I hope those shots were made with the in-camera distortion and aberration control switched off...

I guess so, because CA are there. But on the other hand, I don't know if that feature is switchable.

DPReview reveals it to be so. The option is on page 5 of the Custom Menu; aberration, distortion, and shading compensation are each independently switchable between "Auto" and "Off."

You're not wrong! They all look very soft. I would sooner go back to my a100, faults and all! It does look like 24mp is just a jump too far.

I was surprised by the enthusiasm (regarding previous reviews) DPR shown on the NEX3N review. And I kept my surprise when I read the NEX7/A preview, until I got to the samples page... Other than the "artistic" quality of those samples, or the proper use of the new lens, the exposure is wrong. My Monitor is calibrated for printing, but even on different monitors I see those samples underexposed... are they trying to send a hidden message to Sony? in any case, this doesn't surprise me at all from DPR

Same goes with this new samples Andy is recommending -the only pics with something sharp on it are the one with the girl, the ones with the (supposedly excellent ) 70-400 are quite soft, and everything is underexposed. I've seen better samples from the Jet-sky and other aquatic sports...

Whatever: I think we better wait until production cameras (and new kit lens) hit the shelves before kill this camera because the noisy images.

Just a quick point Pako, I'm not "recommending" them - just pointing out they are there with raws.

We seem to get the same poor samples and furore with every major Sony release!

Andy

As for now, it does not matter whether or not in camera lens correction is on or off, because it is not functional on the pre-production models that dpreview or imaging re source had. It also is not worth fretting too much about noise as the firmware version is 0.58.

I looked at the IR website images and don't see why eveyong thinks the IQ is so horrible - especially considering this is not final processing software.

Need to wait for version 1.0 not judge by V 0.58

Also, on Imaging resource, the full exif labels the compression as ... Jpeg(old style) This is not normally like that is it? It specifically says--> Jpeg (old style) <-- just like so. And also, Long exposure NR is on. And NR is set to Normal, not low. Best to set it at low. So, when I've been viewing the 'comparometer' there at Imaging resource, I always keep these things in mind, and the images appear pretty darn good under these circumstances. As for some of the Dpreview images, the exposure system of the camera was definately challenged, but any camera would be. The scene of the grove of trees with the lake, that's a tough one, also, the sun is shining on the water toward the camera in a couple other situations(backlit), I take this into consideration and see potential, not a metering system flaw. I think the photographer was deliberately pushing it, without ill intentions, but to demonstrate the metering. *( well, the 'old style' is labeled like that for a580, a35 etc. , just never heard of it before. 'old style'.)* what does that mean anyway? what's the new style? Edit again, I'll answer my own question, Old style is just about any jpeg compression that isn't jpeg 2000, basically. Jpeg 2000 is being abandoned and had round artifacts rather than blocks. No big whoop.

I found a reference to ‘old style jpeg’ but not ‘JPEG (old style)’ unfortunately. It’s described as TIFF compression type 6 and has many problems according to what the article said below, apparently new style jpeg is TIFF compression type 7 and is much better....so there you have it, you now know as much as me about old style jpeg, i.e. not much.
Greg
http://www.alternatiff.com/alternatiff.html

Thanks greg, yes, basically there is nothing to the 'old style' label, it's just not the ' new style', lol.

Could it be a simple case of Sony, having set it NR levels to high and applying to much NR to RAW has well?
Seems like most reviews for most Alphas have commented that "normal" and "High" are just to heavy and a lot say "low" is to heavy has well?

Don't know why sony refuse to give us a simple 0,1,2,3,4,5 levels of NR, then everyone can chose what the like?
Also should NR ever be applied to RAW?

My initial reaction looking through images was that the 16-50 was not doing the images any good, though it's not the cause of all problems with the images as those with other quality lenses have problems too, just less problems.

Good thing a 16-50 zoom range is not my cup of tea

It's also worth noting that Sony has had many years to perfect the software for this camera. It looks like they learned nothing about jpeg processing in all that time. A couple months more is not much more time in light of how long they have had.

One should also think about the experience levels of the folks shooting these samples. Most undoubtedly don't routinely shoot jpegs and that may account for some missed settings with the samples. They are simply unfamiliar with how to optimize jpeg shooting with the camera. Why rushed out early samples should be taken with a grain of salt....

Walt

Well said Walt and good to see you back after a long absence. Your thoughts are always appreciated. I am also adopting a wait and see approach. I cannot believe that Sony have goofed so spectacularly after having presented us with a series of excellent cameras (IQ) of late. Personally I own the A550, A580 and NEX-5 of the more recent releases and I have absolutely no complaints about the end results.
The reviews of the NEX-5N IQ outputs are VG to say the least. Let's wait and see what seasoned operators can get out of the 24Mp cams using proper RAW conversion software. These are not primarily Jpeg type cameras anyway.

The question that comes to mind is why these same people seem to have so much less trouble shooting jpeg photos for their reviews with Canon, Nikon, etc.?