Sensor Size & Versatility

Started Apr 2, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Forum ProPosts: 11,977Gear list
Re: Sensor Size & Versatility
In reply to Biggs23, Apr 3, 2013

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Jorginho wrote:

It can't do it all.

It can do pretty much anything a comparable DSLR/DSLT can. However, it will be a tall order to reverse that.

No, it can't, depending on what you mean by 'comparable' anyway. It can't do a LOT of things that a FF dSLR can.

"Comparable" to me entails not ignoring that fact. But if you believe that DSLR lose ground when you compare the comparables, and that a NEX should be compared to cameras with larger sensor and feature set, then, you're welcome to keep repeating that.

I am an excellent reader and have a thorough understanding of the English language but I cannot make heads or tails of that reply.

Well, just keep repeating that we should be comparing NEX with APS-C sensors to DSLRs with FF sensor, as they are comparable, and you will be doing your job.

No long zooms available.

Non-issue to me. It is extremely rare for me to feel the need for anything past 135mm (200mm equivalent). In some of these cases above, are the few moments I go to 200mm or better.

A non-issue for YOU, but not for a lot of other people. That's just one of the the things it can't do.

I prefer to speak for self more than for others. Is that a bad thing? That being said, I was using a 200mm f/2.8 in most of the shots I posted earlier. You'd need a 300mm lens on FF for that.

But the thread was about versatility in general, not versatility for you. See the difference?

My point being that I'm not sitting and complaining.

Sony lenses for the NEx cannot do what DSLR lenses can in that department. Samsung and m43s have better IQ in general, a lot better and m43s has a much longer focal length. But even these are not where DSLR systems are yet.

Sony NEX can do more than a comparable DSLR can.

Again with this 'comparable' thing. What's your definition of 'comparable'? The dictionary definition of 'comparable' just means 'able to be compared', which means that ALL dSLR's and SLT's are comparable.

I assume then you never use the word "comparable", or have seen use of it? Yes, you can compare anything, and go bonkers completely eliminating perspective, to fit your whim. A medium format camera is a camera and so is a point and shoot. Your limits may be reached with them both being a camera, mine investigate greater details.

Again, this is near incomprehensible. I'm comparing FF dSLR's to NEX and other MILC's. To me they are comparable. Do you disagree?

Disagree? I LOVE it that you must.

To repeat, I can if I were to carry just one camera today, for its versatility, Sony NEX-6 would be my pick. Not any comparable DSLR, not any DSLT. And forget m4/3 and lesser cameras.

But what does what YOU would choose have anything to do with the original question?


Right, but you're arguing against versatility so I'm confused. You're arguing for a camera system that's LESS versatile, not more.

Yes, you're confused. I'm telling that if I had to live with just one camera, I would pick NEX-6. It can be a small go to system, or I can go shoot sports with it. It is not a "specialty" camera.

For that matter, I asked you this question in another response above: Are zoom lenses more versatile than primes? Explain why you think so.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
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