Latest Sony NEX 5N a good camera?

[EvolutionIX]

I recently went into the Sony story and checked out the new NEX 5N camera.. Does anyone have any outside experience with the newer revised Sony Nex 5N? Is it worth it?

 

[KmH]

Worth it for doing what kind of photography?

It's pretty expensive, doesn't have a built in flash, doesn't have a hot shoe, and has only a limited range of lenses available for it.

Sony has designed it so they can be sure they get into your wallet often, and for as much as possible.

 

[analog.universe]

Sony products disappoint me time and time again. They've got great engineers, but instead of having a good design department, they've got an overgrown marketing department. Sony is all about bling and doesn't make any effort to understand the needs of it's customers.

If you're looking at that class of camera, the Olympus E-P3 and E-PL3 are really nice. They even feel like a camera instead of a smartphone with a lens hanging off of it!

 

[DiskoJoe]

The only cool thing about this camera is that you can get a converter and stick old leica lenses on it. But as mentioned it has many draw backs.

 

[analog.universe]

The only cool thing about this camera is that you can get a converter and stick old leica lenses on it. But as mentioned it has many draw backs.

You can do this with any Micro 4/3 camera.

 

[usayit]

The UI, feel, and limited selection was the killer for me. Back in the 90s, I owned a lot of Sony products. That made me consider them but I've been hearing bad things about their quality lately. I went micro 43 instead.

 

[Drake]

The sensor is a real killer, best of all the mirrorless interchangable lens cameras on market right now. But the lens... well, are there any besides the kit and a medicore pancake. Not exactly what I'd call a system. The m4/3 is much better in my opinion. With all the nice compact lens, the whole idea of a mirrorless big sensor camera starts making sense.

 

[Jan Matis]

I'll put one good thing that most of the "other" in this class (mirrorless) do not have. 16 megapixel APSC size sensor.
( i agree there is not too many lenses at the moment, but you can buy converter with viewfinder and go for fullsize sony lenses, though I must say that it kind of misses the point of mirrorless, but it still helps with choice of lens.)
(even the newly announced mirrorless nikon has 10 megapixel crop factor 2.4 insteead APSC's 1.5

Ignoring negatives above there is one reall at the moment - whilst recording movies there is a "click"-ing sound being recorded. To my knowledge sony are working on fix.

 

[usayit]

One of my speculations was that the larger sensor is actually working against Sony.... yes.. I know this goes counter of popular thought where IQ is the primary concern but for mirrorless packaging is a huge value add. Larger sensor could possibly mean complexities in compact lens designs. Over in a micro 43 forum, everyone has a universal understanding that mirrorless isn't about being higher IQ than DSLR but finding a balance between packaging and IQ. Many of these folks (like a few here) own mirrorless cameras in-addition-to rather than instead-off a DSLR system. In other words, a compromise in IQ for packaging and features is well understood. In this environment, the larger Sony sensor holds a lot less weight.


You need IQ and performance, reach for the DSLR
You need something easier and more laid back, reach for mirrorless.


There's no reason not to have both.

 

[analog.universe]

Ahh... the sensor is mostly what has prevented me going mirrorless up until this point. Look at the Leica M9, probably the worlds best portable mirrorless digital camera... one reason it's so nice is because it's full frame, in a body only marginally bigger than micro 4/3 bodies. I think there are two camps of mirrorless users: the ones who come from the compact market and want better IQ and usability , but still have a small package, and the ones that come from a dSLR and want something smaller, and are sacrificing a little IQ because that's what's available. The first group, are the people Sony is targeting. The second group I think ultimately wants the Leica but can't afford it. So I think if mirrorless designs from less exclusive companies started using full frame sensors, and delivered amazing IQ, they'd be able to attract more of the current dSLR market. I'd certainly be interested.

 

[philbrown0]

I've been using one for a week touring the southwest as an adjunct to my Leicas. I have the Sony zoom-haven't got the Leica lenses on yet-and the results are stunning. Even the JPEGs look fantastic. The RAW files are even better. I'm currently letting the camera do the hard work-it may be smarter than I am.
I'm sold.
Phil Brown

 

[philbrown0]

orry, first post. Here's an image
Phil Brown

 

[clanthar]

Sony products disappoint me time and time again. They've got great engineers, but instead of having a good design department, they've got an overgrown marketing department. Sony is all about bling and doesn't make any effort to understand the needs of it's customers.

If you're looking at that class of camera, the Olympus E-P3 and E-PL3 are really nice. They even feel like a camera instead of a smartphone with a lens hanging off of it!

I have to fundamentally agree here and I would also endorse one of the micro 4/3 cameras. As another alternative Samsung's new NX200 may be worth a look.

I want to add that I've had some experience with Sony photography in the past and it's unfortunate that Analog is right here. Sony can design and produce excellent cameras if they'd get the marketing monkeys off the engineer's backs. My son has a Sony R1 which is a terrific camera (every once in a while a good one gets out). I thought the NEX cameras initially showed promise. They can produce some excellent results, but Sony's marketing dept. has been working overtime killing them off.

I see Sony as a basically schizophrenic company. The good Sony really wants to make some great stuff; they have the talent and they try hard, but the evil Sony keeps re-surfacing and takes control.

Joe