• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Sony NEX 7


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#1 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 4,404 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 23 January 2012 - 10:17 PM

The camera drive me nuts. The MTFs have an excessive variation between ultra-sharp center and very soft corners. I'm starting to wonder whether I'm seeing a sensor issue here.

Has anyone heard something about such effects (other than for symmetrical designs).
Chief Editor
photozone.de

#2 joachim

joachim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 574 posts
  • Locationon a diverging trajectory

Posted 23 January 2012 - 10:34 PM

Which lenses did you try? Do they show strong distortion, requiring in-software correction? You got any lens with a nice long exit pupil? Could the semi- transparent mirror in the adapter be playing tricks?

Just a few ideas to check for. I assume you went and searched for available full scale samples available from other sides. If the effect is as strong as I understand from you post, one should see that in real world stuff.

J.
enjoy

#3 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 4,404 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 23 January 2012 - 10:46 PM

Which lenses did you try? Do they show strong distortion, requiring in-software correction? You got any lens with a nice long exit pupil? Could the semi- transparent mirror in the adapter be playing tricks?

Just a few ideas to check for. I assume you went and searched for available full scale samples available from other sides. If the effect is as strong as I understand from you post, one should see that in real world stuff.

J.


So far - the Zeiss ZA 85mm and Sony E 30mm. The Zeiss is "Ok" although with worse borders compared to the initial test. The E lens is sharper in the center but the borders are soft. I haven't analysed the data from the E 18-55 and A 16-50 yet but subjectively (based on the viewfinder feedback) I'm not expecting wonders in the border region either.



Chief Editor
photozone.de

#4 joachim

joachim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 574 posts
  • Locationon a diverging trajectory

Posted 23 January 2012 - 11:27 PM

The 30mm was reviewed on slrgear. They also thought the corners are weak.

With the Zeiss, which Adapter are you using? I am suspicious of that semi-transp mirror. Also I remember you writing about funnies when using adapters on the Oly E-620. Did you ever understand those?
enjoy

#5 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 4,404 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 23 January 2012 - 11:59 PM

The 30mm was reviewed on slrgear. They also thought the corners are weak.

With the Zeiss, which Adapter are you using? I am suspicious of that semi-transp mirror. Also I remember you writing about funnies when using adapters on the Oly E-620. Did you ever understand those?


slrgear used the NEX 5. I will do another test on the 5 as well and I suspect that the results will be substantially better here. We are talking about rather dismal corners which isn't quite reflected in the slrgear test.

The ZA 85mm was tested using the LA-EA1 - not EA2 - thus without a potentially disturbing mirror. I did a reference test with the LA-EA2 actually but the results were only marginally worse (less than 5%).

There was something with the E-620. I suspect that the in-body IS had something to do with it. We had problems with the in-body IS on the E-P1 and E-PL3 as well. The Pentax K5 has also effects here - the sensor isn't really locked without IS but just kept in position.
Chief Editor
photozone.de

#6 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 850 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 24 January 2012 - 01:51 AM

Hi Klaus,

If those bad corners are symmetrical, and those lenses have better results on other cameras, I guess it must be a sensor issue.

I stil lthink in-body IS is not a good thing, despite many people seeming to clamor for it: position of the sensor is even more critical than positioning of a few lens elements, and much harder to control :D.

Kind regards, Wim

Gear: 5D Mk II, a gaggle of primes, an accesory plague, and an Olympus OM-D 5 Mk II with 3 primes, 4 zooms, Metabones 0.64x EF-MFT adapter and some alternative lenses ....


#7 jenbenn

jenbenn

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 247 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 06:47 AM

So far - the Zeiss ZA 85mm and Sony E 30mm. The Zeiss is "Ok" although with worse borders compared to the initial test. The E lens is sharper in the center but the borders are soft. I haven't analysed the data from the E 18-55 and A 16-50 yet but subjectively (based on the viewfinder feedback) I'm not expecting wonders in the border region either.


All I can say is that the 18-55 was ultra sharp in the center and extremly soft in both the border and corner regions at all apertures. There was no improvement whatsoever on stopping down. That was on the nex-5n , though. Subjectivly the lens was far worth then Canons and Nikons 18-55 offerings. Image stabilization and build quality was better, though.

#8 joachim

joachim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 574 posts
  • Locationon a diverging trajectory

Posted 24 January 2012 - 07:56 AM

slrgear used the NEX 5. I will do another test on the 5 as well and I suspect that the results will be substantially better here. We are talking about rather dismal corners which isn't quite reflected in the slrgear test.


There was something with the E-620. I suspect that the in-body IS had something to do with it. We had problems with the in-body IS on the E-P1 and E-PL3 as well. The Pentax K5 has also effects here - the sensor isn't really locked without IS but just kept in position.


On the nex 7 vs 5 what do absolute numbers look like? Say a lens can only do 1500 lph resolution. At some point that must result to the same results whenever a sensor with a resolution much better than this is used.

You are suspecting minor sensor movements with IBS cameras? What are typical exposure times you are using? Ever considered.using flash?

Thanks
Joachim
enjoy

#9 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 4,404 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 24 January 2012 - 08:20 AM

On the nex 7 vs 5 what do absolute numbers look like? Say a lens can only do 1500 lph resolution. At some point that must result to the same results whenever a sensor with a resolution much better than this is used.

You are suspecting minor sensor movements with IBS cameras? What are typical exposure times you are using? Ever considered.using flash?

Thanks
Joachim


It all depends on the conversion parameters, of course, but the E 30mm shows about 3500+ LW/PH in the center at f/3.5 whereas the corners are down to 1500 LW/PH. That alone may not be worrisome but even the peak isn't impressive at about 2300 LW/PH for the borders/corners (vs 3900 LW/PH for the center). The lens has "fairly" high CAs which may dampen the results a bit. The curve remains highly suspicious in any case.

Observations:

While I haven't tested it formally I can confidently state that the GH-2 sensor is capable of delivering tack sharp results to the very edges. The Nikon V1 is also fine as far as Markus can tell. Possibly because the sensor is comparatively small compared to comparatively big lenses ?
The Samsung NX200 sensor shows no suspicious results either but the mount-to-sensor distance is also bigger here.
The upcoming Fuji X-Pro 1 has a very shallow register distance and the results from the 18/2 are also discouraging.

I'm still in the "tuning phase" which is why I haven't released any tests during the last weeks - therefore take all this with a grain of salt at this stage.
Chief Editor
photozone.de

#10 Sathe Wild

Sathe Wild

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 09:36 AM

It all depends on the conversion parameters, of course, but the E 30mm shows about 3500+ LW/PH in the center at f/3.5 whereas the corners are down to 1500 LW/PH. That alone may not be worrisome but even the peak isn't impressive at about 2300 LW/PH for the borders/corners (vs 3900 LW/PH for the center). The lens has "fairly" high CAs which may dampen the results a bit. The curve remains highly suspicious in any case.


That problem is specific to 30mm macro.

See this review

http://erphotoreview...rdpress/?p=1488

He was using Nex-3

#11 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 4,404 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 24 January 2012 - 10:33 AM

That problem is specific to 30mm macro.

See this review

http://erphotoreview...rdpress/?p=1488

He was using Nex-3


Ok, let's hope then. I'm sort of wondering about the slrgear test then. Visually I can't match their results with my lens sample at least.

The center is sharp as a tack for sure but the borders ... it is a fairly cheap lens but not THAT cheap. According to these results it is the worst macro lens ever tested here.
Chief Editor
photozone.de

#12 gianluca

gianluca

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 10:57 AM

This is slrgear with sel50f18

slrgear.com/reviews/zsamples/Sony50mmf18e/zsony50f18vfa050f18_nex5.jpg

slrgear.com/reviews/zsamples/Sony50mmf18e/zsony50f18vfa050f80_nex5.jpg

This is the sharper lens for nex, it seem tack Sharp in the border

#13 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 4,404 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 24 January 2012 - 11:25 AM

This is all based on the NEX 5.
Chief Editor
photozone.de

#14 you2

you2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 847 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 02:13 PM

Hum - well I posted this link before but here are the tests with ZM35f2:

http://www.bmupix.co...t-35mm-f20.html
-
The presumption is that the issues with the Nex7 was related to angle of exit pupil but perhaps it is native to the sensor ?
-

#15 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 4,404 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 24 January 2012 - 03:24 PM

Hum - well I posted this link before but here are the tests with ZM35f2:

http://www.bmupix.co...t-35mm-f20.html
-
The presumption is that the issues with the Nex7 was related to angle of exit pupil but perhaps it is native to the sensor ?
-


There's, supposedly, less corner smearing on the Nex5n.
Chief Editor
photozone.de

#16 gianluca

gianluca

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 04:25 PM

This is all based on the NEX 5.

Yes but you need a lens that perform very well in the angle to exlude a camera problem.... 50 f1,8 oss at slrgear is by far the sharpest nex lens in the angle, sharper even than sony 50f1,8 with a700 or 50f1,8g with d300

#17 joachim

joachim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 574 posts
  • Locationon a diverging trajectory

Posted 24 January 2012 - 04:51 PM

Ok, let's hope then. I'm sort of wondering about the slrgear test then. Visually I can't match their results with my lens sample at least.

The center is sharp as a tack for sure but the borders ... it is a fairly cheap lens but not THAT cheap. According to these results it is the worst macro lens ever tested here.


What is the problem here? I understand from you that the 30mm isn't great in the outer areas, which is the same as for what SLR gear has seen. What am I missing?

Thanks J.
enjoy

#18 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 4,404 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 24 January 2012 - 05:01 PM

What is the problem here? I understand from you that the 30mm isn't great in the outer areas, which is the same as for what SLR gear has seen. What am I missing?

Thanks J.


When looking at their chart the corner region gets a "3". This is hardly poor - in fact it is still fairly sharp (thus blue).

The local tests would suggest a corner rating of "8" or even "10" (thus "reddish").


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#19 joachim

joachim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 574 posts
  • Locationon a diverging trajectory

Posted 24 January 2012 - 10:47 PM

When looking at their chart the corner region gets a "3". This is hardly poor - in fact it is still fairly sharp (thus blue).

The local tests would suggest a corner rating of "8" or even "10" (thus "reddish").



Hi Klaus,

Thanks. Didn't realise your measurements are "that bad".

Best wishes
Joachim
enjoy

#20 Marco

Marco

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 131 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 11:52 PM

Wenn ich das MTF Diagramm von Sony richtig interpretiere sollte die Linse nicht so schlecht sein: www.sony.jp/ichigan/products/SEL30M35/feature_1.html#L1_40




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de