Sony NEX good first camera for Disney?

[wiigirl]

tough to beat this deal!

Today’s Amazon Deal of the day is the Sony NEX-3n with 16-50mm lens which sells for $289 at Amazon (vs. $499 regular).

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1711809842&pf_rd_i=761198

 

[HPS3]

That's a crazy price. When I bought my Nex 6, I sold the 16-50 lens for $350 by itself.

 

[fractal]

That's a crazy price. When I bought my Nex 6, I sold the 16-50 lens for $350 by itself.

I was considering buying it just to have the "pancake" kit vs. the old kit lens, plus a new nex-3 for a backup.

 

[HPS3]

I was considering buying it just to have the "pancake" kit vs. the old kit lens, plus a new nex-3 for a backup.

Fractal, I thought the 16-50 was a good lens. I sold it because I already had a 18-55 sitting around from the nex 7. I really like your fisheye shots and the ones with the 50.

 

[fractal]

Fractal, I thought the 16-50 was a good lens. I sold it because I already had a 18-55 sitting around from the nex 7. I really like your fisheye shots and the ones with the 50.

I think the 18-55 is underrated. Very sharp for a "kit lens" and does well in good lighting. The charm of the 16-50 would be in making the camera truly a "pocketable" zoom.

thanks! - the 50 continues to be my favorite. I purchased the 35mm 1.8 Emount last year and sometimes I love it while other times I'm disappointed with it.

 

[manning]

Right now using a new canon SX 510 with a CMOS sensor. ISO up to 3200 zoom range 24mm to 720 mm

In EPCOT I was sitting on the bench along the lake at Italy. I got a tight full frame shot of the statue on top of the Palazzo Ducale or Doge's palace. Not bad for a little camera that fits in the palm of your hand.

And it cost around $250.00

 

[fractal]

Fractal, I thought the 16-50 was a good lens. I sold it because I already had a 18-55 sitting around from the nex 7. I really like your fisheye shots and the ones with the 50.

BTW, great shots with your NEX's! What adaptor are you using for the Nikon lens? I haven't ventured into non native lenses ( yet ) but love the look of your shots.

 

[Animagic!]

I have a NEX-5 that came with me on many Disney trips. I love that camera. It's beat up and kind of boring now compared to my dSLR's but I can't bring myself to sell it.

However, I have abandoned the NEX system completely. I will no longer invest in the NEX or E Mount. The NEX line is fun but the lack of lens support is too much for me. Sony A Mount lenses are significantly more plentiful and much cheaper. E Mount is limited and expensive. Personally, I don't want that. I know others feel differently.

All that aside, I can say that my 14MP NEX5 with a nifty fifty produced amazing results on dark rides. My shots at f/1.8 were bright and SHARP. Honestly, I still have yet to get images like that with my Sony a58 and a Sigma 30mm f/1.4. The E Mount 50mm f/1.8 spanks the Sigma in every single way except focal length.

 

[zackiedawg]

Just in case you haven't been really keeping up with eMount lenses - you might not realize how the mount has grown in just its fifth year...

There are now 27 eMount autofocus lenses available - 14 primes and 13 zooms. There are an additional 17 eMount manual focus lenses available. 6 of the existing lenses have two models out...some refreshed versions of the first one. If you include the ability to add manual mount lenses from dozens of other mounts, there are tens of thousands of lenses available. And now, there are at least two adapters available that can allow autofocus - one for Minolta/Sony lenses, and one for Canon EOS lenses. The eMount system is really growing extremely quickly in a short period of time.

BTW, I also shoot with A mount, so I'm aware of what's available there - I just wanted to note just how many eMount lenses are actually out there now, because many folks from the early days of NEX (and many who shoot other brands and don't like Sony E-mount) regularly state that there are so few lenses available, and some may not realize quite how many lenses Sony has been releasing over the past few years (at least 5 per year) and quite how many really are now available, including from 3rd party manufacturers (Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss).

 

[fractal]

Just in case you haven't been really keeping up with eMount lenses - you might not realize how the mount has grown in just its fifth year...

There are now 27 eMount autofocus lenses available - 14 primes and 13 zooms. There are an additional 17 eMount manual focus lenses available. 6 of the existing lenses have two models out...some refreshed versions of the first one. If you include the ability to add manual mount lenses from dozens of other mounts, there are tens of thousands of lenses available. And now, there are at least two adapters available that can allow autofocus - one for Minolta/Sony lenses, and one for Canon EOS lenses. The eMount system is really growing extremely quickly in a short period of time.

BTW, I also shoot with A mount, so I'm aware of what's available there - I just wanted to note just how many eMount lenses are actually out there now, because many folks from the early days of NEX (and many who shoot other brands and don't like Sony E-mount) regularly state that there are so few lenses available, and some may not realize quite how many lenses Sony has been releasing over the past few years (at least 5 per year) and quite how many really are now available, including from 3rd party manufacturers (Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss).

Thanks for posting this - completely agree. I purchased the Sigma 19mm 2.8 and the Sigma 30mm 2.8 as a combo deal for $199. I also have the Rokinon 18mm fisheye in Emount which is a terrific lens.

There is now talk of a constant aperture 2.8 mid-zoom coming out soon from Sony for APC-S Emount. I think it's easy to forget just how new the Emount system is.

 

[hakepb]

Thanks for posting this - completely agree. I purchased the Sigma 19mm 2.8 and the Sigma 30mm 2.8 as a combo deal for $199. I also have the Rokinon 18mm fisheye in Emount which is a terrific lens.

There is now talk of a constant aperture 2.8 mid-zoom coming out soon from Sony for APC-S Emount. I think it's easy to forget just how new the Emount system is.

That's good. I think the biggest knock on E-mount is the lack of f/2.8 zooms. (Despite some nice f/4 ones, including the great, new Zeiss f/4 zoom)

 

[havoc315]

That's good. I think the biggest knock on E-mount is the lack of f/2.8 zooms. (Despite some nice f/4 ones, including the great, new Zeiss f/4 zoom)

I'll believe it when I see it. The "advantage" of the E-mount system is its compactness. And SAR posted quotes not long ago, saying that Sony intends to continue to focus on compact lenses for the E-mount. Now this, quite contradictory rumor.

Fact is, 2.8 zooms are huge -- especially if you add optical stabilization (as E-mounts don't have IBIS).
Sony is releasing premium F4 lenses for their new A7/7r full-frame e-mount cameras. Those aren't simply rumored -- those are confirmed lenses to be released soon.
So I find it hard to believe that Sony has 2.8 zooms anywhere in the immediate pipeline.
The lenses would be so big and heavy, that the small-size advantage of the e-mount would be meaningless.

Most of the fast mirrorless lenses are for the m4:3 system, which uses a smaller sensor -- and allows for smaller lenses. But NEX is APS-C.
I know Samsung is APS-C and they announced a 2.8 lens, so it's certainly possible. But in perspective, Samsung announced a new 16-50 kit lens -- total weight 0.24 lbs... and the new 2-2.8 16-50... total weight, 1.37 lbs.

That's a lot of extra weight to carry around, when you invested into a "compact" system.

 

[SkaGoat]

That's a lot of extra weight to carry around, when you invested into a "compact" system.

What's the point of the compact system if you can't get fast glass for it? f/4 simply isn't fast enough, and a 17-50mm f/2.8 is basically standard requirement for a lot of photogs.

 

[zackiedawg]

Well not all photogs actually 'need' fast glass...for most standard daylight shooting, F8 is the order of the day. It tends to be enthusiasts more than regular consumers who think to shoot in lower light without a flash, or need super-fast shutter speeds for sports or action. So many would note that the primary point of the compact system is to be compact.

That said, there is plenty of fast glass for the NEX system. 16mm F2.8, 50mm F1.8, 35mm F1.8, 20mm F2.8, 55mm F1.8, 35mm F2.8, 19mm F2.8, 30mm F2.8, 60mm F2.8, 32mm F1.8, 12mm F2.8, and 50mm F2.8 - to name the AF versions alone.

What they're referring to above are fast ZOOMS - that's an area that has not yet been addressed in E-mount - F3.5 variable to F4 constant so far for all zoom lenses...the reasons are likely as Havoc mentioned above - a desire to keep the system compact. Fast primes are easier to make small - fast zooms with IS are quite difficult to impossible to make smaller.

 

[havoc315]

What's the point of the compact system if you can't get fast glass for it? f/4 simply isn't fast enough, and a 17-50mm f/2.8 is basically standard requirement for a lot of photogs.

But it would not longer be compact. So what's the point of a compact camera body with a massive huge heavy lens attached to it?

And to be honest, there are many pros who shoot with f4 lenses. The Canon 24-105/f4 is quite popular with professional photographers.

 

[fractal]

But it would not longer be compact. So what's the point of a compact camera body with a massive huge heavy lens attached to it?

And to be honest, there are many pros who shoot with f4 lenses. The Canon 24-105/f4 is quite popular with professional photographers.

The hope is the lens will still be significantly smaller than a DSLR counterpart.


This weekend I was in a jammed packed pool for a high school invitational swimming relay meet. 12 schools participated - you can imagine the crowd in a high school pool (and the heat!).

I had with me my NEX-7 and a small camera bag. With that I was able to have 3 lenses - the 18-200mm zoom (the biggest e-mount lens), the 50mm prime and the 18mm fisheye.

The camera is really nothing to have hanging on your neck and the small camera bag ( I'm talking a bag not big enough to hold a standard DSLR without a lens ) was easy to carry and place.

A similar setup using a DSLR and lenses would have been brutual. It would have been left home.

BTW - I had to crack up at some of the parents using their pop-up flash in the stands, 50 yards from the action when shooting their kid in the water.

some shots I took;

 

[havoc315]

The hope is the lens will still be significantly smaller than a DSLR counterpart.

You got some great shots.

But anyway... the laws of physics don't change. Lens size is primarily based on aperture size and sensor size. The current e-mount lenses are not appreciably smaller than truly comparable a-mount lenses.

For example, the E-mount 35/1.8 is: 154 grams. The A-mount 35/1.8 is 170 gm.
The E-mount 50/1.8 is 202 grams. The A-mount 50/1.8 is 170 grams. (Yes, the a-mount is lighter than the e-mount in this case).

Among basic variable aperture kit lenses, the current A-mount 18-55 lens is 222 grams. The E-mount 18-55 is 194 grams. The E-mount 16-50 collapsible lens is lighter -- 116 grams, but the reviews are absolutely horrible.

The 18-200 is 524 grams on the E-mount.. on the A-mount, the 18-200 is 405 grams.

So as you can see, except for the poorly reviewed collapsible 16-50, e-mount lenses tend to weight about the same (sometimes more) than their A-mount counterparts.

The announced Zeiss 24-70 f4 for the E-mount weighs 430 grams. So not super compact for a walk-around 24-70... and it's f4! The Sony 16-50 2.8 is 577 grams.. and doesn't have optical stabilization in the lens. So for an E-mount 16-50 2.8... if it had OS, I'd expect it to weigh even more than 577 grams.

So take your 18-200... make it a bit bigger and heavier.... would it still work out as a simple 16-50 lens? Or prefer that your 16-50 lens on NEX body be smaller?

 

[zackiedawg]

It's not that the lens is smaller than a DSLR counterpart, as Havoc mentions...what makes the NEX a spacesaver compared to a DSLR is all in the body itself...the body doesn't add all that much size, bulk, or weight to the overall package, so you can bring more camera + lenses in the same bag than you could with a DSLR. As Fractal mentioned, and I frequently do the same - to bring my DSLR with 18-250mm lens, 10-24mm ultrawide, and 30mm F1.4, I need a shoulder bag that runs 14 inches long, 8-9 inches wide and abut 9 inches high. On the other hand, if I want to bring my NEX-5N with 10-18mm ultrawide, 55-210mm zoom (about the same size though not as fat as the 18-250mm) and my 35mm F1.4 lens, I can bring it all in a compact bag measuring half the size in every dimension. The same bag I can fit my mirrorless NEX and 3 lenses, would not even quite be able to fit my DSLR with mounted 18-250mm, unless I reversed the lens hood and the top lid bulged out. So despite the lenses being about the same size between the two systems, lenses themselves are fairly portable devices, being cylindrical and able to sit closely side by side...the problem comes when you attach or try to fit in the bulky camera body to the bag - instantly the DSLR requires the bag size to nearly double to accomodate it, whereas the NEX barely adds anything to the lens...just an inch or so at the mount end, and about 2 1/2 inches to the side of the mount.

I agree - physics will limit just how small an E-mount lens can get to cover an APS-C circle, though theoretically the wider focals might be able to shave a little off due to the shallow registration distance...the longer the focal, the more the two become the same. But the NEX bodies, at least those in the rangefinder-style, are so much more compact than most DSLRs that they are still a very good choice for those looking to reduce the bulk of their systems. And while a 200 to 300mm zoom lens will be just as big in E-mount, reducing the size advantage - the modularity of the NEX system will allow it to be more compact when desired, such as removing the flash unit and sticking a pancake lens on - rendering it pocketable...something the DSLR can't do no matter what lens I try to stick on it!

 

[SkaGoat]

I'd rather have the wider aperture if all it means it's 100g more weight... it's funny you posting the weight of the lenses I was wondering how much heavier are the Canon lenses that I use than their e mount couterparts. There isn't a huge difference, and the lens I use the most I can't even get with the E mount.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS = 200g about the same as E mount
Canon EF50mm f/1.8 II = 130g percentage wise quite a bit lighter than both A and E mount but they don't call it the plastic fantastic for nothing.
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 = 440g no E mount equiv.
Canon EF70-300mm f/4 - 5.6 IS USM = 630g no real Sony E mount Equiv yet.

If you have the wider aperture you don't need IS as much.

I'm sure (I hope) the E mount system is just getting started, but the nice thing about Canon's EF system (same as Nikon's) the wide variety of lens you can get. The bodies are heavy, but at least you can buy a wide variety of glass at all price points.

 

[fractal]

You got some great shots.

But anyway... the laws of physics don't change. Lens size is primarily based on aperture size and sensor size. The current e-mount lenses are not appreciably smaller than truly comparable a-mount lenses.

For example, the E-mount 35/1.8 is: 154 grams. The A-mount 35/1.8 is 170 gm.
The E-mount 50/1.8 is 202 grams. The A-mount 50/1.8 is 170 grams. (Yes, the a-mount is lighter than the e-mount in this case).

Among basic variable aperture kit lenses, the current A-mount 18-55 lens is 222 grams. The E-mount 18-55 is 194 grams. The E-mount 16-50 collapsible lens is lighter -- 116 grams, but the reviews are absolutely horrible.

The 18-200 is 524 grams on the E-mount.. on the A-mount, the 18-200 is 405 grams.

So as you can see, except for the poorly reviewed collapsible 16-50, e-mount lenses tend to weight about the same (sometimes more) than their A-mount counterparts.

The announced Zeiss 24-70 f4 for the E-mount weighs 430 grams. So not super compact for a walk-around 24-70... and it's f4! The Sony 16-50 2.8 is 577 grams.. and doesn't have optical stabilization in the lens. So for an E-mount 16-50 2.8... if it had OS, I'd expect it to weigh even more than 577 grams.

So take your 18-200... make it a bit bigger and heavier.... would it still work out as a simple 16-50 lens? Or prefer that your 16-50 lens on NEX body be smaller?

Thanks for the info - I get that the lenses are with a few grams of each other. I stand corrected. the difference in camera weight between an NEX-7 and an A77 is 379grams (with battery), which is more than the weight of the NEX itself.

When I'm in a crowd of people I do make an effort to look at other cameras - to see if there really is a material difference. For me and for 95% of my needs, I'll take the NEX over any APC-S DSLR. I used to have a film SLR and stopped using it because I just didn't want to deal with the size. My sister was searching for a "good camera" and I tried to sell her on the NEX but she decided on a Canon Rebel - I told her she will end up leaving it at home. The first year she brought it faithfully - this Thanksgiving and Christmas the Rebel was a no show - replaced by a Sony pocket camera.

I love being able to hold the NEX in one hand - great grip and feel ( plus I think it looks great ). When I'm carrying it around my neck I don't feel like it's a brick. When shooting candid shots with my kids (and others) it doesn't look like I'm pulling some huge camera that get everybody nervous.

Having said all that - I'm looking forward to seeing the new A-mount cameras. I would be really interested if they do go mirrorless and offer IBIS.

For me the size of the NEX paired with the IQ from the sensor just work. I take the dammned thing everywhere.