Sony a NEX-5

[Big J 0]

I've never had a professional camera and saw the Sony a Nex-5 and was wondering if anyone know anything about it. I like how small it is and how it shoots 1080 HD videos. Any opinions? Thanks

 

Here's a link to it.

Sony a NEX 5

[Tybugs1 0]

Sorry Big J I don't know alot of cameras. I know there are a few on here that might chime in and help you out. I have had one Sony point and shoot which also shoots video. I love the Carl Ziess lens. It did me proud while I shot it.

[flytire 0]

for that kind of money it would not be my choice

[Big J 0]

for that kind of money it would not be my choice

 

What would you suggest then? I like the fact that the sony is so small and light weight compared to other cameras.

[speyguy 0]

The Sony NEX 5 is not a professional or semi-professional camera. The Sony A900, Sony A850, Canon 1D series, Canon 5DMII, Canon 7D, Nikon D3 series , Nikon D700, Nikon D300s are professional and semi-professional cameras. Out of all those I'd choose the Canon 5DMII or the Canon 7D. The last season of 'House' was recorded on the Canon 5DMII so the video is alright. For a cheaper one other than the pro or semi-pro ones you can look at the new Canon D60 or the new Nikon D7000.

[Threshershark 0]

The camera that will work best for you depends entirely on the type of photography you intend to do.

 

In all reality, most digital cameras made in the last 3 years are entirely capable of producing professional results. I've had images published from a Canon SD700 that is probably worth less than $100 right now.

 

What does a "professional" SLR body buy you, in real-world terms, that is applicable to your photography style? Only you can answer that.

 

In my experience, there are a couple of key advantages to a traditional SLR.

 

●Frame Rate: For fast action and sports, it's hard to produce high quality images at a frame rate of 6fps or faster without the right body. If action isn't your thing, it's irrelevant.

●Interchangeable lenses: Nikon and Canon have a vast assortment of compatible, purpose-built lenses available. Used or off-brand lenses are easy to find which will meet your budget needs too. Sony has some quality glass, but is not in the same league as the market leaders in terms of sheer variety and quantity.

●Autofocus Speed & Sensor Array: Bodies like the Nikon D300 have 51-point sensor arrays and can focus quickly and precisely, especially using professional lenses with internal focus motors. These robust systems make it easier to track small or fast moving subjects and distinguish them from complicated backgrounds (like a bird flying in front of vegetation).

●Image Sensor: SLR sensors, in a general sense, have higher per-pixel quality than the smaller cameras. This is less of an issue for anyone who doesn't routinely sell images, because pretty much any digital camera made in the last 3 years will print to 16x20 with no problem at all.

 

A camera like the NEX doesn't really seem like a good compromise to me. It's bigger than something like the outstanding Canon S90 or S95, but it doesn't have the lens selection to make it useful as an interchangeable lens body. I believe there are only 3 e-mount lenses. They do offer an adapter to give you access to A-mount lenses for an additional $200, but putting a big lens on the NEX body would kind of ruin the portability advantage.

 

The advertised frame rate is 2.3 continuous fps, and they have something called "speed priority" which claims 7fps. I suspect on a body this size that "speed priority" is Sony's way of saying you can shoot faster by significantly degrading image quality. The 18-200mm e-mount lens has a maximum aperture of f/6.3 @ 200mm, which means it really can't stop fast action in most lighting conditions anyway.

 

If portability is a key driver, I would take a serious look at the Canon S95. The image quality is excellent and it has a max aperture of f/2, making it great for low light work. It's not going to excel at fast action, but neither will the NEX series. If you want more zoom range than the S95, something like the Lumix DMC-FZ40, which is selling on Amazon for $365, would be my pick over the Sony.

 

If the bullet points listed above are important to your photography, you'd probably be better served by a traditional SLR and learning to live with the added bulk.

[speyguy 0]

Frame rate as nothing to do with high quality images, it has nothing to do with quality at all, your glass has everything to do with it. Not all sensors are equal and there is a massive difference between a consumer grade sensor and a professional grad sensor. For lenses your best bet for quality is to look at a 100% crop to see how sharp it is. Most out of the box kits look ok at an 8x10 but look soft at a 100% crop.

[Threshershark 0]

Frame rate as nothing to do with high quality images, it has nothing to do with quality at all, your glass has everything to do with it. Not all sensors are equal and there is a massive difference between a consumer grade sensor and a professional grad sensor. For lenses your best bet for quality is to look at a 100% crop to see how sharp it is. Most out of the box kits look ok at an 8x10 but look soft at a 100% crop.

 

I'm not sure if this is in reference to my post Speyguy, but if so nothing in my commentary suggests that technical image quality is linked to frame rate. Image output is initially based on 1) the light transmitted to the sensor by the optics, and 2) the sensor's ability to capture that information and convert it to data.

 

That being said, effectively capturing high-resolution images at high frame rates is related to much more than the lens and sensor. Digital cameras have computing components that interpret pixel data from the sensor and perform both image processing and data transfer. High-speed memory (buffer) is also required to manage the datastream while images are being recorded to slower speed memory cards. In order to capture images with high technical quality effectively at a high frame rate the camera body needs the whole package: Optics/sensor performance, a shutter which can cycle quickly enough, a procesing engine that interpret the pixel data, a buffer that has the capacity to handle the data stream in transit to the memory card - etc.

 

In other words, my first bullet point. If quality fast action photography is a priority, the traditional SLR is the right choice. These are the cameras which have the necessary internals for the task.

 

So, can a consumer-grade point & shoot produce "professional" results? What is a professional result? Is it an image you can print to 16x20 to the satisfaction of a paying portrait customer? Is it an image you can sell for publication in a national magazine? Is it product photography that a corporate client loves and uses for their annual catalog cover? I've done all of those things successfully with a $100 camera.

 

I have also captured images with a professional SLR and $9,000 lens which I absolutely could not have obtained with anything less.