Hmmm . . . I just dropped in to put in a shameless plug for my 10-18mm in B&S . . .
Oh, well, I'll share my
subjective evaluation, based on how, what, and when I shoot.
To give the Fuji a totally fair shake, I shot with it for eight straight days without touching my NEX-7.
It is a great camera, fun to use, and can do ISO 2000 jpegs that can be cropped at 50% or more without really needing NR applied.
BUT the comparatively slow shutter speeds I get even when I bump up the ISO makes me wonder if Fuji just sort of made up its own ISO scale. This circumstance seems to be exacerbated by longer glass, calling attention to the fact that Fuji has so far introduced only relatively short glass for X mount.
After a while, in overcast or dim light I just used shutter priority with auto ISO set to a ceiling of 3200. Details seemed okay up to about ISO 2000, but what I
really love about the IQ is the image
texture. There's none of the smearing that one sometimes sees--without rhyme or reason--in the NEX-7 at ISO 800 and up.
In moderate to wide shots, properly focused and assuming one is using a lens that can resolve the sensor, the Fuji gives incredibly sharp, detailed images that can actually be upsampled by 20% or more.
Other than slower-than-usual shutter speeds on longer glass, I also noticed that the X-trans sensor's colors (and contrast in moderate to low light) just cannot compare with Sony's when using my R- and M-mount glass. I've observed this on some pics shared in the Fuji forum as well, including a few shared by bro Thoth that were shot with his 35mm Summilux. Some of the B&W shots have less contrast than a Soviet-bloc lens assembled on a Monday after a long holiday weekend.
In fact, Fuji can't match their own film color with the Velvia setting even with saturation set to +2. Images look a bit washed out compared to pics shot on Velvia film.
The "mini-moire" or "shimmer" (or whatever its real name is) that you see in the viewfinder when something is in focus yields sharp shots on wide and moderate glass. On longer glass (>90mm), it can sometimes be deceptive, giving shots that are almost-but-not-quite sharply focused. The 10X magnification setting is relatively useless on longer glass because the frame in the EVF doesn't refresh quickly enough. NEX-7's EVF works far better on longer glass, and focus peaking is a BIG advantage for getting critically sharp images.
For accessibility of controls/ergonomics, it's a toss-up. Both are great. For handling, even though I added the Fuji grip to my X-E1, I still find the NEX much easier to steady for one-handed macro shooting.
Assuming Fuji set out to make a digital rangefinder to be used primarily with native lenses <=90mm, they did a great job. And I'd be curious to see if there's any firmware-generated improvement in Leica glass IQ when their M to X adapter is used instead of a generic one.
So . . . for anything in good light, especially with long glass, the NEX-7 is the better choice. For stunning image texture with short glass in moderate to low light, the X-E1 is hard to beat. I favor the NEX-7 because I do most of my shooting in good light. But the X-E1 is great to have because it excels at what the NEX can't do.
And just to keep my post "legal," here are a couple of shots . . .
X-E1 at ISO 800 with no NR applied (the lone Daurian Redstart, current celebrity at Gardens by the Bay)
FTR, it looks like Photobucket f**ked up both color and detail in this shot. GRRRRRR!!!
NEX-7 at ISO 400 showing some detail loss (male pink-necked green pigeon)
