Sony Nex-7 vs. Canon 5D Mark 2

**Noel** · #1 07-24-2012, 06:15 PM

So I had a 5D mark 2 and I just bought a Sony Nex-7. I did the pepsi challenge and what I found was the two camera's image quality was very similar, the Canon had slightly better colors than the Sony, but I really had to struggle to see the difference.

In a nutshell:

Photos: tie

Video: the Canon is better, but not by much (Sony shoots 60 fps, the Canon doesn't)

Lens availability: Canon, not even close, the Sony's lens selection is lame.

winner? the Sony, for me size matters, and I wasn't using my Canon as much as I liked simply because I didn't want to lug it around....plus I felt like a paparazzi/photojournalist using it, I'm neither. For the enthusist the Sony is a great camera, if you make a living with photographs maybe roll Canon.

just a PSA.

**msdesignltd** · #2 07-26-2012, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noel

So I had a 5D mark 2 and I just bought a Sony Nex-7. I did the pepsi challenge and what I found was the two camera's image quality was very similar, the Canon had slightly better colors than the Sony, but I really had to struggle to see the difference.

In a nutshell:

Photos: tie

Video: the Canon is better, but not by much (Sony shoots 60 fps, the Canon doesn't)

Lens availability: Canon, not even close, the Sony's lens selection is lame.

winner? the Sony, for me size matters, and I wasn't using my Canon as much as I liked simply because I didn't want to lug it around....plus I felt like a paparazzi/photojournalist using it, I'm neither. For the enthusist the Sony is a great camera, if you make a living with photographs maybe roll Canon.

just a PSA.

Would you be so kind to post the pics for us to compare..
Although still early in its stages.........
We are witnessing the end of the SLR

**BMW.SauberF1Team** · #3 07-26-2012, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by msdesignltd

Would you be so kind to post the pics for us to compare..
Although still early in its stages.........
We are witnessing the end of the SLR

It was a matter of time that these camera bodies had to get smaller. Who really wants to carry around all that stuff? Even my old Rebel XT with another lens takes up too much space just to carry around in case you see something worth taking a picture of.

Noel, how good is the viewfinder? The only thing that concerns me about these SLR replacement cameras is the quality of the viewfinder.

This is all I could find and it's hard to tell how good it is:

You Tube

**Noel** · #4 07-26-2012, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by msdesignltd

Would you be so kind to post the pics for us to compare..
Although still early in its stages.........
We are witnessing the end of the SLR

honestly I'd be happy to, but I already deleted them and the canon is now sold. sorry.

**kylec** · #5 07-26-2012, 08:14 PM

at iso what? I'd like to see iso 6400 shots from each one before I'd make that concession. However, the 5d2 is 3.5 years old!

iceburns288 · #6 07-27-2012, 05:21 PM

Ive had the Sony NEX-5N for a year and it still blows me away. No, it won't offer the fine image quality and ISO range of a full-body SLR, but it comes REALLY damn close! Especially considering the price and the thing is tiny without the lens.

I will say it's easier to tell the difference when looking at video, especially when the camera is jostled or moving quickly. It's got that weird jiggling that you see to a much greater extent in cell phone cameras.

Here's some test footage (not mine) with the NEX-7 and the kit lens (!):
http://vimeo.com/37328540

**blackwood** · #7 07-28-2012, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by msdesignltd

Although still early in its stages.........
We are witnessing the end of the SLR

I don't think so. Hell, people still use view cameras some 80 years after 135 film came out.

I do think that SLRs will become less common for walk-around and casual use, but I don't suspect that anything we are seeing today is will make them obsolete.

There will need to be a quantum leap in technology, one that allows the use of an electronic shutter without quality concessions, and that still offers all the creative uses of a mechanical shutter (eg trailing curtain flash sync).

**4REphotographer** · #8 07-28-2012, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackwood

I don't think so. Hell, people still use view cameras some 80 years after 135 film came out.

I do think that SLRs will become less common for walk-around and casual use, but I don't suspect that anything we are seeing today is will make them obsolete.

There will need to be a quantum leap in technology, one that allows the use of an electronic shutter without quality concessions, and that still offers all the creative uses of a mechanical shutter (eg trailing curtain flash sync).

Agreed, I think all those people who bought SLRs because they looked like a pro camera and just sat around taking pics of their kid will be getting rid of them and moving to these cameras.

alfas · #9 07-29-2012, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4REphotographer

Agreed, I think all those people who bought SLRs because they looked like a pro camera and just sat around taking pics of their kid will be getting rid of them and moving to these cameras.

no they won't, the people that want to look pro will continue to carry the dslr as they don't know any better...

the people that know anything about photography understand the advantages mirrorless offers and the fact now IQ is now a match for dslrs.

there is no reason not to consider these as very capable photographic tools albeit some more than others.

**blackwood** · #10 07-29-2012, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alfas

no they won't, the people that want to look pro will continue to carry the dslr as they don't know any better...

the people that know anything about photography understand the advantages mirrorless offers and the fact now IQ is now a match for dslrs.

there is no reason not to consider these as very capable photographic tools albeit some more than others.

I think there are by and large three groups.

One group always wants the latest gadget.

One group cares more about form factor (some may prefer small, others my prefer large - personally, I like the feel of the prosumer Canon SLRs to the smaller entry level models, most nikon's, etc)

One group wants "the best" (whatever they interpret that to be).

Maybe there are four groups - the fourth is happy with the camera in their smartphone. (And to be fair, the best camera is the one you have with you)

The point of a camera sensor, like film, is to gather light. As one puts more stuff in front of the photosites, the it becomes less effective at gathering light. Aside from the optical viewfinder, a mirror affords the ability to locate AF and metering sensors elsewhere. Removing the mirror means those sensors must be stacked with the imaging sensor.

Removing the shutter means that some of the sensor must be dedicated to read out, further hindering the capabilities of the sensor.

To be fair, the difference is probably in the noise. I imagine it would be impossible to tell the difference between an SLR and mirrorless (all else being equal) without highly sophisticated lab equipment. As is, there is a whole lot of stuff in front of the sensor. Micro-circuitry, the walls of microlenses, AA filters, etc. I think the next big change for high-end cameras may be to adopt "back lit" designs, wherein all the circuitry is located behind the sensor rather than in front of it.