Switching from D5100 to Mirrorless?

[NAC]

The way I see it, here are the advantages for each a 3Ti and a NEX-5N:

As you described, the 3Ti should have faster auto-focus in most situations, especially in low light. You'll be able to make shots that the NEX-5N misses because it hasn't focused yet. The NEX-5N will focus better during movies. I don't know if you plan to shoot movies much.

To take pictures in low light, especially of moving kids, you need a fast lens. It is well worth it. A common, relatively inexpensive choice is the 50mm f1.8. You can get one for either camera – but on the Canon it is a nice $110 or so, but on the Sony it is $270. I don't want to add to your budget right off the bat – but having used a 1Ti for years without a fast lens, and then getting it – I was kicking myself for not having done so sooner.

Later on, when taking pictures of sports, you'll want a stronger zoom. There are many more choices for the Canon, as well as third party choices. It will most likely be cheaper than for the Sony.

Size was never a factor for me. My T1i fits nicely in my hands, so I enjoy shooting with it. My Nikon V1 is smaller, but basically too small to fit in my hands well. So I prefer the size of a DSLR. I never thought it was too big to put in luggage or carry around. If you want a small compact camera that fits in your jeans pocket – your iPhone serves that purpose. But for general use when you want a camera, I don't think you'll notice a difference between the NEX-5N and 3Ti. I'd go to a store and hold both and decide for yourself.

 

[gevorg]

To take pictures in low light, especially of moving kids, you need a fast lens. It is well worth it. A common, relatively inexpensive choice is the 50mm f1.8. You can get one for either camera – but on the Canon it is a nice $110 or so, but on the Sony it is $270.

Unlike Canon or Nikon equivalents, the Sony NEX 50mm prime uses optical stabilization which gives it ~3-4 stops advantage, so its priced quite fairly.

 

[blastingcap]

Unlike Canon or Nikon equivalents, the Sony NEX 50mm prime uses optical stabilization which gives it ~3-4 stops advantage, so its priced quite fairly.

Stabilization does not work with moving objects. Typically you would bust out a 50mm f/1.8 for taking photos of street views or people or whatever... basically, MOVING things, which get ZERO benefit from anti-camerashake technologies.

And if you are taking photos of NON-moving stuff then even a kit lens might be enough and give you more depth of field to boot. (Shallow DoF is super-overused, especially by newbies who think it's soooo cool to use thin DoF even when it's not called for, just because it's something their old crappy digicam couldn't do. I've seen videos where every 5 seconds the videographer would play with DoF even though it was a distraction and did not add to the video. Rookie mistake. For videos and stills, you don't actually want that thin of DoF in many circumstances, which means something at say f/2.8 or smaller may be better... and with stabilization, flash, or tripod that would take care of camerashake to varying degrees (tripod being my favorite). Note that phase detect autofocus accuracy drops like a rock as you widen the aperture, so as if thin DoF weren't enough of a problem, especially with moving subjects, you get hit with an AF accuracy penalty as well.)

Also I see we have some misinformed people out there who actually believe the marketing fluff about 3-4 stops of stabilization, when in real-life tests it's more like 1-2 stops for many lenses from ANY company; even the best ones don't really clear 3 stops. There was a French site that did a comparison of image stabilization tech with various companies and lenses and bodies a few years ago that showed this.

Clarification: I am not saying that most IS gives you 1-2 stops only, sorry for the poor phrasing on my part. I am saying that if a company advertises 3 stops you are likely to get 2 stops or maybe even less. And several combos out there actually give you only 1-2 stops.

 

[gevorg]

Stabilization does not work with moving objects. Typically you would bust out a 50mm f/1.8 for taking photos of people, who do not sit perfectly still and if they are kids, they may be running around. And if you are taking photos of non-moving stuff then even a kit lens might be enough and give you more depth of field to boot.

True, but stabilization gives you a lot more flexibility, for the shots where there is little motion *and* taken handheld. Comes very handy at low light shots. Without it, you have no choice. And for video with NEX-5N, optical stabilization its awesome.

Also I see we have some gullible people out there who actually believe the marketing fluff about 3-4 stops of stabilization, when in real-life tests it's more like 1-2 stops for many lenses from ANY company; even the best ones don't really clear 3 stops. There was a French site that did a comparison of image stabilization a few years ago that showed this.

Which system/lens did you actually use and found just 1-2 stop advantage of optical stabilization? You can't disregard all stabilization systems from all brands and for all models. I had NEX-5N with 50mm lens before, and there was a clear advantage of optical stabilization, 3 stops for sure. SLRgear has an interesting and very detailed way of measuring stabilization performance.

 

[blastingcap]

True, but stabilization gives you a lot more flexibility, for the shots where there is little motion *and* taken handheld. Comes very handy at low light shots. Without it, you have no choice. And for video with NEX-5N, optical stabilization its awesome.



Which system/lens did you actually use and found just 1-2 stop advantage of optical stabilization? You can't disregard all stabilization systems from all brands and for all models. I had NEX-5N with 50mm lens before, and there was a clear advantage of optical stabilization, 3 stops for sure. SLRgear has an interesting and very detailed way of measuring stabilization performance.

Stabilization gives you more flexibility sure, but I would rather save a nice chunk of change and weight and not have it on a 50mm f/1.8. I already have stabilized lenses in other lenses, I don't need it in a lens that I'd use mostly for people, who can't hold perfectly still. Actually I don't even like 50's for crop-bodies; I prefer 35mm (which give you around 50mm in film equivalent terms), but you know what I mean.

There was a French study, I don't know where it is anymore, that found some pretty bad combos where you got maybe 1.5 stops of stabilization. Most combos got you something like 2-2.5 stops of stabilization, and a few combos actually got more like 2.5-3 stops.

I'm not saying it's impossible to get to 3-4 stops, nor am I doing what you accuse me of (saying that ALL combos are bad or something... I did NOT SAY THAT.. please read what I wrote again... I said for many combos you might get more like 1-2 stops and even the best combos that they tested did not quite get to 3 full stops), but you should not rely one any one source of information as testing methodologies and mistakes can vary. Even if you did rely solely on SLRgear for information (you cited SLRgear), this is what they wrote:

"Sony claims that the E 50mm ƒ/1.8 OSS offers (approximately) 4 stops of shutter speed advantage, but we would put the actual performance at somewhere around 2 1/2 stops" (emphasis added) -- http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1451

SLRgear does not contradict what I wrote about how Sony's 3-4 stops claim was marketing fluff. In fact, as you can see above, SLRGear backs up what I said. It's marketing fluff. You will not get 3-4 stops, more like 2.5 stops. And that's only for those situations where stabilization actually helps (non-moving subjects). I'm not saying stabilization is worthless for all lenses, just that it is not useful to me personally on a 50/1.8 and probably for many other people who use their 50/1.8's for moving (e.g., people) shots.

 

[gevorg]

Stabilization gives you more flexibility sure, but I would rather save a nice chunk of change and weight and not have it on a 50mm f/1.8. I already have stabilized lenses in other lenses, I don't need it in a lens that I'd use mostly for people, who can't hold perfectly still. Actually I don't even like 50's for crop-bodies; I prefer 35mm (which give you around 50mm in film equivalent terms), but you know what I mean.

There was a French study, I don't know where it is anymore, that found some pretty bad combos where you got maybe 1.5 stops of stabilization. Most combos got you something like 2-2.5 stops of stabilization, and a few combos actually got more like 2.5-3 stops.

I'm not saying it's impossible to get to 3-4 stops, nor am I doing what you accuse me of (saying that ALL combos are bad or something... I did NOT SAY THAT.. please read what I wrote again... I said for many combos you might get more like 1-2 stops and even the best combos that they tested did not quite get to 3 full stops), but you should not rely one any one source of information as testing methodologies and mistakes can vary. Even if you did rely solely on SLRgear for information (you cited SLRgear), this is what they wrote:

"Sony claims that the E 50mm ƒ/1.8 OSS offers (approximately) 4 stops of shutter speed advantage, but we would put the actual performance at somewhere around 2 1/2 stops" (emphasis added) -- http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1451

SLRgear does not contradict what I wrote about how Sony's 3-4 stops claim was marketing fluff. In fact, as you can see above, SLRGear backs up what I said. It's marketing fluff. You will not get 3-4 stops, more like 2.5 stops. And that's only for those situations where stabilization actually helps (non-moving subjects). I'm not saying stabilization is worthless for all lenses, just that it is not useful to me personally on a 50/1.8 and probably for many other people who use their 50/1.8's for moving (e.g., people) shots.

50mm is actually pretty standard for portraits on a 1.5 crop (85mm equivalent on full frame), but I can see how four third users with their bigger ~2.0 crop might not like the 100mm equivalent. Regardless, personal preference here, just like size and price.

I have no idea about that French site you keep referring to, but it seems you're judging equipment you do not even have, review sites give only so much. SLRGear is a very reliable source but even their rating of optical stabilization is subjective. Nevertheless, as you can see, they found the E-mount 50mm lens to have 2.5 stop advantage, which is lower than Sony's claim but still better than your claim that "real-life tests it's more like 1-2 stops for many lenses from ANY company". In my experience of NEX-5N, I actually observed 3 stops of difference, hence why I asked you what was *your* real-world experience with optical stabilization. Anyway, even if another system has just 2 stops advantage, that is a significant difference of making a shot at ISO 1600 vs ISO 400. Just an example, but of course, for each their own.

 

[blastingcap]

First of all, I don't know how you think 50mm on crop sensor = 85mm in FX equivalent. We were talking E-mount right? 50x1.5 = 75mm. Same on Nikon and Pentax. Even on Canon it's still 50x1.6 = 80mm. Not 85mm. I don't know how this "50mm on DX is great for portraits" thing came about, but I can guess: 50mms were common in the film era and the same companies churned them out at the start of the digital era too.

Why 50mm? Film cameras often came with cheap 50mm kit lenses that weren't that great wide open but got nice and sharp if you stopped down a little. It's generally easiest to make a lens that is roughly the flange distance and 50mm is close to the flange distance of some old SLRs. So 50 = cheap and easy and effective in the film era.

When we moved to digital, FX sensors were waaaaaay more costly to produce, so we had APS-C/DX sized sensors as a compromise to make DSLRs more affordable to the masses. But companies kept churning out 50mms due to the flange distance and historical quirk thing, even though the effective focal length was no longer that good... it wasn't 50mm-FX FOV, it was 75mm-FX FOV which is in a no-man's land in-between the general-purpose 50mm-FX FOV and the 85+mm-FOV for portraits.

Thankfully, 35mms became more available, such as the excellent Nikon DX-only 35mm f/1.8 lens that is actually not that bad wide open unlike the old film-era 50mms. I don't shoot MFT anymore, but I am somewhat still in DX-format though. So when I say I prefer 35mm that means I prefer the FOV that FX 50mms give you.

Using a 50mm on a APS-C/DX body like NEX, Canon Rebel, and Nikon DX doesn't make a lot of sense to me... it's like a compromise that doesn't really need to be made considering that we have better alternatives now that are made specifically for crop-body DSLRs, like the new DX-format Nikon 35mm and 85mm lenses. 50mm on DX is in no-man's land. It is 75-80mm in film-equivalent which is like a short telephoto but not quite at the 85mm+ equivalent range that is preferred for portraits. Worse, many 50mm lenses give mediocre bokeh. That's not what you want for portraits, usually.

Further, even 85mm (in FX terms) is a little bit short for portraits imho (I know many people would disagree but hear me out). You get a more pleasing effect with longer focal lengths, and it is not too unusual for pro portrait photographers to use 105mm-and-longer lenses, even 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom lenses. This gives you the advantage of more depth compression and less perspective distortion which many people find more pleasing. In fact, I often prefer using long zooms at longer distances from the subject and smaller apertures, than faster glass at larger apertures closer up, precisely for the compression and lesser perspective distortion.

I acknowledge that reasonable minds can disagree but I really do not see the point of making 50mm lenses for DX-sensors and think Sony wasted time and resources with the E-mount 50mm lens... it's just not a good compromise. They should have made a 35mm f/1.8 lens (to give you that classic 50mm-on-FX FOV good for general purpose shooting and street shooting and such) and a 75mm f/1.8 lens (to give you a ~112mm-on-FX FOV which for the reasons I stated above, work better for portraits). Well I guess 1-for-2 isn't that bad but the price for the Sony 35mm sucks. Maybe it'd be cheaper and lighter without the (imho) unnecessary OSS.

I guess that's a long way of saying that 50mm on crop DSLRs isn't that great.. it's a short telephoto that isn't ideal for portraits (especially the ones that give mediocre-or-worse bokeh), but is too narrow for general purpose use.

What I said about how many combos gave 1-2 stops regardless of company, was just that: many. Sorry for my poor wording which may have made it sound like I was saying that ALL combos gave 1-2 stops for ALL companies. Nevertheless, just because you haven't seen the French comparison doesn't mean it does not exist. Trust me, it exists. The French comparison study found that the vast majority if stabilization claims were exaggerated. If a company says 3-4 stops, expect more like 2-3 stops. If they say 3 stops, expect more like 1.5-2.5 stops. Etc. There were some standouts where claimed was actually not far off tested, but I can't remember which ones. There were also many cases where the claim was 3 stops and you actually only got like 1-2 stops. "Many" means several cases or more--it does not mean "the majority" or "most." That is what I meant by what I wrote--that there were more than a few cases where the French study found that you get 1-2 stops of stabilization despite advertisements of 3+ stops!

Sure you can make the fair statement that I have not professionally tested the Sony 50mm on a NEX camera. But given all of my experience with other systems and how virtually every review site finds that IS claims are often exaggerated, I think it is reasonable for me to express skepticism about Sony's 3-4 stop claim. In fact, YOU were the one to bring up SLRgear and touted their testing procedure. I cited their study as showing how they tested it as ~2.5 stops real-life advantage which if anything supports my point: that IS claims are often exaggerated and the Sony 50mm is no exception; that's about a 1-stop difference.

These IS exaggerations are par for course and seemingly every camera company exaggerates. I used Pany's 100-300mm on MFT before and it gave maybe 1.5 stops advantage at best (I tested it as best as I could, but I do not have reproducible results or pro-grade testing techniques.) The cheaper kit zooms on things like CaNikon DSLRs also don't live up to their rated specs. Etc. Companies consistently over-spec their stabilization ratings to the point where I feel like it's deliberate and due to marketing department pressure.

Since you cited to SLRgear, I suggest that you go through all of their lens tests with various companies... click on their IS tests and you will see the same pattern I have personally experienced: real life results rarely (if ever) live up to IS claims made by lens and camera makers. (This is true of IBIS too.) Sony's E-mount 50mm is not the first or last lens that falls short of marketing claims.

Over time we won't have these discussions once Sony's E-mount gets more lenses available and you won't have to buy the ONLY lens available in that focal length anymore. We're already starting to see that, e.g., with the sharp Sigma 30mm f/2.8 lens. Too bad it isn't f/1.8 but still, it fills in a gap that Sony left below 50mm. (Yeah I know about Sony's 35mm but look at the price, then look at the Sigma 30mm's $99 price at B&H right now! Even stuff like the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 costs less than HALF of what Sony is asking for their E-mount 35mm, and no, I don't really miss VR on my Nikon 35mm for reasons I already went into... for non-moving subjects I can use other lenses anyway, and for both moving and non-moving subjects in dark indoors environments I can use flash including a small bounce flash, which is sometimes a better way to deal with low light than image stabilization anyway, even for non-moving subjects... btw a tripod is better than any image stabilization system by far) Doubtlessly an E-mount lens somewhere in the 60-85mm range at f/2.8 or faster is forthcoming as well.

RE: NEX, what is stopping me from seriously considering NEX at this moment in time is the fact that there are no good telephotos on the roadmap, let alone for sale. And I don't want to go without AF when it comes to telephotos... I want something that is fast-focusing for action shots, something like the Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6 would be good enough, yet Sony has NOTHING native longer than 210mm... not even on their roadmap. So unless there is some surprise lens from a third party coming out soon, you'd have to wait till what, 2015 or even later, for such a lens to come out. That's unacceptable to me.

50mm is actually pretty standard for portraits on a 1.5 crop (85mm equivalent on full frame), but I can see how four third users with their bigger ~2.0 crop might not like the 100mm equivalent. Regardless, personal preference here, just like size and price.

I have no idea about that French site you keep referring to, but it seems you're judging equipment you do not even have, review sites give only so much. SLRGear is a very reliable source but even their rating of optical stabilization is subjective. Nevertheless, as you can see, they found the E-mount 50mm lens to have 2.5 stop advantage, which is lower than Sony's claim but still better than your claim that "real-life tests it's more like 1-2 stops for many lenses from ANY company". In my experience of NEX-5N, I actually observed 3 stops of difference, hence why I asked you what was *your* real-world experience with optical stabilization. Anyway, even if another system has just 2 stops advantage, that is a significant difference of making a shot at ISO 1600 vs ISO 400. Just an example, but of course, for each their own.

 

[Munky]

You know what else gives you a stabilization advantage? Not having to hold the camera 2 feet in front of your face. Also, with a fast auto focus system and wide aperture, you'll be using high enough shutter speeds where stabilization will not matter. I'm not knocking IS/VR because I find it useful myself for pics with static subjects, but for moving subjects it's a whole different ball game.

 

[NAC]

I agree that I'd rather have a fast 35mm lens on my crop DSLR. The Canon 35mm f2.0 lens is about $300, almost three times that of a 50mm. Since I'm on a budget, the 50mm will have to do, and has served me well.

 

[blastingcap]

You know what else gives you a stabilization advantage? Not having to hold the camera 2 feet in front of your face.

There is that too, I had forgotten. But to be fair, some NEX cameras have EVFs so you can brace the camera against your head like with a DSLR to give you that additional bit of image stabilization. But even in those situations the DSLR might be slightly more stable due to their heavier weight.

EVFs still not as good as OVFs for taking bursts of shots of moving objects, though. (Blackout and lag issues.)

 

[gevorg]

First of all, I don't know how you think 50mm on crop sensor = 85mm in FX equivalent. We were talking E-mount right? 50x1.5 = 75mm. Same on Nikon and Pentax. Even on Canon it's still 50x1.6 = 80mm. Not 85mm. I don't know how this "50mm on DX is great for portraits" thing came about, but I can guess: 50mms were common in the film era and the same companies churned them out at the start of the digital era too.

Why 50mm? Film cameras often came with cheap 50mm kit lenses that weren't that great wide open but got nice and sharp if you stopped down a little. It's generally easiest to make a lens that is roughly the flange distance and 50mm is close to the flange distance of some old SLRs. So 50 = cheap and easy and effective in the film era.

When we moved to digital, FX sensors were waaaaaay more costly to produce, so we had APS-C/DX sized sensors as a compromise to make DSLRs more affordable to the masses. But companies kept churning out 50mms due to the flange distance and historical quirk thing, even though the effective focal length was no longer that good... it wasn't 50mm-FX FOV, it was 75mm-FX FOV which is in a no-man's land in-between the general-purpose 50mm-FX FOV and the 85+mm-FOV for portraits.

Thankfully, 35mms became more available, such as the excellent Nikon DX-only 35mm f/1.8 lens that is actually not that bad wide open unlike the old film-era 50mms. I don't shoot MFT anymore, but I am somewhat still in DX-format though. So when I say I prefer 35mm that means I prefer the FOV that FX 50mms give you.

Using a 50mm on a APS-C/DX body like NEX, Canon Rebel, and Nikon DX doesn't make a lot of sense to me... it's like a compromise that doesn't really need to be made considering that we have better alternatives now that are made specifically for crop-body DSLRs, like the new DX-format Nikon 35mm and 85mm lenses. 50mm on DX is in no-man's land. It is 75-80mm in film-equivalent which is like a short telephoto but not quite at the 85mm+ equivalent range that is preferred for portraits. Worse, many 50mm lenses give mediocre bokeh. That's not what you want for portraits, usually.

Further, even 85mm (in FX terms) is a little bit short for portraits imho (I know many people would disagree but hear me out). You get a more pleasing effect with longer focal lengths, and it is not too unusual for pro portrait photographers to use 105mm-and-longer lenses, even 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom lenses. This gives you the advantage of more depth compression and less perspective distortion which many people find more pleasing. In fact, I often prefer using long zooms at longer distances from the subject and smaller apertures, than faster glass at larger apertures closer up, precisely for the compression and lesser perspective distortion.

I acknowledge that reasonable minds can disagree but I really do not see the point of making 50mm lenses for DX-sensors and think Sony wasted time and resources with the E-mount 50mm lens... it's just not a good compromise. They should have made a 35mm f/1.8 lens (to give you that classic 50mm-on-FX FOV good for general purpose shooting and street shooting and such) and a 75mm f/1.8 lens (to give you a ~112mm-on-FX FOV which for the reasons I stated above, work better for portraits). Well I guess 1-for-2 isn't that bad but the price for the Sony 35mm sucks. Maybe it'd be cheaper and lighter without the (imho) unnecessary OSS.

I guess that's a long way of saying that 50mm on crop DSLRs isn't that great.. it's a short telephoto that isn't ideal for portraits (especially the ones that give mediocre-or-worse bokeh), but is too narrow for general purpose use.

What I said about how many combos gave 1-2 stops regardless of company, was just that: many. I did not say that ALL combos gave 1-2 stops for ALL companies. Just because you haven't seen the French comparison doesn't mean it does not exist. Trust me, it exists. The French comparison study found that the vast majority if stabilization claims were exaggerated. If a company says 3-4 stops, expect more like 2-3 stops. If they say 3 stops, expect more like 1.5-2.5 stops. Etc. There were some standouts where claimed was actually not far off tested, but I can't remember which ones. There were also many cases where the claim was 3 stops and you actually only got like 1-2 stops. "Many" means several cases or more--it does not mean "the majority" or "most."

I've used a lot of photo gear, so your jab about how I am judging stuff I haven't used, is amusing. I've tested a lot of lenses myself and have come to the same conclusion as most (all?) review sites: stabilization is usually not as effective as marketing materials suggest. So sure you can make the fair statement that I have not professionally tested the Sony 50mm on a NEX camera. But given all of my experience with other systems and how virtually every review site finds that IS claims are often exaggerated, I think it is reasonable for me to express skepticism about Sony's 3-4 stop claim. In fact, YOU were the one to bring up SLRgear and touted their testing procedure. I cited their study as showing how they tested it as ~2.5 stops real-life advantage which if anything supports my point: that IS claims are often exaggerated and the Sony 50mm is no exception; that's about a 1-stop difference.

These IS exaggerations are par for course and seemingly every camera company exaggerates. I used Pany's 100-300mm on MFT before and it gave maybe 1.5 stops advantage at best (I tested it as best as I could, but I do not have reproducible results or pro-grade testing techniques.) The cheaper kit zooms on things like CaNikon DSLRs also don't live up to their rated specs. Etc. Companies consistently over-spec their stabilization ratings to the point where I feel like it's deliberate and due to marketing department pressure.

Since you cited to SLRgear, I suggest that you go through all of their lens tests with various companies... click on their IS tests and you will see the same pattern I have personally experienced: real life results rarely (if ever) live up to IS claims made by lens and camera makers. (This is true of IBIS too.) Sony's E-mount 50mm is not the first or last lens that falls short of marketing claims.

Over time we won't have these discussions once Sony's E-mount gets more lenses available and you won't have to buy the ONLY lens available in that focal length anymore. We're already starting to see that, e.g., with the sharp Sigma 30mm f/2.8 lens. Too bad it isn't f/1.8 but still, it fills in a gap that Sony left below 50mm. (Yeah I know about Sony's 35mm but look at the price, then look at the Sigma 30mm's $99 price at B&H right now! Even stuff like the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 costs less than HALF of what Sony is asking for their E-mount 35mm, and no, I don't really miss VR on my Nikon 35mm for reasons I already went into... for non-moving subjects I can use other lenses anyway, and for both moving and non-moving subjects in dark indoors environments I can use flash including a small bounce flash, which is sometimes a better way to deal with low light than image stabilization anyway, even for non-moving subjects... btw a tripod is better than any image stabilization system by far) Doubtlessly an E-mount lens somewhere in the 60-85mm range at f/2.8 or faster is forthcoming as well.

RE: NEX, what is stopping me from seriously considering NEX at this moment in time is the fact that there are no good telephotos on the roadmap, let alone for sale. And I don't want to go without AF when it comes to telephotos... I want something that is fast-focusing for action shots, something like the Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6 would be good enough, yet Sony has NOTHING native longer than 210mm... not even on their roadmap. So unless there is some surprise lens from a third party coming out soon, you'd have to wait till what, 2015 or even later, for such a lens to come out. That's unacceptable to me.

You're right, of course 50mm 1.5 crop is 75mm FF equivalent, what I really wanted to say is that on a FF camera the 85mm lens is considered standard for portraits, so based on currently available lens, 50mm 1.5 crop is the closest you can get if you want similar DOF. Also, the NEX line recently got the 35mm/1.8 lens, the SEL-35F18. This lens can be great for full body portraits and group shots, rather than the more zoomed in 50mm lens. My main reason for leaving NEX (at least for now), was subpar auto-focus performance in low light. Waiting for their on-sensor phase-detection technology to develop...

In terms of stabilization, once again, even a 2 stop real-world advantage can make a big difference by letting you stop down from noisy ISO, regardless of what is advertised and what some review site finds, your real-world results will vary since stabilization performance is subjective. Hence why the premium for Sony NEX primes over Canon/Nikon equivalents is worth it if you actually take low-light shots will no action. When I had my NEX-5N, there were many times when I preferred a little motion blur in my low-light shots at ISO 800 (such as movement of subject's hands), rather than upping the shutter and using ISO 3200+. Its all about balancing compromises and personal preferences.

 

[blastingcap]

Gevorg you responded before I could edit my reply to express apologies about my wording.. I re-read what I wrote and I see now where my phrasing was ambiguous--sorry about that, I am not saying that you always get 1-2 stops from IS. My apologies again for my poor wording.

I agree that IS can be beneficial, I would never argue otherwise. I'm just saying that while OSS is great and all, I question its necessity on the 35 and 50mm lenses; plus the price for the Sony 35 and 50mm NEX lenses is pretty awful compared to similar lenses elsewhere. I can't help but wonder if the price and weight would be lower if they didn't have OSS. I mean if Nikon can make a 35mm f/1.8 DX that is pretty good even wide open for around $200, you'd think Sony could too. Instead their version is $450. Wtf? The 50mm price difference isn't quite as bad but the 50mm on a crop sensor is also not ideal either as I stated above (reasonable minds can disagree).

Btw if your shooting style benefits from IS, you may want to check out Oly's "five axis" in-body stabilization which is technically better than in-lens stabilization in terms of how many types of motion the IS can compensate for. Unfortunately it is only available in the expensive E-M5 body right now, but I hear good things about it.

NEX holds a lot of promise but at this particular moment in time I can't quite accept their lack of long native telephoto... just bugs me because telephoto is important to me. But for many others NEX is a breath of fresh air.

Edit to add: I don't mean to nitpick what you wrote about FOV/DoF, but a 50mm f/1.8 on NEX is actually more like 75mm f/2.7 on FX due to how the smaller sensor and thus smaller angles work. You basically have to multiply the aperture by the crop factor as well, not just the focal length. There is another thread on this subforum about this effect but the bottom line is that as you shrink your sensor, the perceived DoF grows. So in order to get a 85mm f/1.8 FX-equivalent on a NEX crop sensor, you would need a lens at 57mm f/1.2.

You're right, of course 50mm 1.5 crop is 75mm FF equivalent, what I really wanted to say is that on a FF camera the 85mm lens is considered standard for portraits, so based on currently available lens, 50mm 1.5 crop is the closest you can get if you want similar DOF. Also, the NEX line recently got the 35mm/1.8 lens, the SEL-35F18. This lens can be great for full body portraits and group shots, rather than the more zoomed in 50mm lens. My main reason for leaving NEX (at least for now), was subpar auto-focus performance in low light. Waiting for their on-sensor phase-detection technology to develop...

In terms of stabilization, once again, even a 2 stop real-world advantage can make a big difference by letting you stop down from noisy ISO, regardless of what is advertised and what some review site finds, your real-world results will vary since stabilization performance is subjective. Hence why the premium for Sony NEX primes over Canon/Nikon equivalents is worth it if you actually take low-light shots will no action. When I had my NEX-5N, there were many times when I preferred a little motion blur in my low-light shots at ISO 800 (such as movement of subject's hands), rather than upping the shutter and using ISO 3200+. Its all about balancing compromises and personal preferences.

 

[gevorg]

Gevorg you responded before I could edit my reply to express apologies about my wording.. I re-read what I wrote and I see now where my phrasing was ambiguous--sorry about that, I am not saying that you always get 1-2 stops from IS. My apologies again for my poor wording.

I agree that IS can be beneficial, I would never argue otherwise. I'm just saying that while OSS is great and all, I question its necessity on the 35 and 50mm lenses; plus the price for the Sony 35 and 50mm NEX lenses is pretty awful compared to similar lenses elsewhere. I can't help but wonder if the price and weight would be lower if they didn't have OSS. I mean if Nikon can make a 35mm f/1.8 DX that is pretty good even wide open for around $200, you'd think Sony could too. Instead their version is $450. Wtf? The 50mm price difference isn't quite as bad but the 50mm on a crop sensor is also not ideal either as I stated above (reasonable minds can disagree).

Btw if your shooting style benefits from IS, you may want to check out Oly's "five axis" in-body stabilization which is technically better than in-lens stabilization in terms of how many types of motion the IS can compensate for. Unfortunately it is only available in the expensive E-M5 body right now, but I hear good things about it.

NEX holds a lot of promise but at this particular moment in time I can't quite accept their lack of long native telephoto... just bugs me because telephoto is important to me. But for many others NEX is a breath of fresh air.

No worries, my posts are a bit rushed so I could have been unclear myself.

I do agree that Sony should have made non-IS versions of quality primes to give people choice, especially budget users, but its unlikely they'll do that unless its some cheapo plastic lens. They don't even have a high quality fast standard zoom lens (like 16-50mm/F2.8 or at least F4.0). So in order to upgrade from the NEX kit zoom lens, your only choice is one of their vacation 18-200 lens. Hopefully Sigma and Tamron will pay more attention to the NEX line.

I do have my eye on Olympus, waiting for what they'll do with E-M5's successor (end of this year or 2014). Less bokeh due to APS-C to MFT will be a negative, but I wouldn't mind giving it up if everything else is great. On the other side, there are rumors for a full frame NEX and that might be pretty awesome, especially if Olympus will start making lens for Sony by that time.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

50mm is actually pretty standard for portraits on a 1.5 crop (85mm equivalent on full frame),

Just remember that the equalivalence here is field-of-view, not focal length. There is benefit to longer focal lengths for portraits beyond the field-of-view.