Would you buy a full frame NEX and why?

[boomguy57]

The issue, as I see it, is simple: what does Sony get out of making a camera body that you can slap your Leica lenses on?

Camera bodies exist (to manufacturers) to sell lenses. The only reason Nikon and Canon went FF is to continue selling (or re-sell to those who went APS-C in the early digital days) their "legacy" lenses.

Full-frame NEX? Forget about it.

[jarski]

Originally Posted by boomguy57

The only reason Nikon and Canon went FF is to continue selling (or re-sell to those who went APS-C in the early digital days) their "legacy" lenses.

IMO other reason was that they needed upper category dSLR's for pro's and enthusiast. and just these same enthusiasts keep on bringing this subject up, where's the full frame mirrorless system?

[eleskin]

Funny,

I am a once and done type of person. I like to buy the right lenses once (I do not care who makes them) and the camera body is secondary to me, only something I slap a lens on and that records the image that I discard after a few years in favor of newer technology. Lenses are a much more long term investment if they are of the highest quality. Even if you have a Nikon or Canon, if you lets say bought top of the line lenses years ago, I am sure you would only be interested in buying a camera body once in a while, not changing entire lines of lenses to make the manufacturer happy.

[EdwardKaraa]

Originally Posted by Ken Ford

I've never seen anything to the contrary. Edge performance can be an issue with certain close registration lens mounts on digital (ala Leica M wideangles) and bad lenses will be bad lenses, but I've never seen or experienced any sensor related edge issues.

You seem pretty self confident so I won't spoil your confidence. I would just advise you to do a little search on sensor glass cover thickness, AA filters, microlenses... etc. You may also want to search the difference in the corner performance with the same lenses between Nex 5N and 7, and add to that the GXR M module as an example for excellent performance. Let me know if you still believe the sensor has nothing to do with edge issues.

[douglasf13]

Sure, eleskin, but in buying lenses once, one probably shouldn't expect any maker to cater to that set of lenses, outside of the manufacturer of those lenses.

Also, Stuart, a 35mm mirrorless wouldn't necessarily need a larger registration distance than Nex. The manufacturer could just make the lenses longer, instead.

[jychoe]

I would buy a FF GXR module

[dnk512]

Originally Posted by craygc

It'll happen once the APS-C mirrorless market plateaus off and manufacturers look for the next wave of generating enthusiasm in the must have crowd.

As much as I'll concur that APS-C is more than sufficient for image quality in the small format arena, it does nothing for my ability to use Leica glass for the AoV I purchased it for - and as much as I know the manufacturers couldn't care less, its my only criteria for consideration. I'll also guarantee when it does happen, the price will be an order of magnitude below the ridiculous prices Leica expects - yeah, I prefer the rangefinder for focusing but I can live without it for the current cost. One other point I'll make after some experience; I would always take the separate external electronic viewfinder that pivots over the build in one (ie. NEX 5n vs 7) any day. That range of adjustment for viewing is just invaluable in use.

I agree with what CraigC wrote. Only addition is my hope that the external viewfinder attaches with a different mechanism than the current must-have-great-dexterity screw

[kxl]

I am less excited about a full frame mirrorless non-RF than I would be about a digital RF, full frame or not. To me, shooting an RF is all about -- for lack of a better term -- the "intimacy" of the RF experience.

[Pete B]

Originally Posted by rxmd

I don't know what "foreshortened" means, but if you mean that there is a difference in perspective, relative size and location of fore- and background etc. between a normal lens on a 24x36 sensor and the equivalent normal lens on a crop sensor, you're wrong.

This has been shown over and over again here and on other sites. You can try it yourself. Put a 50 on your full frame camera and take a picture, then put a 35 on the same full frame camera and take a picture, and then crop the 35 shot to the field of view of the 50 shot. Just do it.

And this is not why "medium format still thrives". Medium and large format thrives because of the detail and colour and/or grayscale rendition that you get from a large negative. This is also beginning to be true for full frame.

The only actual difference is depth of field behaviour, which is somewhat different, but not much. You can compensate for that by building faster lenses, which can be smaller due to the smaller image circle. The emergence of things like 25/f0.95 and 17/f0.95 lenses is evidence enough that full frame is being displaced.

Edit : I have just done this and I have to eat humble pie. I can see where my thinking was incorrect. This is quite a revelation to me. Thanks for that. You just made me more likely to buy a camera!!

Why does a cropped 6x6 frame have less colour and/or greyscale rendition?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something?

Pete

[Emacs]

Originally Posted by Ken Ford

You are aware edge and corner performance has nothing to do with the camera body, right?

Sure, I love the body. But edges and corners performance is kinda substandard (if not terrible in some well known cases).

[Ken Ford]

Originally Posted by EdwardKaraa

You seem pretty self confident so I won't spoil your confidence. I would just advise you to do a little search on sensor glass cover thickness, AA filters, microlenses... etc. You may also want to search the difference in the corner performance with the same lenses between Nex 5N and 7, and add to that the GXR M module as an example for excellent performance. Let me know if you still believe the sensor has nothing to do with edge issues.

I *am* confident about this, it's not my first rodeo. What you describe has nothing to do with the sensor size. You describe issues that arise from using short registration lenses, particularly wide angles. Try the same sensor with a lens having a longer flange focal distance (such as a lens from a DSLR) and you'll see very different results.

Microlenses (as an example) were Leica's method of dealing with the problem of using certain of their lenses on the M9.

[Pete B]

Originally Posted by Traut

I agree totally. FF is only a relative measurement. It's only important in preserving FOV of legacy glass.

Originally Posted by Pete B

This statement is incorrect but is often touted.
Pete

No it isn't. Ignore me
Pete

[EdwardKaraa]

Originally Posted by Ken Ford

I *am* confident about this, it's not my first rodeo. What you describe has nothing to do with the sensor size. You describe issues that arise from using short registration lenses, particularly wide angles. Try the same sensor with a lens having a longer flange focal distance (such as a lens from a DSLR) and you'll see very different results.

Microlenses (as an example) were Leica's method of dealing with the problem of using certain of their lenses on the M9.

This problem is not limited to short registration lenses. For instance many DSLR lenses behave differently on different sensors from the same manufacturer. The Sony A900 and Nikon D3X are an example. The Nikon sensor cover is much thinner and its corner performance is much better with the same lenses. I won't argue further.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by EdwardKaraa

This problem is not limited to short registration lenses. For instance many DSLR lenses behave differently on different sensors from the same manufacturer. The Sony A900 and Nikon D3X are an example. The Nikon sensor cover is much thinner and its corner performance is much better with the same lenses. I won't argue further.

That's interesting, Edward. I hadn't heard about this difference between the A900 and D3x. Are there tests out there of this difference?

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Pete B

Edit : I have just done this and I have to eat humble pie. I can see where my thinking was incorrect. This is quite a revelation to me. Thanks for that. You just made me more likely to buy a camera!!

Why does a cropped 6x6 frame have less colour and/or greyscale rendition?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something?

Pete

It's all about the final output size. If you output a full 6x6 frame and cropped 6x6 to the same size, the full 6x6 frame will need less magnification and show better graduation than the more stressed crop frame.

In fact, output size needs to be stressed in this conversation. Until we know how big you're printing and how far away you're standing from the print, format differences are tough to predict.

[Matus]

Originally Posted by jychoe

I would buy a FF GXR module

That would be my pick too (tough Ricoh could come up with some updates to the body and EVF)

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by Pete B

Edit : I have just done this and I have to eat humble pie. I can see where my thinking was incorrect. This is quite a revelation to me. Thanks for that. You just made me more likely to buy a camera!!

Well sorry for the latter and the hit on your wallet, but kudos for actually going and trying things out. If everybody did that, the world would be a better place.

Why does a cropped 6x6 frame have less colour and/or greyscale rendition?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something?

It has to do with the amount of information present in a given area of film/sensor, the absolute area, and the amount by which you have to blow this up for the final print.

Grayscale and/or colour redition has to do with the amount of information present in your picture. It's a bit easier to show with B&W film, which is essentially binary - either there is a piece of black grain, or there isn't. In order to have grayscale, you need to have lots of these nodules next to each other, and you can't enlarge this too much because then the grayscale will dissolve again into grain. So when you have more surface area in your negative, you have more of these nodules available overall, and so you get finer grayscale rendition.

Enlarging leads to a loss of information per area, simply because the area increases while the information doesn't. So if you have a larger negative or sensor that allows you to enlarge less, you get better rendition.

[Bimjo]

Originally Posted by EdwardKaraa

This problem is not limited to short registration lenses. For instance many DSLR lenses behave differently on different sensors from the same manufacturer. The Sony A900 and Nikon D3X are an example. The Nikon sensor cover is much thinner and its corner performance is much better with the same lenses. I won't argue further.

Well then, if the sensor cover is thinner it really isn't the same sensor, is it? Assuming the sensor/cover are considered to be a complete package. And how much does software play into the equation?

I ask because I don't know & you seem to have some energy on the subject.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Bimjo

Well then, if the sensor cover is thinner it really isn't the same sensor, is it? Assuming the sensor/cover are considered to be a complete package. And how much does software play into the equation?

I ask because I don't know & you seem to have some energy on the subject.

The sensor is really only the silicon underneath. Sony, Nikon, Leica, Fuji and Ricoh all use Sony aps-c sensors, but the AA filter, CFA, and IR filter on top of the sensors vary between manufactures. So, that can lead to differences in detail, color, noise, etc.