The Mansurovs » DSLR Camera

A Little Comfort as You Anxiously Await Your D800 or D4 or 5D mk III arrival

Tom Redd — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:58:36 +0000

As I, like many of you, have been waiting for a new Nikon camera body to arrive, a recurring thought has come to my mind. It comes from the words of my father and it might hold a cure for what ails you if you, like me, suffer from common Diseases that Plague Photographers. Whenever I wanted something badly, but couldn’t seem to get it fast enough, he would say, “Anticipation is greater than realization”. To a young, impatient boy then and to an older, impatient man now, those words never seemed to comfort me as my father might have liked. Although never very comforting, they were very true.

We have all been there. Maybe it was that new bike that seemed to take forever to save for. Perhaps it was your dream car that required you spend all of your free time working that extra job. Whatever you were hoping for, the anticipation and build up prior to acquiring it was likely much more exciting than actually getting the item. Who can’t identify with the new car owner that seems less excited about his/her new car after the first car payment comes due? And golfers are notorious for claiming to experience longer drives, straighter iron shots, and more holed putts after changing clubs. Interestingly, their new clubs lose their “magic” after a month and start behaving very similar to their old clubs.

I am sure my father was trying to get me to enjoy the wait and learn a bit of patience. Perhaps he was always hoping that if enough time would pass, my insatiable need to spend my money on some new flashy item would dissipate. Although very wise, dad’s tactics in this area often had less than the desired effects on his not so bright son. You may experience better luck with your kids or yourself. So I pass the lesson on to you. As for me [doorbell chime], I gotta go see what is in the B&H box that just arrived. Maybe if I am lucky, it was me that got Bob’s D800 this time. Enjoy the anticipation as you wait!

Greta Got My Nikon D800…

Bob Vishneski — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 03:52:21 +0000

A little more than a week ago, I realized why I had not received my Nikon D800. Through sources that cannot be named, I was informed that Greta Van Susteren, the well-known commentator at the Fox News Network, received the camera originally assigned to my order. I was further surprised to find this unique note (below) from the delivery service. Today’s GretaWire confirmed that my D800 was already being used!

Am I upset? Absolutely not. I have no issue with Greta “jumping line” at B&H to get my camera. “Why not?”, you ask? The injustice of it all! Someone must pay for having my D800 rerouted to Greta! Surely someone must be “guilty” of… well… uh… something! Or so the popular thinking goes…

Greta Having My D800 Is Good For All Of Us

In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit that I am a Greta fan. As such, she is entitled to get away with some things that I might not otherwise so easily dismiss. Admittedly, seeing my D800 in her hands stretches the boundaries a bit. Greta’s endorsement of the D800, however, is a far better advertisement for the camera and the Nikon brand than you or I could ever muster. We may secretly believe we are the second coming of Ansel Adams, and our cats may not be able to get enough of our photos showcasing their cute antics, but star endorsements and their marketing appeal are far more significant than whatever accolades the rest of us could shower upon Nikon’s products. Sorry folks, but it’s true.

And if analytical technical experts were what sold products, we would see Nikon television commercials with some nerdy, monotone engineers reciting numbers from colorless spreadsheets containing highly complex, unintelligible (and boring!) facts depicting why the new D800 is superior to every other camera ever made. But unless you totally misunderstand the concept of advertising, you probably realize that much of it appeals to our emotions – not our rational side. Advertising often revolves around popular celebrities (or attractive models), most of whom have absolutely nothing to do with the product being advertised. Greta’s D800 use will help generate Nikon sales, market share, revenue, and profits. And a financially strong Nikon is better positioned to invest in new technologies that will eventually make their way into future product offerings. That is good for all of us.

Greta Will Take Photos of Real Stuff

I can’t admit to knowing much about Greta’s photography expertise, but based on watching her show and reading her blog, I am well aware that she travels to some fascinating places and interviews interesting people. As such, we can reasonably expect her to put the D800 to good use taking photos of something besides brick walls, test charts, cats lounging on the living room couch, and family snapshots with the popup flash. There is little doubt that there will be more than enough people to produce petabytes of D800 test patterns, 600X crops, and other “insightful” information that will put us to sleep for years to come. When Greta carries her D800 and takes some photos of her guests and nearby scenery, however, we will at least get a sense of what the camera can do in the real world. And who can argue with that?

Greta Getting the D800 Irks Some People

This is reason alone to be pleased that B&H shipped my D800 to Greta – it has everyone in a tizzy. The web is abuzz with all manner of whiny, snarky comments regarding Greta getting a D800, some of them downright nasty. Why people feel compelled to complain about this situations is beyond my reasoning capabilities. I don’t know what the Fox News Network spends on camera and video gear per year, but I suspect it makes the price of a D800 seem like a rounding error. Why shouldn’t B&H (or any client-oriented company) give its best clients some preferential treatment when it comes to ensuring they get top priority when new gear arrives?

It is hard to objectively argue with B&H‘s decision to reroute my D800 to a popular television host, such as Greta Van Susteren. So while I am a bit disappointed that I won’t see a D800 for a while, I can at least be comforted that my camera has found a good home. I have no doubt that Greta will take my D800 on some fascinating journeys, showcase some stunning photos, and be a great spokesperson for the Nikon brand. And that is nothing to complain about. Well… not for some of us!

Nikon D800 vs D700 FPS and Buffer Comparison

Nasim Mansurov — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 03:46:05 +0000

Many of our readers have been asking me to provide some information on how the new Nikon D800 (see Nikon D800 Review) compares to the Nikon D700 (see Nikon D700 Review) in terms of speed (“fps” or “frames per second”) and camera buffer. In the below video, I show the performance of both cameras side by side when shooting 14-bit Lossless Compressed RAW images with very fast SanDisk Extreme Pro 16GB compact flash memory:

As you can see, the Nikon D800 is slower than the Nikon D700 with its 4 fps speed versus 5 fps on the D700. It also lasts about half a second shorter than the D700 before its buffer gets full at around the 4 second mark. Nikon’s estimates for the D800 and D700 (see D800 and D700 brochures) are 17 images for the D800 and 20 images for the D700 before memory buffer gets full and fps slows down. My tests are a little off, because the D800 should be a little faster according to Nikon – 17 / 4 fps is 4.25 and 20 / 5 fps is 4. Interestingly, the same thing happens when both cameras are set to 12-bit RAW – the D700 still lasts longer. Note how much longer it takes for the D800 to complete its write from the camera buffer into the memory card – now that’s one huge buffer! I bet it is at least 4 times larger than the one on the D700. Lastly, note that the D800 shutter sounds very different than the one on the D700.

Some people have been reporting memory compatibility issues with the D800. I have not seen any issues so far with any of the SanDisk & Lexar cards I have (I have been using SanDisk and Lexar cards for my cameras exclusively), so I believe memory card issues are happening with cheap third party memory cards only. Hopefully we will see a firmware update from Nikon soon – the D800 seems to have occasional slowdowns when writing to and reading from CF and SD memory cards, as reported in my Nikon D800 Review.

Is Nikon D700 Obsolete?

Roman — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 16:53:18 +0000

36 megapixel Full Frame camera sounds great, doesn’t it? What you get in a D800 is, basically, exceptional high ISO performance, as demonstrated by Nasim in his Nikon D800 review, and resolution that, heretics say, can rival some of Medium Format digital backs. One of the best cameras currently on offer, surely. One of the best for several years to come, it is almost a revolution, both in camera market as well as your pocket, as creatively described by Bob Vishneski. Extremely tempting, completely justified again and again in your mind. People would understand, wouldn’t they? Even your wife, with some persuasion, could see reason. And yet something is not quite right, not quite settled. Is it the old-ish D700 poking you at the shoulder? Never too far away, the brother. Always haunting, always showing off its huge sensor, its lower than ever price tag. The D800 shines above it day and night, yes, you see it in your dreams, you see it in the hands of other photographers – calling out to you, always bright, but the older brother is persistent. After all these years, after almost decades it seems now, D700 is still trying to drop a shadow on your face, still trying to be noticed and loved just as it was before the new kid came to town. A desperate pensioner.

But as it happens, pensioners are hardly desperate. John Ronald Reuel Tolkien wrote “The Lord of the Rings” when he was 62. What can we expect of D700, then?

Plenty, actually.

I’ve had my D700 for about a year now, I think. Ever since I bought it brand new, after saving up for months and months, I’ve taken it with me wherever I could, and what a companion it is. Everything around me is a little different now; a little less defined, a little more poetic. Sometimes it’s as if I have a camera to my eye, even when I do not, even when I’m just walking down a street, or looking at Bee cook. Everything around me is art, every movement, every moment, and I trust my old, wise D700 to capture it perfectly.

But it’s not just the personal appeal. I’ve never wanted it to have more resolution – it has just enough. I’ve never wanted it to be better at high ISO’s – the D700 has been up there with the big boys for about 4 years now. And I like the grain. My clients never complained, either – resolution was plenty, everything was plenty. They were too busy admiring, I think. Too busy remembering and laughing.

If you are thinking of buying the D800, by all means, go ahead. It’s a revolution, nothing less. But if a couple of months ago you dreamed of D700, you knew 12 megapixels were enough, you knew you did not need video, and then D800 messed up everything for you, brought all those “what if?” questions to your life, stop and think. The old camera is no less good now just because there’s something newer. It didn’t get worse, and it’s not going to anytime soon. I will be keeping my D700 for at least a few more years, even if I have a D4 by then, or the D800. Hell, I could buy two more of them for the price of a D4 and there would still be room for a fast prime. And I will keep it as a professional wedding photographer, not just as a hobbyist. I need the best equipment, I need to trust it completely. And I trust my D700, plenty other photographers do, too.

You may want those 36 megapixels. Few photographers need them, and fewer clients still. Not for a while.

With D4 at the top of Full Frame line-up and D800 in the middle, D700 has just become what we’ve all been waiting and wanting for years – a truly affordable, entry-level Full Frame DSLR with pro set of features. We now have choice, and choice quite often is a good thing.

It’s still got it, then, the D700 is an amazing piece of gear. Only now, it’s for a lot less money.

Canon is Winning the Camera War?

Nasim Mansurov — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 07:05:27 +0000

I received an email today with the title “Canon is Winning the Camera War”. I opened the email immediately to see what it was about, because it had such a bold subject line. Canon winning the camera war… I have not seen any market share reports lately, so this was an interesting read. Apparently, a company called “Sortable” has recently conducted a massive survey with over 275,000 people over a period of 6 months, which showed that more than 33% of consumers favor Canon over other brands when making a camera purchase, including Nikon. Check out this interesting graph:

Here is some more information from this announcement:

In a brand war traditionally fought between Nikon and Canon, it appears that Canon now has the upper hand, with 33 percent of consumers indicating it as their preferred camera choice according to online consumer buying trends drawn from Sortable’s partner, Snapsort, a web site that allows people to analyze, compare, and recommend digital camera options. Nikon falls to second place with 26 percent, followed by Sony at 15 percent, Panasonic with 7 percent, Fujifilm at 5 percent, Olympus at 4 percent and Pentax at 3 percent. Other manufactures make up the final 7 percent.
With a range of camera options available, survey data shows consumers remain split in their preference between Point and Shoot and DSLR cameras. Data shows 36 percent of consumers are searching for both. Most surprising in the survey was the rising popularity of Mirrorless cameras, a relatively new technology in the camera market. Mirrorless cameras stuff a DSLR size sensor into a small portable package, with interchangeable lenses for greater flexibility. Sortable’s survey identified that 22 percent of consumers are searching for Mirrorless camera options, leaving the leading brands in a bit of a deficit position. Canon has yet to enter the Mirrorless market, and Nikon has just entered. Sortable believes this emerging trend gives Sony, Panasonic and Olympus the opportunity to take brand share.

That’s an interesting analysis, given the large number of respondents. Mirrorless is on the rise, and we know it. Canon historically has been dominating the DSLR market, so no surprises here, although Nikon has been catching up pretty quickly ever since the Nikon D3 came out.

I say that folks at Sortable are just trying to bring attention to their websites with such a headline. Canon winning camera war? I did not know there was one. With so many new innovative and wonderful products from all manufacturers, there is room for everyone. What do you say?

Check out our new DSLR Camera Purchase Guide

Nasim Mansurov — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 04:51:49 +0000

Being a photography website that frequently publishes gear reviews, we get asked a lot of questions on a daily basis from our visitors on all kinds of camera gear, from DSLRs and lenses to tripods and camera bags. To make it easier for our readers to see our recommendations, I have been actively working on the “Gear Guide” during the last two plus weeks. While the section is far from being complete, I wanted to share some news regarding the new “DSLR Camera Purchase Guide” that is now live in the Gear Guide section. It is an interactive camera purchase guide that displays a list of recommended cameras by Mansurovs based on what you like shooting, your budget and the brand of camera or lenses you might already own.

Please check it out and let us know what you think! I could really use some feedback. The purchase guide has not been fully completed yet and I am still working on adding more information under each camera, but the functionality should be more or less complete at this point. I will be adding interactive guides like this for lenses and other accessories as well, so stay tuned!

Nikon D700 price drops $500, now $2,199

Nasim Mansurov — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 20:37:16 +0000

As expected, the Nikon D700 price went down $500 to $2,199 (from $2,699), after the Nikon D800 was announced. A lot of people have been sending me emails and leaving comments on our site about the Nikon D700 availability and if it will still be offered in the future. As of now, Nikon is planning to continue to manufacture the Nikon D700, because there is still demand for it. This is great news for many of us that cannot afford the new Nikon D800, want to upgrade from DX to FX, or simply do not feel the need for a high-resolution 36 MP camera.

The bad news is, the Nikon D700 is currently out of stock pretty much everywhere. Partly this has to do with the flood in Thailand that severely affected Nikon’s ability to manufacture DSLRs and DSLR parts, but it is also related to a high demand on the D700, which has been selling really well since it was announced back in 2008.

If you want to get the Nikon D700 at its new low price of $2,199, you can wait until it is available at stores like B&H and Adorama, or you can use the “Notify when in stock” feature at B&H and you will receive an email as soon as the Nikon D700 is available for purchase. Here are the links for both B&H and Adorama, with the new reflected price of $2,199:

If you do not know much about the Nikon D700, I recommend checking out my Nikon D700 Review.

Sony NEX-5N Review

Nasim Mansurov — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:50:54 +0000

Overview

This is an in-depth review of the Sony NEX-5N mirrorless camera that came out on August 24, 2011 along with the Sony NEX-7 flagship mirrorless camera and three E-mount lenses. I had a chance to test the Sony NEX-5N, along with its kit 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS lens while reviewing the Nikon 1 camera system. My initial intent was to only use this camera for lab tests, to see how it would fare against the new Nikon mirrorless cameras. But after just a day of pleasant shooting with the NEX-5N, I realized that I wanted to take it for a real spin and do a full review instead. In this Sony NEX-5N review, I will talk about my experience with the camera and provide some feedback on its features and capabilities, along with comparisons to Nikon 1 V1 and Olympus E-PL3 cameras.

The NEX-5N is Sony’s fourth mirrorless camera, which replaced the Sony NEX-5 that was released back in 2010. While the added letter “N” might make it sound like a slight update, the similarities between the cameras are only in external appearance – the guts of the camera, as well as some of the functionality went through major changes. From a higher resolution superb 16.1 MP sensor, to touchscreen LCD and fast 10 frames per second shooting rate, the Sony NEX-5N is a whole different animal.

The Sony NEX-5N kit, along with other mirrorless cameras used in this review were kindly provided by B&H – the largest photo reseller in the world that I personally use to buy my photography gear.

1) Sony NEX-5N Specifications

Main Features:

16.1 MP Exmor™ APS HD CMOS image sensor
Updated BIONZ® image processor
Full HD movie shooting 60p/24p
Object Tracking AF via Touch LCD
11 Picture Effect modes
Regular and 3D Panorama Modes
HDR Capability
Phase Detect AF for E-mount bodies w/ adapter
Extended battery life for up to 430 shots
Tiltable 3.0″ Touch LCD with 921K dots
Optional XGA OLED viewfinder with 2.395K dots
Intelligent Scene Recognition and Face Detection
In-camera “SteadyShot” Image Stabilization
Electronic First Curtain shutter
Up to 10 fps continuous shooting at full 16.1 MP resolution
World’s shortest release time lag of 0.02 sec
Peaking AF display for precise manual focusing
25-point Auto Focus with wide coverage
Dynamic Range Optimizer (DRO) technology

Detailed technical specifications for the Sony NEX-5N are available at Sony.com.

2) Sony 16.1 MP Exmor Sensor

One of the most important attributes in a digital camera is its sensor – the heart of the camera that is responsible for capturing images. The Sony NEX-5N features the excellent APS-C sized 16.1 MP Exmor sensor, which in my opinion, has a great balance of resolution and noise (the same sensor is also used on the lower-end Sony NEX-C3 mirrorless camera). While the latest generation high-resolution sensors on Sony A77, A65 and NEX-7 cameras have their advantages, as I have explained in my “benefits of a high resolution sensor” article, sometimes less can be more. For the type of the camera the NEX-5N is, which is positioned as a mid-level mirrorless camera by Sony, 16.1 megapixels is more than plenty for most photographers that will be looking into buying it.

The biggest advantage of the Sony NEX-series mirrorless cameras compared to other mirrorless cameras on the market such as Micro 4/3 and Nikon 1, is the physical size of the sensor. The 23.5×15.6mm APS-C sensor is currently among the largest sensors used in mirrorless cameras, with the exception of the expensive Leica M9/M9-P rangefinder cameras that have full-frame sensors. Large sensor size means larger pixel size, which translates to better low-light (high ISO) performance and better dynamic range. Sony picked the same 1.5x crop factor APS-C sensor size that is used in their “SLT” camera line, which is bigger than Canon’s APS-C sensors with a 1.6x crop factor and about the same as Nikon’s DX sensors. Here is a chart that summarizes sensor size differences (courtesy of Wikipedia):

Another big advantage of a larger sensor is smaller depth of field, which translates to better opportunities to isolate subjects from the background – an important factor for many photo enthusiasts and pros out there. Coupled with fast prime lenses like the Sony 50mm f/1.8 OSS, one could capture creative photographs with beautiful bokeh – something that is hard to achieve on small sensor cameras.

From small sensor to large – Nikon 1 V1 vs Olympus E-PL3 vs Sony NEX-5N:

At the same time, a larger sensor requires a bigger image circle from lenses, which negatively impacts the size requirements of both lenses and the lens mount (read more on this below).

3) Camera construction and handling

Compared to the older Sony NEX-5 that only had its front protected with a magnesium alloy plate, the NEX-5N has a sturdier build with both front and top magnesium alloy plates. Sony did a great job designing the NEX-series cameras and the NEX-5N is no exception – I found it ergonomically superior than both the Olympus E-PL3 and the Nikon 1 V1. A big part of it has to do with the grip; the large, rubber-coated grip perfectly accommodated my right hand and made it easy to hand-hold the camera. The grip is designed to have your fingers wrap around it, with your finger tips in between the grip and the protruded lens mount. Here is the view from the top:

Needless to say, the grip is a world better compared to the little bump on the Nikon 1 V1. Looking at the neatly designed top view, you can see just how thin the Sony NEX-5N really is. If it was not for the lens mount and the grip, the camera is thinner than most point and shoot cameras out there, let alone other mirrorless cameras. The angled top panel has a simple, yet elegant design with only three buttons and the on/off switch. The shutter release button is positioned ergonomically well, just like the red video record button.

The back of the camera also has a simplistic design with a rotary dial + center button and two extra unlabeled function buttons. Why unlabeled? Because their functionality changes depending on where you are in the menu. The multi-purpose dial is similar to the one found on the Nikon 1 V1. While rotating the dial is pretty smooth, the camera might lag a little in playback and other modes. I saw a similar lag when using the touchscreen, which did not seem to be very responsive in some cases.

Speaking of touchscreen, I kind of liked using it for selecting focus in AF and MF modes (especially cool for selecting a particular area when using manual focus), but found it not so useful for anything else. For navigation, I mostly used the buttons on the back of the camera. Unlike the versatile swivel LCD on the Sony A77, the LCD on the NEX-5N only swivels up and down, like the Olympus E-PL3 does. Still better than not having it at all (Nikon 1 V1/J1).

Now let’s talk about the size and bulk. While the camera itself is thin and lightweight (it weighs less than both Nikon 1 V1 and Olympus E-PL3), it has a rather large mount, which translates to bulky lenses. The standard 18-55mm zoom lens that is shipped with the NEX-5N is a massive chunk of glass, as clearly shown the below image:

And here is a comparison between 1 Nikkor 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 VR (left), Olympus Zuiko 14-24mm f/3.5-5.6 (middle) and Sony 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS (right):

As I have already pointed out, a larger sensor requires larger lenses, which is a definite disadvantage for all Sony NEX-series cameras. Except for the 16mm pancake lens, all current E-mount lenses are big and heavy. In a way, this almost defeats the purpose of a compact mirrorless system; something I talked about in my Nikon 1 V1 Review. Unless you have the pancake lens mounted, forget about storing the camera in your pockets – it just won’t fit. At the same time, we need to understand that we cannot ask for a big sensor and expect small lenses with autofocus capabilities.

Another important thing to note, is that the Sony NEX-5N does not have a built-in electronic viewfinder (EVF) like the Sony NEX-7 or the Nikon 1 V1. The good news is that you can buy an optional, best of class EVF on the market, the same one that is used on the Sony SLT-A77 camera. The bad news is that the optional EVF costs a whopping $350, which is half the cost of the NEX-5N kit. Plus, it eats up the accessory port on the top of the camera, so you cannot use the included flash at the same time. This is where the Nikon 1 V1 has a clear lead – not only do you get a built-in EVF (granted it is not anywhere as good), but you can also use the much more powerful Nikon 1 SB-N5 flash unit. I tried to take a couple of shots with Sony’s tiny flash unit and I ended up taking it off permanently – it just did poorly in comparison.

Although none of the mirrorless cameras I tested have a GPS unit, I wish Sony had it integrated into the NEX-5N. They have been putting GPS into crappy point and shoot cameras, why couldn’t they do it on the NEX series cameras? Sure it would have added to the size and weight, but then it would be a neat feature to have! I love the GPS capabilities of the new Sony SLT-A77 and A65 cameras, I wish every camera had the same capabilities. Unfortunately, Sony does not yet make a GPS accessory for the NEX-5N that you can purchase separately.

Although the Sony NEX-5N is not weather-sealed and offers no dust protection like some of the advanced DSLR cameras, I used it in very cold temperatures below 32°F and dusty environments and it survived fine. The camera battery did not last very long in cold weather, but that’s expected, since any battery drains faster in cold temperatures.

4) Camera Menu System

The simplistic approach with the buttons on the camera means that certain functionality can only be accessed from the camera menu system. This includes the PASM exposure mode selector dial, which is emulated inside the “Shoot Mode” menu. The menus are organized by large descriptive icons and you can navigate through them by rotating the dial on the back of the camera, or by touching the screen. The “Camera” menu contains many options, including Drive Mode (single, continuous, bracket, etc), AF/MF Select, Autofocus Area and Face Registration. The “Image Size” menu is for picking Image Size and Quality, Panorama Size and Direction, Movie Format, Aspect Ratio, etc. The “Brightness/Color” menu contains White Balance, Metering Mode, HDR, ISO, etc. Not sure why Sony decided to stick “ISO” into “Brightness/Color”, because it really should be under “Camera” menu instead. “Playback” menu is for configuring image playback for viewing images on the LCD. Lastly, “Setup” contains important camera setup options, such as Noise Reduction, Lens Compensation, in addition to “Peaking Level” and “Peaking Color” – two very useful functions for shooting with manual focus lenses.

While using the camera menu can sometimes be slightly laggy, I found it quite easy to use, especially when compared to the Olympus E-PL3 camera that has a horrid menu system. I still prefer the Nikon 1 V1 menu system, because it just feels less “cartoonish”, but that’s probably because I am just too used to Nikon cameras. At the same time, the Sony NEX-5N has a lot more menu features than the Nikon 1 V1 and definitely more customization options.

5) Features and Responsiveness

Unlike the Nikon 1 V1, the Sony NEX-5N has a rich set of in-camera features that can be quite useful for everyday photography. The “Lens Compensation” feature found in the “Setup” menu allows fixing len-specific issues like vignetting, chromatic aberration and distortion. Obviously, the amount of lens correction depends on each lens, so Sony included current lens profiles in its camera firmware. New lenses that come out in the future will also be supported via firmware upgrades.

Aside from a boatload of Photo Creativity Modes and Picture Effects, the Sony NEX-5N also has a neat “Sweep Panorama” mode, which is a mode for shooting panoramas. While I personally prefer to manually stitch my panoramas, since I can get a lot more resolution by doing that (see my panoramic photography howto), the built-in panorama feature is a great way to get a quick stitched panorama in JPEG mode. The camera also has a similar functionality to record 3D panoramas. Here are a couple of examples of how the camera can shoot and stitch panoramas:

One feature that I really wish the NEX-5N had, is a built-in intervalometer for time lapse photography. I do not understand why, but even Sony SLT/DSLR cameras are notoriously bad for time lapse photography, because they lack an intervalometer and the only option is to buy an accessory to shoot images in sequences. In comparison, every Nikon DSLR and even the Nikon 1 V1/J1 cameras have this functionality.

As for the camera responsiveness, despite having the world’s shortest release time lag of just 20 milliseconds, it is certainly not as smooth and responsive as the Nikon 1 V1 or the Olympus E-PL3, mostly due to the slight lag when accessing some of the camera menu and when zooming in/out of images. You definitely want to use faster SD cards in the NEX-5N, or you will get quickly frustrated with the lag when reviewing images and videos. The touchscreen is another source of lag, especially if you are used to the smoothness of Apple devices.

6) Sony E-mount Lenses

Sony has been making more and more E-mount lenses for the NEX cameras during the last couple of years, including some fast prime lenses. While the selection of lenses is nowhere close to what Micro Four Thirds has got to offer today, the available lenses do cover a broad range from wide angle to telephoto. Here is a list of all current lenses for the E-mount by Sony:

With the sensor crop factor of 1.5x, you have to multiply the focal length of each lens by 1.5 to get an equivalent field of view of a full-frame camera. For example, the 55-210mm lens is equivalent to a 82.5-315mm lens, while the 16mm pancake is equivalent to a 24mm lens.

In general, the above Sony E-mount lenses have very good performance characteristics with great sharpness and colors – they perform similarly to Sony A-mount lenses, but without the weight and bulk. One thing you might have noticed from the above list is “OSS” (Optical Steady Shot) on the last 4 lenses, which means that the lenses are stabilized. This is a disadvantage of the NEX-series cameras – they do not have in-camera image stabilization. While it is understandable that in-camera IS might have resulted in a larger body and could have increased the cost of the camera, I still think Sony should have followed the same approach as in their SLT cameras, which is to use in-camera IS instead of lens-based IS. When working with short focal length lenses, in-camera IS is the way to go, especially when using LCD/EVF for framing shots – see my article on lens stabilization vs camera stabilization to understand the differences. Those shorter focal length lenses also would have greatly benefited from in-camera image stabilization in low-light situations.

As for manual focus, unlike the Nikon 1 lenses, the Sony E-mount lenses feature a manual focus ring for smoother and more precise MF operation. Once you put the camera into manual focus mode through the “Camera” menu, you can configure the camera to automatically zoom in when the focus ring is turned. I found this feature to be quite useful, because you can combine it with the touchscreen. By selecting an area on the touchscreen to zoom into, you can quickly move the desired focus area.

The cool thing about the Sony NEX mount, is that you can use many different lenses with it, as long as you have an appropriate adapter. You can use the A-mount Lens to NEX Adapter, which will let you autofocus A-mount lenses for both stills and video, or the basic LA-EA1 adapter, which only allows MF operation. There are many other adapters available for using Nikon, Canon, Pentax and even Leica lenses on the NEX cameras.

8) Autofocus / Manual Focus Performance and Metering

Unlike the Nikon 1 V1, which uses both phase detect and contrast detect for focusing, the Sony NEX-5N only relies on contrast detect. Because of this, its AF acquisition speed is not fast enough for photographing sports and wildlife. While contrast detect works remarkably faster than most live-view contrast detect implementations on modern DSLRs, it still cannot compete with phase detect AF. In daylight conditions, the AF speed is quite good, but the performance definitely suffers in low-light conditions – the camera starts to hunt continuously, even with its bright AF assist lamp. In addition, the camera has a tendency to occasionally miss focus; you might see some out of focus images even when you thought the camera confirmed accurate focus.

At first, I was a little puzzled by the need for the “AF Micro Adjust” function that can be found in the camera “Setup” menu. The ability to adjust autofocus on lenses is only useful for phase detect systems – it has no value for contrast detect systems that have to move focus back and forth in order to achieve maximum sharpness. But then after I found out that the LA-EA2 adapter has a built-in translucent mirror with phase detect AF capability for A-mount lenses, I realized why this function was included. If you are not planning to use A-mount lenses with this particular adapter, the “AF Micro Adjust” function is useless.

The advertised 10 FPS speed can only be achieved when using a special “Speed Priority Continuous” mode, where the camera’s exposure and focus are locked. The camera buffer fills up quickly after about 10 images in JPEG mode, slowing down to approximately 2 frames per second. If you want to have continuous autofocus with exposure metering from frame to frame, then you will have to use the “Continuous Advance” mode, where the camera slows down to approximately 4 FPS.

The Sony NEX-5N is a very friendly camera for manual focus operation. If you choose to use third party lenses with an adapter, you will love the focus “peaking” feature (can be found in the camera “Setup” menu). I found focus peaking to be a very useful feature, because you do not have to guess anything when shooting in MF mode. The camera will automatically detect sharpness and paint it with a chosen color, making manual focus operation a breeze. In addition, the two zoom levels (4.8x or 9.5x) let you get much closer to the focus area and really nail focus. I used the 9.5x zoom together with the touchscreen to select a desired area to focus on and got great results, both when shooting on a tripod and when hand-holding the camera. This MF implementation is the best I have seen so far on a mirrorless camera – the MF operation on the Nikon 1 V1 is much worse in comparison.

As for exposure and metering, I was rather pleased with the accuracy and of the camera exposure and metering system. In most cases it provided very accurate results, minimizing the use of exposure compensation (I primarily shot in Aperture Priority mode).

9) Movie Recording

Every new camera that comes out seems to have impressive movie features and the Sony NEX-5N is no exception. It can record full 1080p HD movies at 60 fps (AVCHD 2.0) for smooth playback, which is very impressive (better than Nikon 1 V1 and Olympus E-PL3). You can also pick lower resolution MPEG-4 format and slower rates (down to 24 fps) for smaller movie files. Another advantage of the movie mode is that you can fully control the exposure while recording movies – you can easily adjust aperture, shutter speed and ISO when shooting videos in Manual mode. If the scene you are recording is too bright or too dark and you are in one of the P/A/S modes, you can also use exposure compensation to adjust the brightness level. The camera LCD will reflect these changes and you will see exactly what you are capturing. Autofocus and subject tracking both work when recording videos, but the AF speed and accuracy is not as good as on the Nikon 1 V1 camera. As for Sony’s Optical SteadyShot image stabilization, it works pretty well when recording videos, but you have to be careful when panning the camera with SteadyShot turned on, because it will occasionally bump the camera up or down. This is normal behavior and the same thing would happen if you were to pan while taking stills.

10) Dynamic Range / HDR / DRO

A big advantage of a larger sensor is its ability to produce images with more dynamic range. Compared to the Nikon 1 V1′s much smaller sensor, or the Olympus E-PL3′s Micro Four Thirds sensor, the Sony NEX-5N 1.5x crop factor sensor is capable of producing higher dynamic range. DxOMark ranks the Sony NEX-5N at #14 spot in dynamic range, which is higher than any other mirrorless camera on the market, except its bigger brother, the Sony NEX-7 (which is ranked #8). As with all digital cameras, increasing camera ISO also decreases dynamic range, so shoot at base ISO of 100 if you want to preserve the most amount of information on your photographs.

A neat feature of the Sony NEX-5N is built-in High Dynamic Range (HDR) capability, which allows capturing multiple images and then combining them into a single JPEG image. While I personally like to shoot HDR photographs in manual mode in RAW format and then process them to my liking using specialized HDR software tools, the built-in Auto HDR mode can produce rather good results. I am not a big fan of the HDR Painting feature (especially the “HIGH” setting), because it produces ugly/unrealistic tones that many photographers seem to be obsessed with today. There is also a B&W HDR capability, but I did not spend much time experimenting with it, since I do not like in-camera B&W conversation.

Like on all recent Sony cameras, the NEX-5N also has a feature called “Dynamic Range Optimizer” (DRO), which is similar to Nikon’s “Active D-Lighting”. DRO applies a tone curve to images and does a decent job at recovering shadow details. This is only truly useful for JPEG images though, because the tone curve is not applied to RAW images.

Let’s see how the camera does in ISO performance against other cameras. Choose the next page below.

ISO Performance

11) ISO Performance at low ISOs (ISO 100-800)

Some technical junk:

White Balance: Auto, changed to “Custom”: 4660 Temp, +26 Tint in Lightroom
EXIF information is preserved in the images
Tested with Sony 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS kit lens
Aperture: f/8.0
Manual Focus
DRO: Off
Long exposure NR: Off
High ISO HR: Off
Image Format: RAW
Imported images into Lightroom and cropped to 100% – no resizing was performed in Photoshop
No exposure adjustments were performed in Lightroom (besides White Balance)
Lightroom sharpening: 25, 1.0, 25, 0 (default)
Lightroom export: sRGB JPEG Quality 80

Let’s take a look at how the Sony NEX-5N performs at low ISOs. Here are some 100% crops at ISO 100, 200, 400 and 800:

Both ISO 100 and 200 look very clean with no visible artifacts, even in the shadows.

ISO 400 adds a tiny amount of noise. At ISO 800 we see even more noise, but the image still looks very good with no loss of details anywhere in the image, including shadows.

12) High ISO Performance (ISO 1600-25600)

Let’s see what happens when ISO is boosted to much higher levels:

ISO 1600 increase the amount of noise and the grain size now looks bigger and more noticeable, especially in the shadows. Increasing ISO to 3200 nearly doubles noise and now we are starting to see some artifacts in the shadows. Both ISO levels are very usable though and a single pass of noise reduction software will deal with it pretty well, since most details are preserved.

Further increasing ISO to 6400 adds a lot more noise and now we are at a point, where we are starting to lose details in the shadow area. And by ISO 12800, the image looks pretty much unusable to me, although down-sampling the image might produce acceptable results for the web. The last available ISO level is 25600, which is way beyond my comfort level:

I would never use such high ISO level on the NEX-5N, because there is a heavy loss of detail and color throughout the image.

Overall, I am very impressed by the ISO performance of the Sony NEX-5N, especially its high ISO performance. Let’s see how it fares against the Nikon 1 V1 and the Olympus E-PL3. Select the next page below.

Camera Comparisons

Compared to Olympus E-PL3

Let’s take a look at the ISO performance of the Olympus E-PL3 that has an older Micro Four Thirds sensor. The base ISO of the Olympus sensor starts at ISO 200 and it can go all the way to ISO 12,800. Please note that the E-PL3 has a 12.3 megapixel sensor, so I had to move my camera setup back and forth to get a similar field of view. No image resizing and rescaling was performed in Photoshop – these are 100% crops. All images were shot at the same shutter speed and aperture values.

13) Sony NEX-5N vs Olympus E-PL3 Low ISO Comparison (ISO 200-800)

Here is a comparison of both cameras at ISO 200 (Left: Sony NEX-5N, Right: Olympus E-PL3):

At ISO 200, both cameras look about the same.

Again both perform about the same at ISO 400, although the Sony NEX-5N looks a tad cleaner to me.

Increasing ISO to 800 adds more noise to both images, but the Sony NEX-5N again looks a little cleaner with less grain.

14) Sony NEX-5N vs Olympus E-PL3 High ISO Comparison (ISO 1600-12800)

Here is ISO 1600 performance:

Now here is where things get interesting. The Olympus E-PL3 gets significantly worse at ISO 1600, which is clearly visible across the frame, especially in the shadows; the grain is much bigger in size.

The situation is much worse at ISO 3200 for the Olympus. Large grain specks appear all over the image and in the shadows. Image detail is lost by a great deal, while the Sony NEX-5N still looks rather clean and very usable. I would say ISO 3200 is pretty much unusable on the Olympus E-PL3.

Increasing ISO to 6400 shows just how bad the Olympus looks in comparison. Olympus should have set ISO 3200 as the maximum ISO value, because anything above that looks plain ugly. And even worse, we also have ISO 12800 to showcase:

Nothing to say here, the image from the Sony looks rather clean compared to the one from the Olympus.

15) Sony NEX-5N vs Olympus E-PL3 Summary

As you can see from the image crops above, both cameras perform about the same at very low ISO levels below ISO 800, although the Sony NEX-5N already looks cleaner at ISO 400. Starting from ISO 1600, the difference in performance gets much bigger, with the Olympus performing very poorly at ISO 3200 and above. Not sure why Olympus included ISO 6400 and 12800, because they look really bad and completely unusable – the images from the Sony NEX-5N look clean in comparison. Another important factor to note here, is that the Sony NEX-5N has a 16 MP sensor, while the Olympus E-PL3 has a 12 MP sensor. The above comparisons are at 100% view on both, with a similar field of view. This is another huge disadvantage for the Olympus E-PL3, because once you down-sample the NEX-5N images to 12 MP, the performance differences are even greater! This example shows just how good the Sony NEX-5N sensor really is in comparison. Unfortunately, Olympus decided to use an aged Micro 4/3 sensor on the new E-PL3, which is why there is such a huge difference. The new Micro 4/3 sensors on such cameras as Panasonic DMC-GH2/G3 perform much better in comparison. Unfortunately, I could not obtain a GH2/G3 sample on time to perform additional comparisons.

When it comes to autofocus performance, the Olympus E-PL3 seems to perform better, especially in low-light situations. It also does not have the same lag when browsing the menu and reviewing images and video. Speaking of the menu, the menu system of the Sony NEX-5N looks a world better than the crappy menu system of the E-PL3. I have already written about this in my Nikon 1 V1 Review, but the menu system in the E-PL3 is one of the worst I have seen so far in a digital camera. Granted it has many more options than the Sony NEX-5N, but I have not seen a menu system this confusing and ugly. Olympus seriously needs to hire a better GUI designer and simplify its menu system. I should not have to dig inside the camera menu to try to find a way to reverse the rotary dial orientation.

The Sony NEX-5N is also ergonomically superior than the Olympus E-PL3, not only because of its much more comfortable grip, but also because of the better and simpler button layout. The only ergonomic advantage of the E-PL3, in my opinion, is that it has a traditional PASM mode selector on the top of the camera. While I personally do not mind accessing the menu to change the camera mode, I know many photographers actually prefer to have a dedicated dial instead. Another advantage of the Olympus E-PL3, is that it uses a standard flash hot shoe, so you can use many different types of flashes (including Nikon SB speedlights) and radio accessories such as PocketWizard to trigger off-camera flash. Where Olympus right now truly has the true lead is in the lens department – it has a wide array of lenses that cover everything from wide angle and macro to portraits/telephoto.

Compared to Nikon 1 V1

Let’s see how the Sony NEX-5N compares to the Nikon 1 V1, which has a much smaller 2.7x crop factor sensor. I had a hard time matching up images, because there is a huge difference in resolution – the Nikon 1 V1 sensor is 10 MP, while the Sony NEX-5n is 16 MP. Therefore, the Sony crops below look a little bigger.

16) Sony NEX-5N vs Nikon 1 V1 Low ISO Comparison (ISO 100-800)

Here is a comparison of base ISO 100 on both cameras:

At base ISO 100, both cameras seem to perform about the same, although the shadows on the Sony seem to be a little brighter, probably because of higher dynamic range.

ISO 200 seems to be a little cleaner on the Sony NEX-5N.

The same with ISO 400 – the Sony NEX-5N is a tad cleaner.

And even at ISO 800, the NEX-5N has a slight advantage over the V1.

17) Sony NEX-5N vs Nikon 1 V1 High ISO Comparison (ISO 1600-25600)

Here is ISO 1600:

Unlike the Olympus E-PL3, the Nikon 1 V1 does a great job at ISO 1600. There is very little grain in the image, but it still looks worse than the NEX-5N.

Increasing ISO to 3200 adds more noise to both images, but the Sony NEX-5N still looks better. Grain is smaller and a little more manageable than on the Nikon 1 V1.

Nikon’s maximum ISO boost is 6400 and it is the last image that I can compare to the Sony NEX-5N, which has two extra ISO levels. Again, the cameras are comparable, but the Sony NEX-5N seems to be slightly better. Both cameras seem to retain good colors at high ISOs.

17a) Sony NEX-5N vs Nikon 1 V1 Down-Sampled High ISO Comparison (ISO 800-6400)

Comparing sensors with different resolutions can be challenging. The above comparisons show pixel-level performance, which is typically in favor of a lower resolution sensor. Without a doubt, a camera with more pixels per inch equals more noise due to simple physics – the smaller the pixel, the more the noise. Let’s see what happens when images from both cameras are normalized, which in this case means the Sony NEX-5N 16 MP image gets reduced to 10 MP. Since there are many different ways to down-sample an image in Photoshop, I tried a few different methods and came to a conclusion that the regular “Bicubic (best for smooth gradients)” resizing algorithm results in the least amount of noise, which is what I used for the below images.

As expected, the results are in favor of a high-resolution NEX-5N sensor:

The differences are obvious right at ISO 800 – the NEX-5N looks very clean with smaller grain. In fact, if you take the ISO 1600 sample from the NEX-5N and put it against the ISO 800 sample from the V1, you will see that NEX-5N still looks a tad better, which means that there is more than a stop of difference between the two, when down-sampled to the same resolution. The NEX-5N images will also look sharper due to this down-sampling technique.

The same story with ISO 1600 – NEX-5N looks very clean in comparison.

When putting NEX-5N ISO 3200 against V1 ISO 1600, the image from the NEX-5N is still a tad cleaner, so there is still over a stop of difference between the two.

ISO 6400 on the V1 has plenty of large grain, while the same on the NEX-5N looks cleaner with smaller grain.

Again, this test shows what happens when both cameras are at 10 MP – the extra 6 MP of resolution on the NEX-5N results in over a stop of high ISO advantage.

18) Sony NEX-5N vs Nikon 1 V1 Summary

I specifically added two different tests at 100% magnification and down-sampled to 10 MP, because it is the only fair way to compare sensors with different resolution. Looking at an image at 100% view will always put the camera with a higher resolution at a disadvantage, although it is not really true in this particular case, because the Sony NEX-5N has a much bigger sensor. Still, the maximum print size from a 10 MP sensor will always be smaller than the maximum print size from a 16 MP sensor, so it is best to normalize the latter to 10 MP and then look at its noise performance. As you have seen from these comparisons, the NEX-5N has over a stop of advantage compared to the V1 when down-sampled. Don’t forget that the sensor of the NEX-5N is over 3 times larger than the one on Nikon 1 V1, so the V1 stands its ground really well with its tiny sensor. A larger size sensor also means larger lenses – and that’s Sony’s biggest weakness. It has a very compact camera body, but much bigger camera lenses (with the exception of the 16mm pancake lens). When shooting with mirrorless cameras, the Nikon 1 V1 with its 10-30mm kit lens fit my jacket pocket much easier than the Sony NEX-5N with the 18-55mm kit lens.

At the same time, a large sensor also means two things: shallower depth of field and better dynamic range – two major factors that work in NEX-5N’s favor. Sony has a few other advantages, such as swivel / touchscreen LCD, in-camera editing, HDR, panorama and 3D modes, but lacks a serious feature that the Nikon 1 V1 has, which is a built-in electronic viewfinder (EVF). An excellent high-resolution OLED viewfinder can be purchased separately, but for $350 more; plus it eats up the same socket that can be used for mounting a flash unit. I also really like the ergonomics of the NEX-5N when compared to the V1. The grip is great, much better than the little bump on the front of the V1.

Sony’s menu system is very good, but has a lot more options than on the Nikon, so beginners might find the Nikon 1 V1 easier to operate. Nikon’s stronghold is its hybrid autofocus, which works faster than Sony’s AF. So the Nikon 1 V1 is clearly better at tracking and shooting action / sports. On the other hand, Sony lenses have a manual focus ring and manual focus operation is much easier, as shown on the first page of the review.

Comparing these two cameras, I would say that they are targeted at different audiences. The Sony NEX-5N suits photo enthusiasts and pros that shoot landscapes and portraits, because of a larger sensor, more megapixels, shallower depth of field, higher dynamic range and great image quality / ISO performance. The Nikon 1 V1, on the other hand, is a great everyday camera that can shoot action and sports – something soccer moms and birders will appreciate.

Compared to Sony A65/A77

Since I have been simultaneously testing the Sony A77 and A65 cameras, I could not resist the temptation to compare the Sony NEX-5N ISO performance against the highest resolution APS-C sensor in the world. The Sony NEX-7 mirrorless, A65 and A77 DSLRs all share the same 24 megapixel sensor, so the below crops should be about the same for these three cameras. The translucent mirror on the A65 and A77 cameras does actually block some light, so the NEX-7 might actually perform a tad better. Again, matching field of view was difficult, so the below images appear slightly larger. Let’s take a look!

19) Sony NEX-5N vs Sony A65/A77 Low ISO Comparison (ISO 100-800)

Here is base ISO 100 comparison:

The base ISO performance of the A65/A77 cameras seems to be on par with Sony NEX-5N performance. Noise levels are relatively low both in highlights and shadows.

ISO 200 is also clean on both with a slight advantage on behalf of the Sony NEX-5N.

ISO 400 shows more noise on the Sony A65/A77.

At ISO 800 we start seeing bigger grain on the Sony A65/A77 sensors and the Sony-NEX5N looks much cleaner, especially in the shadows.

20) Sony NEX-7 vs Sony A65/A77 High ISO Comparison (ISO 1600-16000)

And here is ISO 1600:

The Sony A65/A77 sensor looks similar to the Olympus E-PL3 in terms of pixel-level performance at high ISOs. Anything above ISO 800 is grainy, including ISO 1600. As can be seen from the above crops, the Sony NEX-5N has much less and smaller grains in the image. But mind you, we are comparing 24 MP versus 16 MP!

ISO 3200 is even worse for the 24 MP Sony A65/A77 sensor – noise levels are very high with large grains and there is visible loss of details across the frame. Some colors are also lost as a result. The Sony NEX-5N looks much cleaner in comparison (again, with less total pixels).

And ISO 6400 looks pretty unusable for my taste when viewed at 100% on the Sony A65/A77 cameras. Too much detail and colors are lost.

It is unfortunate that Sony is allowing ISO 12800 and 16000 on the A65/A77 sensor for marketing purposes. These images look horrid and completely unusable at 100%.

20a) Sony NEX-5N vs Sony A65/A77 Down-Sampled High ISO Comparison (ISO 800-6400)

Let’s see how the sensors compare when both are down-sampled to 10 MP:

Down-sampled, the noise performance at ISO 800 looks very good on both cameras – images look very clean. Let’s see what happens at ISO 1600:

Again, noise performance is very similar on both cameras.

ISO 3200 looks a tad cleaner on the NEX-5N.

And the same is true for ISO 6400 – NEX-5N looks a little cleaner in comparison, with a little more details to work with.

21) Sony NEX-5N vs Sony A65/A77 Summary

I won’t go into feature differences between these cameras, because we are not comparing apples to apples here. But one thing is clear – high resolution and small pixel size equal more noise for the new Sony sensor, when viewed at the pixel level. When down-sampled and resized to 10 MP, however, both the Sony NEX-5N and the Sony A77/A65 look more or less similar. Why is there such a difference? As I have explained in my “benefits of a high resolution sensor” article, having a high resolution sensor does not automatically mean that it is not a camera for low-light situations. Most people make the mistake of comparing image samples at 100% view, in which case a high resolution sensor will always show more noise and grain. However, once you normalize the image by resizing/down-sampling it, those noise differences might start to disappear, which is what we are seeing in this comparison as well. On top of that, with a high resolution sensor you have the option to shoot at base ISO and get lots of resolution, while you could never efficiently up-sample an image to get more resolution out of it. Hence, a higher resolution sensor gives you two benefits: the option to down-sample the image to reduce noise (when necessary) and the option to provide high resolution and clean images at base ISO. Does this mean that the Sony A77/A65 cameras have a superior sensor compared to the NEX-5N? Yes, I believe so, but only if you need the higher resolution (most people don’t). Lastly, the Sony NEX-7 should provide even cleaner images when down-sampled, because it does not have to boost the sensor sensitivity the same way the A77/A65 cameras have to – there is some loss of light when it passes through the translucent mirror employed in those cameras.

Summary and Image Samples

22) Summary

Overall, I am very impressed by the Sony NEX-5N – it is a high-quality camera with excellent image quality characteristics. As you can see from the previous page of this review, the Sony NEX-5N easily beats the Nikon 1 V1 and the Olympus E-PL3 in terms of image quality and high ISO performance. Despite having the highest resolution among the three, it provides cleaner images at almost all ISO levels, especially above ISO 1600 and that’s at 100% view! Once down-sampled to 10 MP, it blows the Nikon 1 V1 out of the water and puts the Olympus E-PL3 high ISO performance to shame. True, sensor size does play a huge role here, which at the same time results in a lens size disadvantage for the Sony NEX-series cameras. However, what is more important for you – higher image quality or smaller camera system size?

The Sony NEX-5N has its share of problems. Despite its impressive image quality and high ISO performance, the camera’s biggest weakness is its AF performance. While contrast detect has gotten better over the last several years, the Sony NEX-5N is just nowhere as responsive as the Nikon 1 V1 for fast-action photography. Occasional focus errors are typical, but the worst is its low-light AF performance, where in very dim conditions the camera seems to continuously hunt for focus, even with the AF assist light turned on. These AF issues might not be a big deal for landscape and portrait photography, but will definitely be problematic for sports, indoors and other fast-action photography. Lastly, the lag that is clearly noticeable when using the touchscreen or accessing some of the menu items is rather annoying, which I very much hope Sony will address with future firmware updates.

Despite these shortcomings, the Sony NEX-5N is a great camera for those that do not want the weight and bulk of a DSLR system. While it is not comparable to a DSLR in terms of features, autofocus, speed and versatility, it certainly is comparable to some of the best APS-C DSLRs in terms of image quality. Hence, if you already own a DSLR and would like to have a smaller and lighter stills & video camera for travelling and hiking light, the Sony NEX-5N is definitely a camera I would recommend to consider.

23) Where to buy and availability

B&H is currently selling the Sony NEX-5N (body only) for $599.99 and the Sony NEX-5N kit with 18-55mm lens for $699.99.

24) More image samples

Lens Stabilization vs In-camera Stabilization

Nasim Mansurov — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 06:05:10 +0000

While I am currently working on a couple of Sony camera and lens reviews, I decided to write a quick article on differences between in-camera and lens stabilization. As you may already know, Nikon and Canon are both big on lens stabilization, while other camera manufacturers like Sony and Pentax have been pushing for in-camera stabilization technology (also known as body stabilization). I have had a few people ask about differences between the two and I thought that a quick article explaining the pros and cons of each stabilization technology would be beneficial for our readers.

As the number of innovative products with electronic viewfinder technology from Sony and other manufacturers is growing, the question of lens stabilization vs sensor stabilization is coming back again. Historically, one of the biggest disadvantages of in-camera sensor stabilization was the fact that one could not see stabilization changes in a traditional DSLR camera with an optical viewfinder. Since most current mirrorless cameras and some SLR-like cameras offer electronic viewfinders (EVF), the old argument no longer applies, because stabilization effects are visible on both the camera LCD and inside the EVF. Does lens stabilization still offer advantages over sensor stabilization, or is it time for Nikon and Canon to introduce in-camera sensor stabilization on their upcoming cameras? Let’s look into this topic in more detail.

1) The History of Lens and Sensor Stabilization

The biggest reason why both Nikon and Canon use lens stabilization today has to do with the fact that in-camera stabilization was very costly to incorporate into film cameras in the past. It is one thing to move a sensor inside the camera body, and another to try to move a 35mm film roll. When Canon and Nikon started offering image stabilization (Canon released its first IS lens in 1995, while Nikon’s first VR lens came out in 2000), the number of photographers using digital cameras was too small – the majority were on film. This primarily had to do with cost, because the first digital cameras were priced as high as $30K. Plus, most photographers were very hesitant of switching to a digital camera after many years of shooting film. Hence, while it was obvious that image stabilization was desperately needed, especially for wildlife and sports photographers, the only proper way without adding a huge cost overhead was to incorporate it into lenses rather than camera bodies. As digital cameras became much more functional and affordable, photographers started transitioning to digital. Konica Minolta (which was later acquired by Sony) was the first to offer sensor stabilization in its Minolta DiMAGE A1 camera and it was a matter of time until other companies started adopting sensor-based image stabilization. In-camera image stabilization offered one big advantage over the traditional lens-stabilization technology – image stabilization worked with any lens, even with old film lenses. Nikon and Canon clearly had a lead in image stabilization at the time, so it would have cost a lot of money for other manufacturers to update their old lenses and catch up with Nikon/Canon offerings. By incorporating image stabilization into the camera body, manufacturers like Konica Minolta could at least compete with the Canon/Nikon giants that dominated both film and digital camera/lens markets. While in-camera image stabilization made a lot of sense, it also had its major pitfalls. Because of the way a traditional DSLR camera works, the effect of sensor stabilization was not visible through the viewfinder (due to the mirror blocking the sensor). In addition, in-camera image stabilization did not seem to work so well with long telephoto lenses, due to the amount of sensor movement that was needed to compensate for the large shifts at long focal lengths. Meanwhile, both Nikon and Canon continued updating their lenses with image stabilization, making more money with refreshed lenses.

2) Image Stabilization vs Vibration Reduction vs Optical Stabilization

You might have heard of all of these terms before and wondered if there is a difference between them. While the naming convention is different, they all mean the same thing. Canon uses the term “Image Stabilization” (IS) for their lenses, Nikon uses the term “Vibration Reduction” (VR) for their lenses and other companies like Sigma use the term “Optical Stabilization” (OS). Why could not they all call it the same way? It is primarily done for branding/marketing reasons, to differentiate themselves from the competition.

3) Advantages and Disadvantages of Lens Stabilization

Now that you know the history of lens stabilization, let’s explore its advantages and disadvantages compared to in-camera stabilization today.

Advantages of Lens Stabilization:

Optically-stabilized lenses are more effective – while there is no science with clear examples behind this statement (at least that I know of), both Canon and Nikon argue that image stabilization can be fine-tuned and tweaked on individual lenses, which would make image stabilization more effective when compared to generic in-camera stabilization. Tuning image stabilization based on lens features such as size, weight and focal length can provide the benefit of enabling different options for image stabilization. For example, some IS systems feature an “Active” mode for situations where the photographer shoots from a moving car or a boat. Some newer image stabilization implementations are smart enough to detect the type of movement and can automatically enable or disable image stabilization when the lens is mounted on a tripod. Such specific customization is not possible with in-camera stabilization, unless each lens is programmed into camera’s firmware.
Lens stabilization is more effective on long telephoto/super telephoto lenses – the main argument is that long lenses require much bigger sensor movements, which cannot be accommodated with in-camera stabilization. With Sony’s recent 500mm f/4 lens announcement, we will have to see how it will fare against a 500mm Nikon/Canon lens with slow shutter speeds.
Lens stabilization is more effective in low light conditions – because the image already comes stabilized from the lens, the camera metering/AF sensors can provide more accurate results in low light situations.

There are other advantages not included in the above list that I specifically removed, because they are no longer true/applicable:

Image stabilization is visible in the viewfinder – this is an advantage only when comparing DSLRs. Image stabilization is also visible on cameras with electronic viewfinders such as mirrorless cameras and Sony SLT (single-lens translucent) cameras. Here is an illustration from Nikon that shows IS differences affecting the viewfinder:
Smaller and cheaper camera body – this one is no longer an advantage, because the cost of incorporating IS into the camera body is pretty small. In fact, most cameras with IS from other manufacturers today are cheaper compared to Nikon/Canon.
Works with film cameras – most digital photographers will probably say “who cares” on this one. Nikon has been eliminating the aperture ring on most new lenses anyway, further limiting the number of film cameras that could be used with newer VR lenses.

Let’s now talk about the disadvantages of optical stabilization.

Disadvantages of Lens Stabilization:

Availability – while Canon and Nikon have been updating older lenses and releasing new lenses with image stabilization, many lenses (such as prime and wide-angle lenses) are still not image-stabilized. I have touched on this issue many times before, specifically in my Nikon 16-35mm VR Review. It is certainly beneficial to have Image stabilization on all lenses, including super wide-angle lenses.
Higher Cost – newer lenses with IS are costlier than their non-IS counterparts. Nikon and Canon definitely charge a premium for image-stabilized lenses.
Image Stabilization can degrade bokeh – this one might be a surprise for you, but it is true. Because the light that passes through the lens is shifted from its optical path when image stabilization is engaged, it can negatively affect lens bokeh.
New advancements require updating lenses – we have seen this with Nikon VR and VR II. When Nikon improved its VR technology, it started to update its lenses with the latest version of VR II. Some lenses like Nikon 200-400mm f/4 were optically identical when compared to the older version, with the only difference being VR II vs VR.
Annoying / loud sound when IS is engaged – I am sure you have noticed that some image stabilized lenses produce an annoying high-pitch sound when IS is engaged. This is especially bad for shooting videos, where IS noise is recorded by the camera.

4) Advantages and Disadvantages of Sensor Stabilization

Let’s move on to in-camera sensor stabilization advantages and disadvantages compared to lens stabilization.

Advantages of Sensor Stabilization:

Works with all lenses – this is by far the biggest advantage of in-camera sensor stabilization. You can use any lens (as long as it is capable of sending the focal length of the lens + focal distance to the camera), including older / third party lenses and image stabilization will still work.
One time cost – you buy one camera with built-in image stabilization and all lenses will automatically get the benefit of image stabilization.
Camera upgrade vs lens upgrade – if a newer, more efficient way of image stabilization is invented, you only need to upgrade the camera, rather than updating all of your lenses.
Smaller, lighter and cheaper lenses – because there is no image stabilization mechanism inside lenses, they are generally smaller, lighter and cheaper to produce.
Less fragile lenses – again, due to lack of image stabilization, there is one less component that could possibly fail.
No negative effect on bokeh – the light travels through its optical path without any shifting, so lens bokeh is not affected.
No annoying loud lens sounds – some optically-stabilized lenses produce high-pitch sound that can be annoying. Lack of IS means that the only sound you will hear from the lens is its autofocus motor. This is an advantage for recording videos without an external microphone.

Disadvantages of Sensor Stabilization:

Less accurate metering and AF performance in low light situations – because the image coming out of the lens is not stabilized, the camera metering and AF sensors also receive a shaky image (in cameras with a phase-detection AF system). Hence, metering and AF performance can be negatively affected, specifically in low-light situations.
Not very effective for long telephoto/super telephoto lenses – the longer the lens, the more the sensor has to move to compensate for the shake. Because the space for such sensor movements is limited, sensor-stabilized lenses are generally less effective than optically-stabilized lenses.

Similar to lens stabilization, I removed the below disadvantages, because they are either no longer applicable to modern cameras:

Image stabilization is not visible in the viewfinder – this is a disadvantage only when comparing DSLRs. Image stabilization is visible on cameras with electronic viewfinders such as mirrorless cameras and Sony SLT (single-lens translucent) cameras.
More expensive camera body – the cost of incorporating IS into the camera body is pretty small nowadays, so it is no longer a disadvantage. In fact, most cameras with IS from other manufacturers today are cheaper compared to Nikon/Canon.
No IS options on film cameras – does not matter for most photographers today, because they shoot digital.

5) Lens Stabilization vs Sensor Stabilization Summary

After looking at all pros and cons of each image stabilization technology, it is clear that one cannot be completely replaced with another as of yet. While I personally favor in-camera stabilization because it works with all lenses (in addition to a number of other advantages), I cannot ignore its biggest disadvantage, which is its practical use on long telephoto/super telephoto lenses. Even if the difference is not that big, electronic viewfinders and Sony’s SLT cameras have not yet proven to be very effective for fast-action sports and wildlife photography (as I have stated in my Sony A77 Review). If camera manufacturers do not innovate and find a way to decrease this gap, Nikon/Canon will continue to enjoy their dominance in those photography markets.

It seems that the best approach would be to combine the two image stabilization technologies into one camera system. Stabilization should be incorporated into long focal length lenses for sports and wildlife photographers, while also being available in cameras for all other situations. Camera firmware could be programmed in such a way, that when the camera sees that a specific lens is attached, it could simply turn off in-camera IS, or provide the option to the end user to pick which IS method to use. You definitely would not want both IS systems to work at the same time, because they would screw things up, basically canceling each other out. Another challenge with integrating the two, would be to evaluate and see if the image circle from current lenses is big enough to support sensor stabilization (sensor stabilization needs bigger image circle from lenses). Neither Nikon nor Canon would be willing to do this if they have to update their existing lenses to support in-camera stabilization.

The bad news is that I do not see Canon or Nikon jumping on in-camera stabilization anytime soon, even with their mirrorless cameras like Nikon 1 V1. Why? Because they enjoy their profits every time a lens is updated. If they enable in-camera stabilization, interest in adding IS/VR to wide-angle and prime lenses would pretty much fade away, which is definitely not what they want. It is painful to see that some lenses that really need image stabilization are not getting them, simply because Canon/Nikon think that it is not needed, or they are planning to add it to a future version to make money. There are a number of great lenses from Nikon such as Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S, Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G, Nikon 50mm f/1.4G/f/1.8G, Nikon 85mm f/1.4G/f/1.8G that desperately need image stabilization. And yet Nikon is not planning to update those lenses with IS anytime soon. The same is true with Canon, which has recently updated its Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II lens and still did not care to add image stabilization to it. They know that they can update these lenses with IS in the future and make even more money from them. As long as the competitor does not have a big lead, innovation will continue to halt.

Now when it comes to mirrorless cameras, in-camera IS is the best way to go in my opinion. This is where I believe Nikon made a mistake with their Nikon 1 line. When mirrorless electronic viewfinder technology is used, lens-based stabilization just does not make much sense anymore. Small compact lenses such as Nikon 1 10mm f/2.8 pancake will never feature image stabilization, so other cameras with in-camera IS have an advantage when using such lenses. In addition, mirrorless cameras are supposed to be compact and lightweight. Lens stabilization adds to size and weight of the lens, again, giving advantage to other mirrorless systems on the market.

What do you think about the future of image stabilization? Do you favor lens stabilization over sensor stabilization, or vice-versa?

Nikon D800E will ship with Capture NX 2

Nasim Mansurov — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:23:34 +0000

The Nikon D800E is generating a lot of interest among many landscape and macro photographers and one question that has been popping up a lot, is why the Nikon D800E is $300 more expensive than the Nikon D800? I received a number of comments like “why is Nikon charging extra for something the D800 does not have?” (meaning why Nikon charges extra money for a camera without an anti-aliasing / low-pass filter). In fact, both the Nikon D800 and the D800E have anti-aliasing filters (see the illustration below), it is just that the Nikon D800E has two of the filters reversed that cancel each other out. So some of the extra charge is coming from the required change in the manufacturing process. Additionally, according to DPReview’s “Nikon D800 Preview” they posted today, the Nikon D800E version will ship with the Nikon Capture NX 2 software, which costs around $129.95 retail.

Now about that low-pass filter on the Nikon D800E – both the D800 and the D800E have low-pass filters, but they behave differently. Typical Nikon low-pass filters actually contain of 3 different layers, as shown on the top illustration below:

As light rays reach the first “horizontal low-pass filter”, they get split in two, horizontally. Next, they go through an infrared absorption filter (illustrated in green color). After that, the light rays go through the “second vertical low-pass filter”, which further splits the light rays vertically. This light ray conversion process essentially causes blurring of the details.

Now with the Nikon D800E model, Nikon took an interesting approach. We know that the full low-pass filter cannot be completely removed, because it would cause the focal plane to move as well; plus, the camera still needs to be able to reflect infrared light rays. Instead of making a single filter with one layer, Nikon decided to still use three layers, but with two layers canceling each other out. As light rays get split into two with a vertical low-pass filter, then through the IR absorption filter, those same light rays get converged back when passing through a reversed vertical low-pass filter. Hence, instead of getting blurred details as in the first illustration, we get the full resolution.

I am not sure if the above method is the best way to deal with the issue, but I suspect that Nikon decided to take this route for cost reasons. It would probably be more expensive to produce a single IR absorption filter layer coated on both sides, than continue to use the same layers, but in a different configuration.

The above information will be added to my Nikon D800 vs D800E article I posted last night.