Who's using Nex-5n?

Nex-5N vs FS100U in Low Light???

Nex-5N vs FS100U in Low Light???

Ok, given the same lens and F-stop how close is the 5N to the FS100U in very low light? Say it's under about the worst lighting circumstances and you're using an F1.8 or F1.4 lens. How close is the 5N to the best the FS100U can do. I was blown away by the F100U with an F1.4 lens. It's crazy good in low light. I read the 5N is even better in low light than the 5D Mark II and that it was the most amazing low light the owner had scene (who had owned and used plenty of highend camcorders and DSLRs).

Very curious to know this. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
The FS100s key is the sensor and although the 5n does share the same SIZE sensor, they're not the same, alas the low-light not being anywere near as clean at high ISO's, it is good, but not as good.
 
I just used the Sony nex-5n at a shoot alongside my Canon 7d. Contrast -3, sharpness -3, saturation -1. Me and my coworker (We've been using the Canon 7d for over two years) thought that the Sony Nex-5n did produce a better quality picture. It was slightly flatter and the 50p definitely beat the moired 60p of the Canon 7d. The 25p mode has too much rolling shutter for my taste but at 50p it's reduced. Haven't tried to grade it yet, so don't know how much it breaks apart but early impressions are great. A sharper, more natural image and definitely less moire. I shot some wide scenes at F3.5-F8 and the moire/aliasing was definitely better.

This one is a keeper!
 
DId a twelve camera comparison last week, colorist from Modern here in LA took all of the footage from each camera and did his work in resolve.

Alpha and NEX-5N were part of that, they were in the lowest tier for usability when considering grading and presentation.
 
skital said:
Ok, given the same lens and F-stop how close is the 5N to the FS100U in very low light? Say it's under about the worst lighting circumstances and you're using an F1.8 or F1.4 lens. How close is the 5N to the best the FS100U can do. I was blown away by the F100U with an F1.4 lens. It's crazy good in low light. I read the 5N is even better in low light than the 5D Mark II and that it was the most amazing low light the owner had scene (who had owned and used plenty of highend camcorders and DSLRs).

Very curious to know this. Thanks!
Click to expand...

skital - I suggest you see Mr. Bloom's Christmas Shootout: Part 2, if you haven't already: http://vimeo.com/34637684

NEX-5N low light test starts at 21:45 and NEX-FS100 low light test starts immediately afterwards at 22:26. In almost no light, here is Bloom's quote on the FS100's performance:

"It is absolutely ridiculous how much we can see right now."

By the way, the 5N and the FS100 have different sensor sizes. The 5N's APS-C sensor is 23.5mm x 15.6mm (366.6 sq mm) and the FS100's Super 35 sensor is 23.6mm x 13.3mm (313.88 sq mm). Yes, the 5N's sensor is slightly larger, but, to quote the FS100 brochure:

"The [FS100] sensor also features an optimum number of effective pixels for shooting HD moving images. At a high 60fps in all-pixel scan mode, this allows images to be captured with less color aliasing, jaggedness and rolling shutter than DSLR cameras, while providing the sensitivity to shoot at a minimum illumination of 0.28 lux. Another advantage of Exmor ® technology is minimal noise when shooting low-light scenes."

In my view, given the FS100's performance in Phil's test, this is more than just marketing hype.

Hope this is helpful.

Cheers,

Bill
 
It wasn't scientific. It was pretty much "here's the worse case scenario, how does each one do?"
 
Cory Braun said:
Yea, I'd be interested in reading your thoughts.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna see if I can compile some stuff this weekend barring they let me take some stills out of the footage at least.

NEX-5N = Gross, though. Everything looks neat on the LCD, pull it off of the camera? Mmm. Not so much.
 
I just got a Nex 5N, so far i just have the 18-55 kit, but I really like it. It's just so lightweight, I can throw it in my "murse" and take it anywhere, rather than toting my huge lowepro bag full of 7D gak. Pixel peeping aside, the quality is just fine for what I need, considering it weighs 200 grams or so. It also takes excellent quality stills.
 
I bought a NEX-5N when it first became available, as I was most intrigued by the camera. The one I got had the clicking sound bug while shooting video really bad, though. And as much as I wanted to like the camera, I could not get comfortable with its ergonomics and user interface. I simply found it to be awkward to use. I do have large hands. Perhaps someone with smaller hands would not mind the camera as much. It obviously has an excellent sensor and can produce lovely photos and videos. Very similar in performance to the much more expensive Nikon D7000, in my opinion.

I'm now waiting for the new Sony A57, which is going to be announced this coming Tuesday. It will use the same body as the A65, but with the same 16.2 mp sensor in it that the NEX-5N has. I think that I will find its ergonomics to be far superior.

Here is a video that I shot, showing how badly my camera clicked while recording video. This was a defect in only the initial batches of the camera, and has since been corrected by Sony.


 
I have a 5n, but I use it almost exclusively for stills. I have an FS100, so why bother with video from the 5n? But I do like the fact that i can switch lenses between each camera (I have the Alpha adapter with several Alpha lenses). I did shoot some test video and it looked pretty impressive. I take it along on shoots as a backup, but the FS100 is so much easier to use for video, I've never needed to take out the 5n.
I'm considering getting the A65, as I like the form factor. Supposedly, the A65 takes decent video as well. Plus, I already have Alpha lenses.
 
I have the 5n as well, but I have recently ordered the Sony SLT-A57. While I love the video out of the 5n, I found myself mostly using the Sigma OS 17-50 F/2.8 with the LA-EA2, and realized quickly how much I like having image stabilization. I shot some video footage with a non-stabilized 70-200 F/2.8 Sigma and found it far too wobbly (and I even used a monopod). So my choice were either sell the 70-200 and pay another 7-800 bucks for the IS version, or just get a Sony DSLR with built in IS.
I do have some E-mount lenses that are ok, but I prefer using a couple of fast zooms.
 
I just finished the first day of shooting a webseries using my NEX-5N. Here are some framegrabs from the video files with a 10 second grade from within VLC:

vlcsnap-2012-04-21-23h21m11s153.jpgvlcsnap-2012-04-21-23h23m21s247.jpgvlcsnap-2012-04-21-23h25m51s131.jpgvlcsnap-2012-04-21-23h27m48s233.jpgvlcsnap-2012-04-21-23h36m29s206.jpgvlcsnap-2012-04-21-23h39m51s74.jpgvlcsnap-2012-04-21-23h41m47s9.jpgvlcsnap-2012-04-21-23h43m57s201.jpgvlcsnap-2012-04-21-23h47m51s245.jpgvlcsnap-2012-04-21-23h49m39s54.jpgvlcsnap-2012-04-21-23h52m02s220.jpgvlcsnap-2012-04-21-23h56m11s222.jpg
 
Kholi said:
Probably won't unless I can get footage to show as well. Don't think it would be fair. xD I'll see if I can at least get something, though.
Click to expand...

if there is no proof, it didn't happen. For all we know, the sony's were better than anything else in the test. I'd like to see the proof before taking your stated findings with anything more than a pinch of salt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top