# Sony NEX-5N Camera



## jack pauhl

Taking photos without a flash of painted surfaces has never been easy for me. It's very difficult to capture true sheens, true wall colors, wall imperfections, wall textures, ceiling textures, porous primer coats, brush marks, sprayed finishes etc. With windows all over the house pushing glare on everything makes it more challenging. 

I sold off all my camera equipment for a Sony NEX-5n and its been great at taking no flash photos in these houses. I've snapped pics of everything imaginable and every single photo came out with perfect clarity and true color. The sheens of trim paint even look true. 

Here are some samples. This photo below was taken with an overhead 60w tradition light bulb with no flash.



Nice amount of the room captured in the next two shots. Stock lens. Thats wet paint on the walls, thats why it looks funny.





This next one was taken in front of a slider patio door. True color.





This last one was taken with the patio slider at the end of the wall.



These photos were not edited. These pics look best on an iPhone or mac unless you have a calibrated display.


----------



## PatsPainting

I dunno, I don't really see anything special about these photos. I guess they look good.

Pat


----------



## NEPS.US

Those roller marks would show up with any camera.


----------



## jack pauhl

PatsPainting said:


> I dunno, I don't really see anything special about these photos. I guess they look good.
> 
> Pat


I would think to get the best view of them you would need to view them on a calibrated display. They are true color as if looking at them on my iPhone or mac and looking at them IRL, they match. Ive never been able to do that before but always wanted to show true wall colors and sheens. This camera opens up so many new possibilities for posting job photos and 1080 videos. I'll be able to do much more with the Sony. Best of all my photos will not need edited, saving me time. 

Maybe should have posted them in original size 4912 x 3264 pixels. Even at 900 pixels, looks good.


----------



## jack pauhl

NEPS.US said:


> Those roller marks would show up with any camera.


haha... this builder likes to patch things up. That wall ended up getting more mud than seen in the iPhone photo below. I think thats mud flashing as it dries. For what he wanted, I told him to level 5 it and be done. It gets good sun.


----------



## Paint and Hammer

I like that camera style also. 

Didn't you have a Canon T2i before? Your "natural" or "true" colour could be achieved with that camera. 

Simply understanding white balance and adjusting to the right Kelvin will get you your "true" colour.


----------



## MonPeintre.ca

jack pauhl said:


> Taking photos without a flash of painted surfaces has never been easy for me. It's very difficult to capture true sheens, true wall colors, wall imperfections, wall textures, ceiling textures, porous primer coats, brush marks, sprayed finishes etc. With windows all over the house pushing glare on everything makes it more challenging.
> 
> I sold off all my camera equipment for a Sony NEX-5n and its been great at taking no flash photos in these houses. I've snapped pics of everything imaginable and every single photo came out with perfect clarity and true color. The sheens of trim paint even look true.
> 
> Here are some samples. This photo below was taken with an overhead 60w tradition light bulb with no flash.
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jackpauhl/6497509947/
> 
> Nice amount of the room captured in the next two shots. Stock lens. Thats wet paint on the walls, thats why it looks funny.
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jackpauhl/6508570177/
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jackpauhl/6508571329/
> 
> This next one was taken in front of a slider patio door. True color.
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jackpauhl/6508570591/
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jackpauhl/6508570989/
> 
> This last one was taken with the patio slider at the end of the wall.
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jackpauhl/6508571705/
> 
> These photos were not edited. These pics look best on an iPhone or mac unless you have a calibrated display.


How much does it sell for?


----------



## jack pauhl

Paint and Hammer said:


> I like that camera style also.
> 
> Didn't you have a Canon T2i before? Your "natural" or "true" colour could be achieved with that camera.
> 
> Simply understanding white balance and adjusting to the right Kelvin will get you your "true" colour.


Yes I had the T2i for photos and a Powershot for video. I was never able to get the color right. I fooled with AUTO and everything in-between including custom WB. I have no idea what I was doing wrong but all my pics with the T2i lack true color. I shot most in Natural and played around with RGB color profiles, calibrated my PC display etc. It was so much screwing around it made blogging a huge chore because I am usually taking pics of things I want to show accuracy. It became a workflow nightmare.

What I liked about the NEX5n was that it handles all that with no user input from me in an acceptable way for the blog. I'm anxious to get stuff posted but it will not be until later Jan or Feb before I get back on the site. No time.


----------



## jack pauhl

MonPeintre.ca said:


> How much does it sell for?


$599 and $699 depending where you shop, I paid $600


----------



## Paint and Hammer

jack pauhl said:


> Yes I had the T2i for photos and a Powershot for video. I was never able to get the color right. I fooled with AUTO and everything in-between including custom WB. I have no idea what I was doing wrong but all my pics with the T2i lack true color. I shot most in Natural and played around with RGB color profiles, calibrated my PC display etc. It was so much screwing around it made blogging a huge chore because I am usually taking pics of things I want to show accuracy. It became a workflow nightmare.
> 
> What I liked about the NEX5n was that it handles all that with no user input from me in an acceptable way for the blog. I'm anxious to get stuff posted but it will not be until later Jan or Feb before I get back on the site. No time.


I hear ya...I just wrote a bunch of stuff about factory settings.....then deleted it....

Do some reading on lighting, here's an article on colour temperature. A basic understanding of Kelvins I will help you with finding true colour. 

http://www.illustratedphotography.com/basic-photography/basic-color-temperature

What I really like about that Sony is the size.


----------



## jack pauhl

Paint and Hammer said:


> I hear ya...I just wrote a bunch of stuff about factory settings.....then deleted it....
> 
> Do some reading on lighting, here's an article on colour temperature. A basic understanding of Kelvins I will help you with finding true colour.
> 
> http://www.illustratedphotography.com/basic-photography/basic-color-temperature
> 
> What I really like about that Sony is the size.


Love the size but with the stock lens and the small hand grip... the weight of the lens tends to force you to really put effort into one handed shots to keep it level. Im ok with that but thought worth mentioning. I'm sure it will become easier over time. Its like picking up a light dumbbell and holding it on the end while trying to keep it level. Its a pretty small grip.

There are several other lens available. The 16mm F2.8 is pretty badass for wide shots. I'll get some posted. Thats a tiny lens. It stick out about 1" from the camera body. Plus, there are some non-Sony lenses coming out soon. I believe one manufacturer is looking for testers at a discounted price. 

Also, the NEX3 produces the same quality pics for a bunch less. You get a few less features and no pull out tilt display. I had to have that because I take many pics overhead or near the floor and need to see what Im pointing at.


----------



## jack pauhl

What I mean by true color is ... true color as you see it in the room and lighting in which it was taken. What I find really cool about the first photo of the Mirka pad is that photo is exactly what it looked like in a very dimly lit room as I sat next to it on the floor. Mirka yellow doesn't look like that if you took it outside. The yellow on the pad is actually very bright yellow. 

I posted the original file on flickr. You have to click the preview photo on flickr then it takes you to a new page with same photo on black background. In the upper right there is an option to view other sizes. 

Check out the bull dog water mark on the Mirka pad. It captured that in low light.


----------



## jack pauhl

This is the 16mm f2.8 lens


----------



## JNLP

Wow was just discussing the NEX-5N and telling her I think that's what I want if she wants those diamond earings for Christmas. I wanna jump back to being able to swap lenses for my many different journeys, and this thing is sweet after playing with it for a LONG time in the store. I do not like the flash situation though so have been in many debates with myself about it.

My main thing is the color difference in photos. It's amazing the difference a cam like that will produce both color/contrast wise verse even the best P&S cams out there. Noticing it now sorting my Disney photos. Their quality was amazing but my captures were the sh!t. Gotta combine the two. :yes:


----------



## NEPS.US

Jack - Did you keep the stock lense or did you upgrade? Is a wide angle needed?


----------



## jack pauhl

NEPS.US said:


> Jack - Did you keep the stock lense or did you upgrade? Is a wide angle needed?


Stock 18-55mm F3.5-5.7 OSS. The 16m F2.8 is also nice, $250 extra. I do not believe I have any 16mm to post. I can take some in a house monday if you are curious.


----------



## jack pauhl

Do you guys see any pics posted in #1? Its showing the pics are missing on my end.


----------



## NEPS.US

jack pauhl said:


> do you guys see any pics posted in #1? Its showing the pics are missing on my end.


nope


----------



## jack pauhl

Thanks. No idea what happened.


----------



## NEPS.US

jack pauhl said:


> Stock 18-55mm F3.5-5.7 OSS. The 16m F2.8 is also nice, $250 extra. I do not believe I have any 16mm to post. I can take some in a house monday if you are curious.


What does the 16m do?


----------



## daArch

jack pauhl said:


> Stock 18-55mm F3.5-5.7 OSS. The 16m F2.8 is also nice, $250 extra. I do not believe I have any 16mm to post. I can take some in a house monday if you are curious.


Is that 18 - 55 35mm equivalent?


----------



## jack pauhl

Bill if I recall to get 35 equiv had to be with 55-200 lens. Don't quote me. 

Chris, 16m is wider


----------



## daArch

I think you may have misunderstood my question. I'll have to read the specs carefully and see what that 18MM focal plane equals in a 35mm film format.

Looks like a sweet little camera. The progess is amazing in digital photography.

About 8 years ago I told my cousin and her husband that they would soon be shooting all digital (they are high end professionals) They scoffed at me. 

You should see what they have now, and NOTHING is film. All top line Nikons


----------



## daArch

Chris,

The lower the lens focal length (14mm, 16mm, 18mm) the wider the angle. And as you get lower, the more distortion there is along the edges, which can be either pleasing or displeasing. But more things are in focus - longer depth of field.


----------



## jack pauhl

Bill, off spec.

Focal Length (35mm equivalent) : 27mm-82.5mm (35mm equivalent)

more explanation you'll probably understand here on drpreview


----------



## NEPS.US

daArch said:


> Chris,
> 
> The lower the lens focal length (14mm, 16mm, 18mm) the wider the angle. And as you get lower, the more distortion there is along the edges, which can be either pleasing or displeasing. But more things are in focus - longer depth of field.


 
Great info. I am thinking of a wider angle lens to capture long spans at closer ranges.


----------



## daArch

jack pauhl said:


> Bill, off spec.
> 
> Focal Length (35mm equivalent) : 27mm-82.5mm (35mm equivalent)
> 
> more explanation you'll probably understand here on drpreview


thank you. A 27 mm equiv is a nice format. Wider than the 35 and without noticeable distortion. When I was doing 35 mm film, my favorite lens was my 28mm. 

My estimate camera is a 22 equiv, which is good for ESTIMATES, but distorts too much for my liking for presentations.


----------



## jack pauhl

daArch said:


> thank you. A 27 mm equiv is a nice format. Wider than the 35 and without noticeable distortion. When I was doing 35 mm film, my favorite lens was my 28mm.
> 
> My estimate camera is a 22 equiv, which is good for ESTIMATES, but distorts too much for my liking for presentations.


Were you into it for hobby or for business?


----------



## jack pauhl

Bill this was my first attempt at Manual mode shooting. I was kicked back on the couch reading how to shoot in the dark on the NEX5N. Only light I had was the light from the laptop. Bit of blur holding the camera but not bad. Helped me understand how manual mode works.


----------



## daArch

HEAVY hobby, more like addiction. Had my own darkroom. Couple of Nikon F's plus a Zeiss. Can't even remember how many lenses. I worked to support my addiction. 

Thought hard and long about going pro, decided I didn't want to take something I loved and ruin it by making it a job. May not have been my best decision, but I was like 20 then.


----------



## daArch

jack pauhl said:


> Bill this was my first attempt at Manual mode shooting. I was kicked back on the couch reading how to shoot in the dark on the NEX5N. Only light I had was the light from the laptop. Bit of blur holding the camera but not bad. Helped me understand how manual mode works.


did I read it had an auto stabilizer? If not, nice steady hand. About half a second exposure? (My cousin is funny, she's 65 and says she can still hold a long lens steady at 1/4 second. And I reply, "that must make Arnie happy, but how about the camera?"







)


----------



## jack pauhl

daArch said:


> May not have been my best decision, but I was like 20 then.


I've recently read other people into photography said the same thing. I wish I was into it. Just trying to learn what I can so I can take good pics or how to avoid taking bad ones. haha


----------



## jack pauhl

daArch said:


> did I read it had an auto stabilizer? If not, nice steady hand. About half a second exposure? (My cousin is funny, she's 65 and says she can still hold a long lens steady at 1/4 second. And I reply, "that must make Arnie happy, but how about the camera?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


Amazing Bill. 1/4 sec at f/11. Had my arms tucked to my side.


----------



## daArch

Margo and Arnie give classes to people who just wanna take better pix with the equip they have. If you're even slightly interested, I can give you contact info. They travel to "exotic" places to teach, and knowing them it's pricey. Their clientèle are people who are forever traveling to cool places and come home with crap photos. 

Listening to then prepare a syllabus is just amazing. They do know their sh!t.


----------



## jack pauhl

Bill, so with you being able to call that so close... are you able to just walk into a room and know what to dial in instantly?


----------



## daArch

jack pauhl said:


> Bill, so with you being able to call that so close... are you able to just walk into a room and know what to dial in instantly?


not any more.


----------



## jack pauhl

daArch said:


> Margo and Arnie give classes to people who just wanna take better pix with the equip they have. If you're even slightly interested, I can give you contact info. They travel to "exotic" places to teach, and knowing them it's pricey. Their clientèle are people who are forever traveling to cool places and come home with crap photos.
> 
> Listening to then prepare a syllabus is just amazing. They do know their sh!t.


That is interesting but I can see a niche for that.


----------



## jack pauhl

daArch said:


> not any more.


Does being able to do that come from repetition or what? I try to study metadata to see what I did in some situations when the photo came out decent in Auto then try that setting in manual and tweak it.


----------



## NEPS.US

Looks like the NEX-5N is on back order at all retail locations in my area. Leaning toward a Nikon J1 now.


----------



## jack pauhl

NEPS.US said:


> Looks like the NEX-5N is on back order at all retail locations in my area. Leaning toward a Nikon J1 now.


I have a hard time buying electronics especially TV's, Monitors, printers and cameras. I turn to sites like mentioned earlier dpreview and put a bit of time into reading up. The NEX5N received high ratings from many photographers.

Low light, no flash was my biggest concern. I also heard lenses were selling out too for the NEX5N. Wonder if Sony realized that camera was going to take off like it did. Adorama and B&H Photo are other places to order, Amazon.


----------



## NEPS.US

jack pauhl said:


> I have a hard time buying electronics especially TV's, Monitors, printers and cameras. I turn to sites like mentioned earlier dpreview and put a bit of time into reading up. The NEX5N received high ratings from many photographers.
> 
> Low light, no flash was my biggest concern. I also heard lenses were selling out too for the NEX5N. Wonder if Sony realized that camera was going to take off like it did. Adorama and B&H Photo are other places to order, Amazon.


The salesman at the photo shop said the factory where this model was made got hit by the tsunami. They are on back order everywhere.


----------



## daArch

Jack,

trial, error, and study helps one understand exposure without using a meter.

Back in the day, there were tables that gave certain lighting conditions and aperture/speed combinations suitable for a correct exposure. 

At one point in time, my "instincts" were trained well enough to be close. HOWEVER, digital photography does not have the same .....shall I call it "saturation" .... where there is as wide a range of acceptable exposure.

This, IMO, is the greatest detriment to digital photography.

This will not allow the same depth of lighting one sees in the great portraits by Yousuf Karsh, or landscapes by Ansel Adams when using present day digital photography. 

One needs to be more exacting with exposure (aperture and speed) to capture a digital pic than a film one, and even with perfect exposure, details are lost more quickly on both ends of the exposure range. 

I do suppose this is getting better as it is a well known limitation that the scientists MUST be working on.


----------



## JNLP

My 32GB iPad2 was returned, and I'm awaiting the NEX-5N. Gonna wait a month to see if they come out with another bundle that includes both the 18mm-55mm & the 16mm to save $100. If not, no biggie my b-day is close by. :thumbup:

On the note of iPad2. I bought my 4yo one and am almost regretting returning mine now. That thing is the sh!t!!! So many good apps. $50 in educational apps and I haven't seen her since. I no longer exist it's all about the iPad. That's ok a better one is coming out very shortly for me. :laughing:


----------



## Seattlepainting

daArch said:


> Jack,
> 
> trial, error, and study helps one understand exposure without using a meter.
> 
> Back in the day, there were tables that gave certain lighting conditions and aperture/speed combinations suitable for a correct exposure.
> 
> At one point in time, my "instincts" were trained well enough to be close. HOWEVER, digital photography does not have the same .....shall I call it "saturation" .... where there is as wide a range of acceptable exposure.
> 
> This, IMO, is the greatest detriment to digital photography.
> 
> This will not allow the same depth of lighting one sees in the great portraits by Yousuf Karsh, or landscapes by Ansel Adams when using present day digital photography.
> 
> One needs to be more exacting with exposure (aperture and speed) to capture a digital pic than a film one, and even with perfect exposure, details are lost more quickly on both ends of the exposure range.
> 
> I do suppose this is getting better as it is a well known limitation that the scientists MUST be working on.


Karsh and Adam's famous images were shot on 4x5 and 8x10 plates using numbers like f64 & f128..with LONG exp times; and usually printed by a world class lab/chemical guy (lost art)....so your comparison might confuse Jack.

What you mean to say instead of "saturation" is "latitude". Film has latitude (give and take) and can be adjusted when a picture is printed. E6 (slide film) was famous for a wide range of latitude for Cibachrome printing.

Pro-sumer digital cameras publish JPEGS; camera captures light on sensor and publishes with on-board software . This is much like old polariod cameras that pushed "out" a finished picture...one and done. The digital equivalent to film is RAW...the digital information is not published into a JPEG but stored as a RAW file. Photoshop will publish RAW...and you have have control just like the the old masters in the dark room (sharpen, tone, increase dynamic range). Many cameras now have RAW format.

Jack wants to capture better images in low light..the million dollar question.
Expensive answer: Full Frame Sensor (5DM II), Fast prime lenses 50mm 1.4
Cheaper answer: Improve lighting with portables or use upgraded lighting.

In good lighting an iphone can capture great pictures.

The still picture on this page was taken with a Metz 5CA (huge flash) and diffusion.. because not even 5k worth of camera gear can overcome low light.
http://www.shearerpainting.com/blog/interior-painting/woodstain/ 

here is the final word www.photo.net


----------



## jack pauhl

The most common lighting in these houses is a single 75 or 100w soft white bulb in a porcelain fixture, if it has any light at all. Many times my pics are taken in rooms with only daylight and glare from the windows.


----------



## daArch

thank you Seattle.

I do know what the greats like Karsh and Adams used, and their equipment and processes far exceeded the limitation of 35mm film and my darkroom. (took a lot of anguishing hours in the darkroom before I figured THAT one out  ) I was just using them as examples of what film can do. 

I was NOT aware that RAW has the "latitude" (thank you for the correct term) that film does. I now have something to play with and compare (my D-40 will take RAW). I have just always heard, read, and noticed that digital does not have the latitude as film, but I've always shot with jpg.

you posted some good info for me to study.


----------



## daArch

jack pauhl said:


> The most common lighting in these houses is a single 75 or 100w soft white bulb in a porcelain fixture, if it has any light at all. Many times my pics are taken in rooms with only daylight and glare from the windows.


Jack,

I assume you will be willing, able, and even eager to experiment with exposures to obtain the best results.


I do not think I posted these pix when we last discussed lighting about a year and a half ago.

This was a little experiment I did with artificial light, existing light from the window, and adjusting the flash output (which your camera may or may not do - read the manual). These four were taken within an hour on an overcast afternoon. (they are of my office, so I had the whole day to play)

This first one was with only natural light coming through the window:










.


this second one was with the electric lights on (CFL's) 










.

the third is the auto camera flash and no electric lights










.

and the last one is with the electric lights (CFL's) and the camera flash with manually adjusted output (trial and error)










.

I have my favorite one, but I won't influence your opinion. But I do ask that you compare color, hot spots, dark voids, details (embossed ceiling paper), composition, and what elements are exposed correctly.

Now obviously professional know how to set lights up to give professional results, but us amateurs CAN achieve better results with experimentation. Or as like to think of it, play time.


----------



## PatsPainting

I like the last one Bill - To me its the more real looking photo out of the bunch

Pat


----------



## daArch

PatsPainting said:


> I like the last one Bill - To me its the more real looking photo out of the bunch
> 
> Pat


Thank you Pat.

OK, I'll let my preference known. 

Me too. That's why it was the last one I showed :thumbup:


----------



## Seattlepainting

Bill, That is a good lighting series..

If you use Photoshop the RAW converter is much better that the Canon programmed RAW converter; you will need to update for your specific Camera.

The main advantage for me using RAW is adjusting color cast (artificial yellow light) in a non destructive way (all other post output image programs including photoshop destroy pixels and increase noise).

Good luck with RAW; I think photo.net has good info on it.


----------



## daArch

John, 

I tried one last night. First it wouldn't download directly from my camera. I had to take the card out and access it with a USB card holder. The Photoshop window that came up with the pic had some very interesting capabilities. There's gonna be some learning curve there . And being a Nikon, it's a NEF file, which from just researching quickly, presents it's own issues for being read. Luckily a copy of CS2 wandered out of the woods a few years back looking for a good home, so I can play. But I have no love affair with anything Adobe. Their software tries to be "everything for everybody", which makes it bloated and cumbersome

I'm gonna need to do a LOT of studying and experimentation.

I did like the way I could adjust so many aspects of the pic.

I quickly visited photo.net, but got lost on the home page.


----------



## jack pauhl

Thanks Bill. Nice comparison shots. The last one looks nice, that would be ideal. For example if you were to take the same scenario you have and get a closeup of the finish on the trim next to the window. A tripod is always with me although I rarely bring it in unless a particular shot is needed. Most of my pics are random, in the moment type shots. Something might catch my eye and I'll snap it.

Thanks for posting those pics.


----------



## jack pauhl

Bill, Ideally it would be great to take natural daylight shots similar to what you did on the last photo.

Another common shot would be how you see the reflection in the wall from a window at one end. Here are two common shots i would like to master.

This example being for sheen type shots



And shots like this below. Similar but focus on detail. In this example this was to expose porosity inconsistencies. 



These two were hand-held quick shots probably in Auto. I'll try some various tripod stills on these same scenarios and see what the NEX5N does. I'll be doing a Kilz ProX shoot on Thursday and Friday just like the above pics. I'll do them RAW too. I've been playing around with Adobe Lightroom lately for importing RAW pics. Very powerful program.


----------



## daArch

Yes Jack,

It all depends on what you are trying to show. Obviously those two shots are for instructional use and not to sell the quality of finish.

I understand Lightroom is a powerful program and have been advised by Margo & Arnie to use it (they instruct their students to get a copy), but I do have SUCH a negative (pun intended) feeling about Adobe that I wouldn't even adopt it if it stumbled onto my computer after being lost and homeless in the woods.

I suppose I will need to succumb soon. So I may as well set the traps and capture (also intended) a copy.


----------



## Seattlepainting

*Lightroom*

Jack, if you have Lightroom you will not need PS. I have it installed also but I have habits so I just use Photoshop. The RAW converter in Lightroom is the same a photoshop if I am not mistaken....moreover you can batch edit ex:

you have completed a shoot but the images are a bit too yellow cast. Edit one of them and duplicate the adjustment for the series.

I like the "stacks" in lightroom so instead of looking at 120 pics of the smith job you can sort stack.."kitchen", "master", etc.

I got de-railed from lightroom b/c its wants to handle your video also and when it does it CRAWLS.


----------



## daArch

John,

Are there other programs that help adjust and convert RAW files?


----------



## NEPS.US

Well in my frustration of no real confirmations of delivery dates on the NEX-5N I purchased the NEX C3 for a month long project we started today. While the 5N has a few more bells and whistles, none of which I will notice for work pictures, I decided to try the C3. The main difference is the ISO range. 5N 100-25600 to C3's 200-12800. Both of these are off the charts from what I have read and from what I plan on using the camera for I do not think the difference will matter. I plan on putting it to use tomorrow to see if I like it. 

In addition to the standard 18-55 lense I got the 16 as well plus the Ultra Wide Converter. The Ultra Wide Converter really seems makes a big difference. Hopefully I will be able to post some pics soon.


----------



## daArch

I am looking forward to those.


----------



## JNLP

NEPS.US said:


> Well in my frustration of no real confirmations of delivery dates on the NEX-5N I purchased the NEX C3 for a month long project we started today. While the 5N has a few more bells and whistles, none of which I will notice for work pictures, I decided to try the C3. The main difference is the ISO range. 5N 100-25600 to C3's 200-12800. Both of these are off the charts from what I have read and from what I plan on using the camera for I do not think the difference will matter. I plan on putting it to use tomorrow to see if I like it.
> 
> In addition to the standard 18-55 lense I got the 16 as well plus the Ultra Wide Converter. The Ultra Wide Converter really seems makes a big difference. Hopefully I will be able to post some pics soon.


I would like to see a sample of the 16mm with & without the Ultra Wide Converter if you ever get a chance.

Finally picked up the NEX5N with 18-55mm & a 16mm yesterday. Thing is pretty awesome. Now debating very hard if I want to get the 55-210mm or the 18-200mm? Probably save the cash and get the 55-210mm as it will be a more rarely used item that swapping out won't be a problem with. :thumbsup:


----------

