RX100 compromise the viability of Micro 4/3s ????

Started Aug 7, 2012 | Discussions thread
peevee1
Senior MemberPosts: 4,106Gear list
Like?
Re: Why the RX100 is a bad compromise...
In reply to SHood, Aug 8, 2012

Room where? RX100 is thin, only 36 mm thick, and most of it is screen, electronics, sensor, shutter, and there has to be some distance between rear element and the sensor assembly too. And it is power zoom! In my thought experiment I proposed NOT making it any thicker. But even if it a fee mm more for no reason, it is not a big problem.

SHood wrote:

That would only work with a fixed zoom camera, not m43. There is not enough room for the folding optics with a lens mount.

An ILC will never be as compact as a fixed lens camera.

peevee1 wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

Where are the equivalence freaks when you need them? They would have a field day with the tiny sensor in the rx100: "I think you'll find that f1.8 with that sensor is equivalent to f3.2 on micro four thirds

f/2.5. And that is a problem for the current m43 lineup, as even 14/2.5 on GF5 cannot beat that.

I hope it will finally push Olu and Pana managers to do what had to be done all alone, and release proper kit zooms for their m43 (something like foldable 12-60 f/2-4). And I hope they do it before it is too late.

See, if you simply take RX100 lens design and make every element 36% wider (but not thicker) to cover larger m43 imaging circle, you end up with something like m43 12-40/1.8-4.9, weighing around 150g and folding to 1-2 cm and costing around $250-$300 retail (and having 40% better resolution as measured in lp/ph). Wouldn't you like something like this instead of the pen-like 12-50/6.3? And specialized design can achieve even better results.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow