For Sony 18-105:
Wishes remain operated at NEX5N for me hardly open, the image quality of this combination is simply fantastic and the RX10 far ahead, even the otherwise great PEN PL5 with what is mentioned Pana can there still high, but not regarding picture effect keep up. That I must return, waive some WW and telephoto opposite the RX10, I suppose for BQ, image effects and simply the great tactile experience gladly accept that lack of light intensity equal to the much larger sensor of NEX and the visibly better high-ISO capability loose out. The JPEG conversion of NEX is the RX think (much less aggressive treatment). What's more me hurts the very poor close range; smaller than about a postcard you get not full into the picture. Here you realize that it was just yet developed primarily for filmmakers, where hardly matters. What the hell - I put this parallel my good old Oly XZ-1 in the pocket that does the perfection :-)
Found In terms of feel the 18-105 in the 5n a congenial partner; as this is also the 18-105 working at its best, fine satin brushed aluminum and rich current zoom and focus rings, a completely silent E-Zoom, so sensitively linked to the zoom ring that it feels have done almost manually (the biggest criticism for me. at the RX10, where the E-Zoom is implemented catastrophic and totally unkind) For this, a lightning-fast AF come (not on the 5N, which is nunmal lame, but at the store briefly tested Alpha 6000 a dream) and a highly efficient operating stability.
The optical imaging properties are excellent, already the maximum aperture delivers very sharp images in the center, with stopping down to 5.6 s is knackscharf over the entire image area. Whether the objective listed as elsewhere faulted, I can not judge that corrects the 5N unabschaltbar, but I can no disadvantage from their resolution notice. The possible even with only "f / 4 Unschärfespielchen exceed the possibilities of the MFT PEN with the Pana Zoom significantly, but the bokeh in front blur is a bit restless, as quick to form double lines, but can act interfere only with corresponding motifs, otherwise the image effect is as I said fantastic.
Where Sony at the RX10 has so much desired and not very skillfully so much, the engineers have here fortunately limited to a meaningful focal range without extremes at both ends with a moderate but still above-average light intensity. For but a quality has been implemented, which makes the proclaimed price almost appear as a special offer. With a used 5N for today ca 200 the combination costs currently less than 700; for this money, I find nothing even remotely like it when AF speed and liquid operation not play a major role (that's more expensive then the Alpha 6000).
A disadvantage of the discussed here is the combination quite unbalanced size ratio lens - Body; you could almost overlook the fact that the lens already a camera connected ;-) But it can indeed not the objective. Size default fitting are certainly the 6000 or NEX6 and 7 etc, but I'm perfectly clear with my 5N. Very positive is also significant that the lens does not unload when zooming, what else would extremely top-heavy.
What I however really pissed regurgitates, is the greatly increased on-time at my NEX5N, the 16-50 is this almost instantaneously ready to fire, the 18,105 it takes up to 5 (!) Seconds until Madame is ready (firmware is up to date) , This can eat away at the patience even with entschleunigter enjoyment Photography at the Museum, through snapshots of dog children sports because you need to think even never. For this, I subtract one point, I would be interested if it's at Andren Nexen also the case, get the 6000 in the store I unfortunately turned into my hands.
Videos, so the actual profession of 18105, I angetestet merely incidental; for my amateur standards here fall this out wonderful, and especially the stability and the gentle, alternative to the ring via a sliding rocker-use zoom (you should anyway not the movies ...) contribute to beautiful videos, the constant light intensity should cineastes also appreciate learning.
In short, 4 stars, not only for filmmakers, but also and especially for still photography, 1 star deduction because of unreasonably long switch-going, but still consider that if this is better reached by other Nexen and then correct my review if necessary.
