Ed Rooney Posted June 11, 2013 Author Share Posted June 11, 2013 A reasonable question, Richard. I don't own the Sigma 19, but from the few reviews I've been able to find on it, I don't see it as a big step up from the Sony 16. As I've said before, I own both the Sony 30 and the Sigma 30. I bought them before I was able to buy the Sony Zeiss 24. To me, the difference between a view of 36mm and 45mm is not enough to need both. I want to read a couple of hi-end reviews on the NEW Design Sigma 19 before I part with anymore money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosemary Hawkins Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Rosemary, just wondering why you chose the NEX-7 over the NEX-6. John, I'll be honest - I would have liked a NEX-6, but that would have meant buying Lightroom 4 which would have meant upgrading from my Windows XP computer which runs my Minolta Multi Pro scanner and Photoshop CS 4. LR4 won't work with XP and I understand the NEX-6 won't work with LR 3.6. I actually did download LR4 not knowing all this and am still waiting for my refund from Adobe. I do realize the file sizes from the 7 will be awfully large, but I may have to be a little more selective! At least the Zeiss 24mm should have good quality images with it I hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Rosemary, just wondering why you chose the NEX-7 over the NEX-6. John, I'll be honest - I would have liked a NEX-6, but that would have meant buying Lightroom 4 which would have meant upgrading from my Windows XP computer which runs my Minolta Multi Pro scanner and Photoshop CS 4. LR4 won't work with XP and I understand the NEX-6 won't work with LR 3.6. I actually did download LR4 not knowing all this and am still waiting for my refund from Adobe. I do realize the file sizes from the 7 will be awfully large, but I may have to be a little more selective! At least the Zeiss 24mm should have good quality images with it I hope. Good points. Believe it or not, I'm still using the free Sony Image Data Converter software (I know, I know, it's limited and clunky) to do RAW conversions. Personally, I think this program gets a bit of a bum rap. One good thing about IDC is that it results in very appealing colours with Sony cameras IMO. I too find Windows XP difficult to part with -- it's stable and easy to get along with. Also, all my aging peripherals work with XP. When I do the inevitable computer upgrade (ugh), I'll look into switching to LR. I'm sure you will enjoy the NEX-7, and the Zeiss 24 sounds "awesome." I actually like the feel of the NEX-7 better than that of the 6. Being a man of limited means these days, I will probably end up looking around for a used NEX-6 in a couple of months (after everyone is sick of them and moving on to the next 'latest and greatest'). But if I see a sweet deal on the NEX-7, I shall no doubt feel very tempted. Thanks for mentioning KEH. I hadn't heard of them. Too bad their shipping costs are so high to Canada. I guess they must have a good reputation or you wouldn't have bought from them. Do they offer any kind of warranty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosemary Hawkins Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Do they offer any kind of warranty? Yes, I believe it's six months for used, unless "as is" collectibles John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted June 12, 2013 Author Share Posted June 12, 2013 Taking a quick look through your collection, Rosemary, I feel you will be very happy with the NEX-7 and the Zeiss 24. Here in the inner city I tend to carry the NEX-6 more now. With LR3 you will be able to get most ISO800 noise down to a manageable level. The best of luck with your new kit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosemary Hawkins Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Thanks very much Ed! Also very happy to be getting a viewfinder needless to say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted June 12, 2013 Author Share Posted June 12, 2013 Ed, use a brillo pad :-) The glass screen protectors all seem to come with a cleaning cloth. That plus moisture (breathe on the screen) should be enough. Just to close the loop on this, the Vello screen protector did not come with a cleaning cloth. Not a problem, since I have a half-dozen quality lens cloths. The Vello was easy to attach, even with my occasionally shaky hands. Why Sony offers such a junky screen protector themselves I have no idea. Sony is a very inconsistent company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Do they offer any kind of warranty? Yes, I believe it's six months for used, unless "as is" collectibles John. That's a decent warranty. Some places only give 30 days on used stuff. I'll keep an eye on their website. Enjoy that viewfinder! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Ed, use a brillo pad :-) The glass screen protectors all seem to come with a cleaning cloth. That plus moisture (breathe on the screen) should be enough. Just to close the loop on this, the Vello screen protector did not come with a cleaning cloth. Not a problem, since I have a half-dozen quality lens cloths. The Vello was easy to attach, even with my occasionally shaky hands. Why Sony offers such a junky screen protector themselves I have no idea. Sony is a very inconsistent company. I bought the plastic Sony protector for my NEX-3 and sold it almost immediately. It was expensive and totally useless (except perhaps as a pocket mirror). I subsequently found a GGS glass protector online that cost less than half of what I paid for the Sony piece of junk. Yes, Sony is an inconsistent company, except when it comes to their accessories, which are consistently overpriced Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 Speaking of screen protectors, I'm using the clip-on variety rather than an adhesive one because I like being able to remove it in very bright conditions. Just wondering, are the stick-on screen protectors less reflective than the clip-on ones -- i.e. which is the best type to use? P.S. I'm using a removable glass GGS III screen protector. It gets very good reviews, but I still find that it produces a lot of reflections on sunny days (but nothing like the Sony plastic one I mentioned above). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosemary Hawkins Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 Enjoy that viewfinder! Ha, thanks John. and thanks for the info about Cornerfix Duncan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted June 16, 2013 Author Share Posted June 16, 2013 The Vello protectors are good too, Rosemary. You can order from B&H. Choose the free delivery; it took just three days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosemary Hawkins Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 Thanks again Ed, I ordered the Vello screen protector from B and H tonight. I took the NEX 7 out for a few street photos outside my building and am looking forward to the results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted June 19, 2013 Author Share Posted June 19, 2013 Move slowly and deliberately, Tai Chi mode, when attaching the screen protector . . . and work in a bright area so you can really see the details. Good luck with the 7, I know you're gonna enjoy the results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosemary Hawkins Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Yes the results are looking really promising Ed, thanks again. These long summer days in New York are a great time to be starting out with street scenes with the Nex 7/24mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted June 23, 2013 Author Share Posted June 23, 2013 After waiting for more than a year for the NEX-6 to show up on Alamy's recommended camera list I finally wrote and asked Member Services if there is a reason for this. I'll keep you posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 After waiting for more than a year for the NEX-6 to show up on Alamy's recommended camera list I finally wrote and asked Member Services if there is a reason for this. I'll keep you posted. Yes, please do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted June 24, 2013 Author Share Posted June 24, 2013 "We do accept images from Sony NEX-6. However we do not recommend it which is the reason why this camera is not listed in our Recommended camera list. The cameras NEX-3 and NEX-7 are listed in our recommended camera list." -- Member Services And here is the question I sent: "I've been using this camera (the NEX-6) for over a year now and have never had a problem with it or with Alamy QC. I also own and use the NEX-3 and NEX-7 and a number of Nikon DSLR's. I keep waiting for the NEX-6 to show up on your Recommended camera list, but it has not. Have you found a problem with this camera that I'm not aware of?" -- Ed Rooney So, as you see, I got no useful answer at all, just a rephrasing of my question as an answer. Not in the least bit helpful, Alamy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 "We do accept images from Sony NEX-6. However we do not recommend it which is the reason why this camera is not listed in our Recommended camera list. The cameras NEX-3 and NEX-7 are listed in our recommended camera list." -- Member Services And here is the question I sent: "I've been using this camera (the NEX-6) for over a year now and have never had a problem with it or with Alamy QC. I also own and use the NEX-3 and NEX-7 and a number of Nikon DSLR's. I keep waiting for the NEX-6 to show up on your Recommended camera list, but it has not. Have you found a problem with this camera that I'm not aware of?" -- Ed Rooney So, as you see, I got no useful answer at all, just a rephrasing of my question as an answer. Not in the least bit helpful, Alamy. Oh dear. That's a bit like saying that you don't recommend jumping out of an airplane without a parachute because you don't recommend jumping out of an airplane without a parachute. Not very helpful at all. I wonder how cameras end up on the recommended cameras list anyway. Alamy certainly doesn't have time to test them all. One would think that whether a camera is recommended or not has something to do with its QC record. Perhaps in the NEX-6's case there have been problems with images taken using the 16-50 kit lens, which doesn't get wonderful reviews. However, others in this thread say that they haven't had any QC issues with this lens. As far as the NEX-6 itself goes, most of the reviews suggest that it is arguably the best camera currently available in the NEX lineup, so Alamy's judgement doesn't seem to make much sense at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Coombs Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 What a peculiar answer. Well, they might as well put it on the recommended list, there's enough of us using it. I've got loads of NEX 6 shots on Alamy, but I don't use the 16-50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 What a peculiar answer. Well, they might as well put it on the recommended list, there's enough of us using it. I've got loads of NEX 6 shots on Alamy, but I don't use the 16-50. The 5N and the 5R aren't on the list either. So my guess is that the list was just never updated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted June 24, 2013 Author Share Posted June 24, 2013 Since becoming an Alamy contributor in 2007 I have never had an image rejected by QC . . . with any of my cameras or lenses. I know that sounds like shameless bragging, but let's face it: I'm perfect. I certainly don't appreciate being blown off by MS as a mindless newbie when I'm asking an important tech question. I will go back to a lesson I learned long ago: rely on yourself. You could be right, John, that QC may have had problems with some of the Sony lenses. I've found only the Sony Zeiss 24 and the Sony 50 to be up to my standards . . . but poor optics would effect all the other NEX cameras, too, not just the NEX-6. Who you gonna call? Next time I'll try Ghostbusters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Coombs Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 Who you gonna call? Next time I'll try Ghostbusters. Or, as I like to say "you might as well ask my Mums cat Lucky" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 Time for "NEXbusters" perhaps? Maybe the 16MP sensor is the "borderline" point for some of the Sony kit lenses. Hence the inclusion of the less demanding14MP NEX 3/5 on the recommended list and the exclusion of the 16MP 5N, 5R, and NEX-6 from said list. Just speculating of course. The NEX-7 is another story since most people seem to use primes with the demanding 24MP sensor. Let us know what Lucky has to say about this, Richard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carole Lloyd Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 That's weird! I haven't submitted many (only from inadequate time management on my behalf) but so far I've had no failures with the NEX 6 and the 16-50mm lens, and although the RAW files do have some distortion problems they are easily corrected in Photoshop before submitting to Alamy. JPEGs come out already corrected. In fact I'm getting better results from the NEX 6 than from my Canon 550D - much sharper and less noise. I was disappointed with images from the 550D from the day I bought it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.