worth mentioning that the whole package costs less and may perform equally if not better than the comparable Leica - just the lens!

Yep, but even though the camera itself is priced fairly, the overpriced accessories always make it look overpriced by quite a bit. A NEX with Zeiss lenses (there are 4 options available, after all) should be a better investment as a main camera imo.

 

[mobias]

Yep, but even though the camera itself is priced fairly, the overpriced accessories always make it look overpriced by quite a bit. A NEX with Zeiss lenses (there are 4 options available, after all) should be a better investment as a main camera imo.

Depends on what you're after though. As Steve Huff pointed out you're paying all that money for the RX-1 so you don't have to buy Canon 5D with a lens or a D600 with a lens. You could say the same thing about a NEX. You'd be buying the RX-1 so you don't have to buy a NEX and worry about carrying lenses about with you. The RX-1 is all about complete simplicity and not ever having to worry about anything with ever again but of course you are tied into limited parameters with one lens. I agree about the accessories being over priced and we all know fine well the RX-2 will have a built in EVF in a similar sized body. That being said I could quite easily live without an EVF, I am already with my 5R, and some people have picked up on the fact that the RX-1 has the most impressive screen ever seen on any digital camera. It looks like its a joy to use.

You can take photos with the RX-1 that are impossible to take with any NEX but you've got to be able to live with that lens. That's what you've paying for.

 

[Poki]

You can take photos with the RX-1 that are impossible to take with any NEX but you've got to be able to live with that lens. That's what you've paying for.

I don't think so. Dynamic Range and color depth isn't that much better and in exchange to high ISO you could use extremely fast lenses on NEX bodies. Sure the RX1 is inspiring to use and offers great IQ, it's just that I don't believe you could shoot any picture on a RX1 that would not be possible on a NEX body.

Oh, and I like simplicity - just not if it limits me in my creative work. The NEX-7 is also quite minimalistic, but you CAN change lenses. You don't have to.

 

[mobias]

I don't think so. Dynamic Range and color depth isn't that much better and in exchange to high ISO you could use extremely fast lenses on NEX bodies. Sure the RX1 is inspiring to use and offers great IQ, it's just that I don't believe you could shoot any picture on a RX1 that would not be possible on a NEX body.

Oh, and I like simplicity - just not if it limits me in my creative work. The NEX-7 is also quite minimalistic, but you CAN change lenses. You don't have to.

One of the biggest reasons anyone would want to upgrade to a full frame camera of any type is to get amazingly lush lens bokeh. You cannot get that on any APS-C camera, its just not the same at all. The bokeh on the RX-1 looks and apparently is beautiful. So thats the main reason I'd want one. Its impossible with any NEX. Using high quality fast lenses on a NEX isn't going to compete at all with the RX-1's ISO ability. You're stuck with wide open apertures. The versatility of being able to shoot all the way up to ISO 1600 (some reviewers are claiming 3200 is perfectly useable and better than some APS-C cameras ISO 800) with almost negligible drop in quality allows you so much flexibility with depth of field and getting the most out of the lens.

So combine all that and you'll get pictures that are impossible on a NEX 7. You're stuck with one lens of course, but that's part of the creative fun.

 

[Poki]

One of the biggest reasons anyone would want to upgrade to a full frame camera of any type is to get amazingly lush lens bokeh. You cannot get that on any APS-C camera, its just not the same at all. The bokeh on the RX-1 looks and apparently is beautiful. So thats the main reason I'd want one. Its impossible with any NEX. Using high quality fast lenses on a NEX isn't going to compete at all with the RX-1's ISO ability. You're stuck with wide open apertures. The versatility of being able to shoot all the way up to ISO 1600 (some reviewers are claiming 3200 is perfectly useable and better than some APS-C cameras ISO 800) with almost negligible drop in quality allows you so much flexibility with depth of field and getting the most out of the lens.

So combine all that and you'll get pictures that are impossible on a NEX 7. You're stuck with one lens of course, but that's part of the creative fun.

As your dof will be less shallow anyways using larger apertures shouldn't be a problem. And if I want bokeh, I'd buy a A99 with the 85 Cz. But yeah, I know how great it can be to simply use one lens. It lets you focus much more on the composition than the camera, and the RX1 is a great camera for sure, I just don't think it's a great main camera for everybody. After all, there are many more things you can do on a NEX that you can't do on a RX1 than vice versa.

If you can afford a RX1 as second camera, you should go for it, no question.

 

[Dioptrick]

One of the biggest reasons anyone would want to upgrade to a full frame camera of any type is to get amazingly lush lens bokeh. You cannot get that on any APS-C camera, its just not the same at all. The bokeh on the RX-1 looks and apparently is beautiful. So thats the main reason I'd want one. Its impossible with any NEX.

I'm trying to get my head around that blanket statement (out of genuine interest and curiosity). I do agree to some extent, but I'm really not sure if the difference would be all that much.

I have several legacy lenses of the same focal length and they all show different bokeh characteristics on my 5N (some busy, some smokey smooth). So I would deduce that lush bokeh primarily comes from lens characteristic not from the fact that the sensor is full frame. It would be fair to assume that the beautiful bokeh of the RX1 is coming from the 35mm f/2.0 Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* Lens and not just because of its full frame sensor size.

All adapted legacy SLR MF lenses project a circular image large enough to cover a full frame sensor (they're just designed this way), however our APS-C Nex sensor is a little smaller. I can understand the m4/3 format not getting lush bokeh from the same adapted lenses because its small sensor only occupies just a tiny central area of the legacy lens' projected image (where most objects are within the DOF).

When or if Sony releases a Nex with a full frame sensor, I really don't think the specific bokeh we're getting now from each of our respective adapted lenses will end up that much different. If the pixel count of an imaginary APS-C crop area that's sitting within a hypothetically new NEX full frame sensor has the same pixel count of our current sensors, the increased resolution will be coming from acquiring a little bit more of the lens' projected peripheral image. The IQ and bokeh characteristic should be the same along the central 70% of the full frame image. Any softer bokeh would be the lesser DOF at the outer extremities of the projected image now captured by the larger full frame sensor, but really the DOF fall-off outside of the APS-C crop area isn't going to be that dramatic.

If anything, a full frame sensor won't be as forgiving as it would reveal peripheral lens flaws - and that goes for new native AF and old MF legacies alike.

 

[quezra]

I have several legacy lenses of the same focal length and they all show different bokeh characteristics on my 5N (some busy, some smokey smooth). So I would deduce that lush bokeh primarily comes from lens characteristic not from the fact that the sensor is full frame. It would be fair to assume that the beautiful bokeh of the RX1 is coming from the 35mm f/2.0 Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* Lens and not just because of its full frame sensor size.

Exactly.

The 55/1.2 can melt just anything it touches:

   ---            

...and is such a different lens to the SEL50/1.8, which can still leave harsher bokeh:

   ---            

(apologies for the lousy quality, just grabbed these off my Facebook)

They are such different lenses, and the 55/1.2 is much much harder to use (at my level of skill, I'll be happy with 1/4 success rate), but when I do nail it I am instantly in love. Whereas I can get 9/10 good shots on the 50/1.8, but few of them knock me out.