Sony RX10 is interesting for m4/3 users Locked

Started 10 months ago | Discussions
This thread is locked.
Dheorl
Senior MemberPosts: 2,073Gear list
Re: Fine, it fills a niche
In reply to dougjgreen1, 10 months ago

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

I can see why a lot of people won't be interested in it, i just don't see why people refuse to see if fills a niche which until now has gone unfilled.

But it's a very small, even miniscule niche.

I would have said a fixed lens camera with a decent length zoom and a sensor bigger than the one in my phone is a fair sized niche. The introduction price can be debated til hell freezes over, it's one of a kind so sony clearly just set the price at what they thought would sell. I have enough money that I'm happily buying one. Not to mentioned the fact that it will also seemingly make a much more passable video tool than any other fixed lens camera, oh yea, and the weather sealing

Dheorl
Senior MemberPosts: 2,073Gear list
Re: Jumping ship?
In reply to dougjgreen1, 10 months ago

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

But the m43 system can't be tailored to exactly what i personally need. I need a weather sealed kit that goes from 24-200mm and doesn't make a huge dent in my backpack or hand luggage. The closest thing is the EM5 with the 2 panny zooms, and that takes up considerably more space than an RX10, and requires me changing lenses when I'm out in inclement weather, which not having to do would be great.

Fine so you're the one person on earth for whom the RX10 is EXACTLY what you need. The fact is, Most folks need something that's slightly different, and for ANYTHING that's the least bit different, you can't change the RX10 to meet what is needed.

But it still might be closer to what is needed than is attainable through configuring a camera system. I doubt sony would have gone to all the effort of designing a new camera if it would only appeal to me.

Just about EVERYONE who shoots in inclement weather will occasionally need wider than 24mm, or longer than 200mm. Or faster than f2.8. If you NEVER do, then go ahead and buy the RX10.

Really? So you've spoken to just about everyone who shoots in inclement weather? Because I know a substantial number as unless they're pros or wildlife enthusiasts they never seem bothered about much outside that range.

dougjgreen1
Senior MemberPosts: 2,056Gear list
Re: Jumping ship?
In reply to Dheorl, 10 months ago

Dheorl wrote:

Really? So you've spoken to just about everyone who shoots in inclement weather? Because I know a substantial number as unless they're pros or wildlife enthusiasts they never seem bothered about much outside that range.

No, they are rationalizing - just as you are - you tailored your needs to what you could get.  If you could have gotten only 28mm on the wide end, or 300mm on the long end, that would have become your need.

The fact is, anyone who shoots much at 200mm wishes they could shoot at 300mm - unless they already can.

 dougjgreen1's gear list:dougjgreen1's gear list
Olympus Stylus XZ-10 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Nikon 1 V2 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5 +11 more
Dheorl
Senior MemberPosts: 2,073Gear list
Re: Jumping ship?
In reply to dougjgreen1, 10 months ago

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

Really? So you've spoken to just about everyone who shoots in inclement weather? Because I know a substantial number as unless they're pros or wildlife enthusiasts they never seem bothered about much outside that range.

No, they are rationalizing - just as you are - you tailored your needs to what you could get. If you could have gotten only 28mm on the wide end, or 300mm on the long end, that would have become your need.

No, if it started at 28 it would have been a lot less appealing to me.

The fact is, anyone who shoots much at 200mm wishes they could shoot at 300mm - unless they already can.

You really should stop using words like anyone when it comes to personal preferences.

Sean Nelson
Forum ProPosts: 10,078
Re: Jumping ship?
In reply to dougjgreen1, 10 months ago

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

But the m43 system can't be tailored to exactly what i personally need. I need a weather sealed kit that goes from 24-200mm and doesn't make a huge dent in my backpack or hand luggage. The closest thing is the EM5 with the 2 panny zooms, and that takes up considerably more space than an RX10, and requires me changing lenses when I'm out in inclement weather, which not having to do would be great.

The fact is, Most folks need something that's slightly different, and for ANYTHING that's the least bit different, you can't change the RX10 to meet what is needed. Just about EVERYONE who shoots in inclement weather will occasionally need wider than 24mm, or longer than 200mm. Or faster than f2.8. If you NEVER do, then go ahead and buy the RX10.

The Sony RX100 is very successful, and it's an even more limited tradeoff.   Not everyone needs or is willing to deal with / pay for the ultimate flexibility in a system.   If they were, we'd probably all be using FF cameras because they have the best range of lens options available.

For an all-in-one package, the RX10 covers a pretty decent range with image quality closer to M43 than to the small-sensor cameras, and that combination hits a sweet spot for some users.   That's no different than M43 hitting a sweet spot for others who want the flexibility that interchangeable lenses bring to the table.

sigala1
Senior MemberPosts: 3,235
YES!!! Now I get the RX10!
In reply to Henry Richardson, 10 months ago

Henry Richardson wrote:

The Sony RX10 has the same 20mp sensor as the Sony RX100 II that is well thought of and it has an equivalent 24-200mm f2.8 Zeiss lens. Having a package that includes the equivalent of a 24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 makes the $1200 price easier to take.

$1200 RX10

vs.

$1000 GX7
$1300 12-35mm f2.8
$1500 35-100mm f2.8

You can't change the lens on the RX10, but a lot of m4/3 people would be quite happy, I think, even if all they had were the 12-35mm and 35-100mm for their m4/3 camera.

I have read that the zoom-by-wire is poor because turning the zoom ring causes the focal length to change very slowly. Maybe that can be fixed in firmware? Still, this looks to be a very interesting camera. It isn't very small, but I can imagine that for some people this could be enticing. More dof, of course, than FF or APS-C and slightly more than m4/3, but that isn't a big deal for everyone.

I could see that some people might have an m4/3 body to use with a couple of fast single focal length lenses and the RX10 instead of buying the expensive 12-35mm and 35-100mm lenses.

-- hide signature --

Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

At first I thought, "huh?????"

But now I get it. For the same price as just a 35-100mm f/2.8 m43 lens, you can buy an RX10 that combines the 14-35mm lens and the 35-100mm lens into one, and comes with a FREE CAMERA to boot.

Now, f/2.8 on the 1" sensor is equivalent to f/3.8 on m43, but I don't know if that's really worth paying three times as much for and giving up the convenience of having one lens instead of two.

Also, we need to wait to see how well the Sony lens actually performs, but I suspect that it's going to be as sharp as the best m43 "Pro" or "X" lenses.

So now high-end m43 gear doesn't make much sense. Sony has the A7 + 24-70mm zoom which makes more sense than E-M1 + zoom for just a little bit more mney.

And for people who complain that full frame telehpoto zooms are too huge and heavy (and there's a valid point there), Sony has an answer, the RX10!!!  The RX10 is probably good enough to be used for professional wedding photography. Even in the rain, because it's weathersealed.

sigala1
Senior MemberPosts: 3,235
Re: Well, it can't be small and large at the same time...
In reply to Paul De Bra, 10 months ago

Paul De Bra wrote:

The disadvantage of a large fixed lens is that it is all you get.

On m43 you can go small with a Pen or GM1 and 12-32 or 14-42X pancake zoom lens. And you can swap for large fast zoom lenses or smaller fast primes... or soon mount a huge 40-150 f/2.8 zoom lens. With the RX10 you get one nice lens and everything has a non-pocketable size.

Maybe good for some but I'm past that stage.

Nothing says the RX10 has to be your only camera.

In fact, an all-Sony shooter might own both RX10 and RX100 II.  The RX100 II is more pocketable than any m43 camera currently in production, and I suspect with potruding lens, the GM1 will be less pocketable than RX100 II.

dougjgreen1
Senior MemberPosts: 2,056Gear list
Re: Jumping ship?
In reply to Dheorl, 10 months ago

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

Really? So you've spoken to just about everyone who shoots in inclement weather? Because I know a substantial number as unless they're pros or wildlife enthusiasts they never seem bothered about much outside that range.

No, they are rationalizing - just as you are - you tailored your needs to what you could get. If you could have gotten only 28mm on the wide end, or 300mm on the long end, that would have become your need.

No, if it started at 28 it would have been a lot less appealing to me.

The fact is, anyone who shoots much at 200mm wishes they could shoot at 300mm - unless they already can.

You really should stop using words like anyone when it comes to personal preferences.

I'll use any words I want, thank you very much

The fact is, the difference between 28mm and 24mm is quite minor.  Most folks who need wider, need A LOT wider than 24mm.

 dougjgreen1's gear list:dougjgreen1's gear list
Olympus Stylus XZ-10 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Nikon 1 V2 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5 +11 more
dougjgreen1
Senior MemberPosts: 2,056Gear list
The RX100 is SMALL and good
In reply to Sean Nelson, 10 months ago

Sean Nelson wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

But the m43 system can't be tailored to exactly what i personally need. I need a weather sealed kit that goes from 24-200mm and doesn't make a huge dent in my backpack or hand luggage. The closest thing is the EM5 with the 2 panny zooms, and that takes up considerably more space than an RX10, and requires me changing lenses when I'm out in inclement weather, which not having to do would be great.

The fact is, Most folks need something that's slightly different, and for ANYTHING that's the least bit different, you can't change the RX10 to meet what is needed. Just about EVERYONE who shoots in inclement weather will occasionally need wider than 24mm, or longer than 200mm. Or faster than f2.8. If you NEVER do, then go ahead and buy the RX10.

The Sony RX100 is very successful, and it's an even more limited tradeoff. Not everyone needs or is willing to deal with / pay for the ultimate flexibility in a system. If they were, we'd probably all be using FF cameras because they have the best range of lens options available.

For an all-in-one package, the RX10 covers a pretty decent range with image quality closer to M43 than to the small-sensor cameras, and that combination hits a sweet spot for some users. That's no different than M43 hitting a sweet spot for others who want the flexibility that interchangeable lenses bring to the table.

The fact that the RX100 is good while being VERY small is why it succeeds. The RX10 is a HUGE camera for the size of it's sensor.

Most folks who own the RX100 bought it as a high quality camera that is pocketable, or can fit in a purse.

 dougjgreen1's gear list:dougjgreen1's gear list
Olympus Stylus XZ-10 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Nikon 1 V2 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5 +11 more
dougjgreen1
Senior MemberPosts: 2,056Gear list
Re: YES!!! Now I get the RX10!
In reply to sigala1, 10 months ago

sigala1 wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

The Sony RX10 has the same 20mp sensor as the Sony RX100 II that is well thought of and it has an equivalent 24-200mm f2.8 Zeiss lens. Having a package that includes the equivalent of a 24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 makes the $1200 price easier to take.

$1200 RX10

vs.

$1000 GX7
$1300 12-35mm f2.8
$1500 35-100mm f2.8

You can't change the lens on the RX10, but a lot of m4/3 people would be quite happy, I think, even if all they had were the 12-35mm and 35-100mm for their m4/3 camera.

I have read that the zoom-by-wire is poor because turning the zoom ring causes the focal length to change very slowly. Maybe that can be fixed in firmware? Still, this looks to be a very interesting camera. It isn't very small, but I can imagine that for some people this could be enticing. More dof, of course, than FF or APS-C and slightly more than m4/3, but that isn't a big deal for everyone.

I could see that some people might have an m4/3 body to use with a couple of fast single focal length lenses and the RX10 instead of buying the expensive 12-35mm and 35-100mm lenses.

-- hide signature --

Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

At first I thought, "huh?????"

But now I get it. For the same price as just a 35-100mm f/2.8 m43 lens, you can buy an RX10 that combines the 14-35mm lens and the 35-100mm lens into one, and comes with a FREE CAMERA to boot.

Now, f/2.8 on the 1" sensor is equivalent to f/3.8 on m43, but I don't know if that's really worth paying three times as much for and giving up the convenience of having one lens instead of two.

Also, we need to wait to see how well the Sony lens actually performs, but I suspect that it's going to be as sharp as the best m43 "Pro" or "X" lenses.

So now high-end m43 gear doesn't make much sense. Sony has the A7 + 24-70mm zoom which makes more sense than E-M1 + zoom for just a little bit more mney.

And for people who complain that full frame telehpoto zooms are too huge and heavy (and there's a valid point there), Sony has an answer, the RX10!!! The RX10 is probably good enough to be used for professional wedding photography. Even in the rain, because it's weathersealed.

I seriously doubt that the RX10 has the shooting performance for professional wedding photographers.  Especially with flash.  And the problem with your FREE CAMERA is, what happens to your lens when the 1" sensor camera it is attached to is no longer adequate for the requirements of the shooter?

 dougjgreen1's gear list:dougjgreen1's gear list
Olympus Stylus XZ-10 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Nikon 1 V2 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5 +11 more
Dheorl
Senior MemberPosts: 2,073Gear list
Re: Jumping ship?
In reply to dougjgreen1, 10 months ago

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

Really? So you've spoken to just about everyone who shoots in inclement weather? Because I know a substantial number as unless they're pros or wildlife enthusiasts they never seem bothered about much outside that range.

No, they are rationalizing - just as you are - you tailored your needs to what you could get. If you could have gotten only 28mm on the wide end, or 300mm on the long end, that would have become your need.

No, if it started at 28 it would have been a lot less appealing to me.

The fact is, anyone who shoots much at 200mm wishes they could shoot at 300mm - unless they already can.

You really should stop using words like anyone when it comes to personal preferences.

I'll use any words I want, thank you very much

Alright, no need to get your panties in a twist. I just find a lot of disagreement often comes from poor communication, especially online, and therefore people should try to use the most accurate language possible. Unless of course you come here just to argue, in which case your a troll and I'll add you to my ignore list.

The fact is, the difference between 28mm and 24mm is quite minor. Most folks who need wider, need A LOT wider than 24mm.

I find much wider than 24mm starts to distort too much for mh liking of my preferred subjects, the amount extra you can get in compared to 28mm however is not insubstantial. Even if i still bought it if it had a 28mm wide end, I would have often been wishing it had a 24mm wide end. Thankfully it has that so I don't need to worry. What cameras are produced does not change what my needs as a photographer are.

dougjgreen1
Senior MemberPosts: 2,056Gear list
Re: Jumping ship?
In reply to Dheorl, 10 months ago

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

Really? So you've spoken to just about everyone who shoots in inclement weather? Because I know a substantial number as unless they're pros or wildlife enthusiasts they never seem bothered about much outside that range.

No, they are rationalizing - just as you are - you tailored your needs to what you could get. If you could have gotten only 28mm on the wide end, or 300mm on the long end, that would have become your need.

No, if it started at 28 it would have been a lot less appealing to me.

The fact is, anyone who shoots much at 200mm wishes they could shoot at 300mm - unless they already can.

You really should stop using words like anyone when it comes to personal preferences.

I'll use any words I want, thank you very much

Alright, no need to get your panties in a twist. I just find a lot of disagreement often comes from poor communication, especially online, and therefore people should try to use the most accurate language possible. Unless of course you come here just to argue, in which case your a troll and I'll add you to my ignore list.

The fact is, the difference between 28mm and 24mm is quite minor. Most folks who need wider, need A LOT wider than 24mm.

I find much wider than 24mm starts to distort too much for mh liking of my preferred subjects, the amount extra you can get in compared to 28mm however is not insubstantial. Even if i still bought it if it had a 28mm wide end, I would have often been wishing it had a 24mm wide end. Thankfully it has that so I don't need to worry. What cameras are produced does not change what my needs as a photographer are.

Quite simply, 24mm is just as likely to not be wide enough as 28mm is.

The fact is, the difference between 28mm and 24mm is very minor.

 dougjgreen1's gear list:dougjgreen1's gear list
Olympus Stylus XZ-10 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Nikon 1 V2 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5 +11 more
Dheorl
Senior MemberPosts: 2,073Gear list
Re: Jumping ship?
In reply to dougjgreen1, 10 months ago

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

Really? So you've spoken to just about everyone who shoots in inclement weather? Because I know a substantial number as unless they're pros or wildlife enthusiasts they never seem bothered about much outside that range.

No, they are rationalizing - just as you are - you tailored your needs to what you could get. If you could have gotten only 28mm on the wide end, or 300mm on the long end, that would have become your need.

No, if it started at 28 it would have been a lot less appealing to me.

The fact is, anyone who shoots much at 200mm wishes they could shoot at 300mm - unless they already can.

You really should stop using words like anyone when it comes to personal preferences.

I'll use any words I want, thank you very much

Alright, no need to get your panties in a twist. I just find a lot of disagreement often comes from poor communication, especially online, and therefore people should try to use the most accurate language possible. Unless of course you come here just to argue, in which case your a troll and I'll add you to my ignore list.

The fact is, the difference between 28mm and 24mm is quite minor. Most folks who need wider, need A LOT wider than 24mm.

I find much wider than 24mm starts to distort too much for mh liking of my preferred subjects, the amount extra you can get in compared to 28mm however is not insubstantial. Even if i still bought it if it had a 28mm wide end, I would have often been wishing it had a 24mm wide end. Thankfully it has that so I don't need to worry. What cameras are produced does not change what my needs as a photographer are.

Quite simply, 24mm is just as likely to not be wide enough as 28mm is.

The fact is, the difference between 28mm and 24mm is very minor.

It's about 12.5% different. People pay a lot of money for a 12.5% difference in some areas of a cameras performance.

With your logic though there's just no stopping. Why buy a 9-18mm lens when chances are it's still not going to be wide enough and you'll need a 7mm, but then chances are that's not wide enough so you get a fisheye, and eventually your still not happy but there's nothing you can do about it because short of a panorama you can't go any wider. Everyone has a point of diminishing returns/point that suits their subjects best, for me it's around 24mm.

dougjgreen1
Senior MemberPosts: 2,056Gear list
Re: Jumping ship?
In reply to Dheorl, 10 months ago

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

Really? So you've spoken to just about everyone who shoots in inclement weather? Because I know a substantial number as unless they're pros or wildlife enthusiasts they never seem bothered about much outside that range.

No, they are rationalizing - just as you are - you tailored your needs to what you could get. If you could have gotten only 28mm on the wide end, or 300mm on the long end, that would have become your need.

No, if it started at 28 it would have been a lot less appealing to me.

The fact is, anyone who shoots much at 200mm wishes they could shoot at 300mm - unless they already can.

You really should stop using words like anyone when it comes to personal preferences.

I'll use any words I want, thank you very much

Alright, no need to get your panties in a twist. I just find a lot of disagreement often comes from poor communication, especially online, and therefore people should try to use the most accurate language possible. Unless of course you come here just to argue, in which case your a troll and I'll add you to my ignore list.

The fact is, the difference between 28mm and 24mm is quite minor. Most folks who need wider, need A LOT wider than 24mm.

I find much wider than 24mm starts to distort too much for mh liking of my preferred subjects, the amount extra you can get in compared to 28mm however is not insubstantial. Even if i still bought it if it had a 28mm wide end, I would have often been wishing it had a 24mm wide end. Thankfully it has that so I don't need to worry. What cameras are produced does not change what my needs as a photographer are.

Quite simply, 24mm is just as likely to not be wide enough as 28mm is.

The fact is, the difference between 28mm and 24mm is very minor.

It's about 12.5% different. People pay a lot of money for a 12.5% difference in some areas of a cameras performance.

With your logic though there's just no stopping. Why buy a 9-18mm lens when chances are it's still not going to be wide enough and you'll need a 7mm, but then chances are that's not wide enough so you get a fisheye, and eventually your still not happy but there's nothing you can do about it because short of a panorama you can't go any wider. Everyone has a point of diminishing returns/point that suits their subjects best, for me it's around 24mm.

I agree, you should buy the widest lens you can. I bought the 7-14 because the 9-18 isn't wide enough.  That being said, I never met anyone who regularly shoots at 200mm who wouldn't also wish to shoot at 300mm or longer on many occasions if they could.  and if I could get a 5mm lens that was NOT a fisheye and covered the whole frame, I would do so.

The fact is, the 24-200 is a compromise at both ends, that someone who has interchangeable lenses need not ever make.

 dougjgreen1's gear list:dougjgreen1's gear list
Olympus Stylus XZ-10 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Nikon 1 V2 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5 +11 more
Dheorl
Senior MemberPosts: 2,073Gear list
Re: Jumping ship?
In reply to dougjgreen1, 10 months ago

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

Really? So you've spoken to just about everyone who shoots in inclement weather? Because I know a substantial number as unless they're pros or wildlife enthusiasts they never seem bothered about much outside that range.

No, they are rationalizing - just as you are - you tailored your needs to what you could get. If you could have gotten only 28mm on the wide end, or 300mm on the long end, that would have become your need.

No, if it started at 28 it would have been a lot less appealing to me.

The fact is, anyone who shoots much at 200mm wishes they could shoot at 300mm - unless they already can.

You really should stop using words like anyone when it comes to personal preferences.

I'll use any words I want, thank you very much

Alright, no need to get your panties in a twist. I just find a lot of disagreement often comes from poor communication, especially online, and therefore people should try to use the most accurate language possible. Unless of course you come here just to argue, in which case your a troll and I'll add you to my ignore list.

The fact is, the difference between 28mm and 24mm is quite minor. Most folks who need wider, need A LOT wider than 24mm.

I find much wider than 24mm starts to distort too much for mh liking of my preferred subjects, the amount extra you can get in compared to 28mm however is not insubstantial. Even if i still bought it if it had a 28mm wide end, I would have often been wishing it had a 24mm wide end. Thankfully it has that so I don't need to worry. What cameras are produced does not change what my needs as a photographer are.

Quite simply, 24mm is just as likely to not be wide enough as 28mm is.

The fact is, the difference between 28mm and 24mm is very minor.

It's about 12.5% different. People pay a lot of money for a 12.5% difference in some areas of a cameras performance.

With your logic though there's just no stopping. Why buy a 9-18mm lens when chances are it's still not going to be wide enough and you'll need a 7mm, but then chances are that's not wide enough so you get a fisheye, and eventually your still not happy but there's nothing you can do about it because short of a panorama you can't go any wider. Everyone has a point of diminishing returns/point that suits their subjects best, for me it's around 24mm.

I agree, you should buy the widest lens you can. I bought the 7-14 because the 9-18 isn't wide enough.

But be honest with yourself, is that really wide enough? I'm personally not a huge wide lens fanatic, I shoot a lot in the mountains and no matter how big the mountain it always looks distant with such a wide lens.

dougjgreen1
Senior MemberPosts: 2,056Gear list
Re: Jumping ship?
In reply to Dheorl, 10 months ago

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

Really? So you've spoken to just about everyone who shoots in inclement weather? Because I know a substantial number as unless they're pros or wildlife enthusiasts they never seem bothered about much outside that range.

No, they are rationalizing - just as you are - you tailored your needs to what you could get. If you could have gotten only 28mm on the wide end, or 300mm on the long end, that would have become your need.

No, if it started at 28 it would have been a lot less appealing to me.

The fact is, anyone who shoots much at 200mm wishes they could shoot at 300mm - unless they already can.

You really should stop using words like anyone when it comes to personal preferences.

I'll use any words I want, thank you very much

Alright, no need to get your panties in a twist. I just find a lot of disagreement often comes from poor communication, especially online, and therefore people should try to use the most accurate language possible. Unless of course you come here just to argue, in which case your a troll and I'll add you to my ignore list.

The fact is, the difference between 28mm and 24mm is quite minor. Most folks who need wider, need A LOT wider than 24mm.

I find much wider than 24mm starts to distort too much for mh liking of my preferred subjects, the amount extra you can get in compared to 28mm however is not insubstantial. Even if i still bought it if it had a 28mm wide end, I would have often been wishing it had a 24mm wide end. Thankfully it has that so I don't need to worry. What cameras are produced does not change what my needs as a photographer are.

Quite simply, 24mm is just as likely to not be wide enough as 28mm is.

The fact is, the difference between 28mm and 24mm is very minor.

It's about 12.5% different. People pay a lot of money for a 12.5% difference in some areas of a cameras performance.

With your logic though there's just no stopping. Why buy a 9-18mm lens when chances are it's still not going to be wide enough and you'll need a 7mm, but then chances are that's not wide enough so you get a fisheye, and eventually your still not happy but there's nothing you can do about it because short of a panorama you can't go any wider. Everyone has a point of diminishing returns/point that suits their subjects best, for me it's around 24mm.

I agree, you should buy the widest lens you can. I bought the 7-14 because the 9-18 isn't wide enough.

But be honest with yourself, is that really wide enough? I'm personally not a huge wide lens fanatic, I shoot a lot in the mountains and no matter how big the mountain it always looks distant with such a wide lens.

I could tell you're not much of a wide angle user, because your comments about 24mm being entirely sufficient when 28mm is not demonstrated that quite clearly. And the fact is, I'd buy the widest lens available that was rectilinear.  The reason for ultra wide lenses is not to shoot mountains.  It's to get an exaggerated perspective between something that's extremely close, relative to something in the background.  For shooting mountain landscapes, a 24mm is fine, and so is a 28mm - there's extremely little difference.

 dougjgreen1's gear list:dougjgreen1's gear list
Olympus Stylus XZ-10 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Nikon 1 V2 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5 +11 more
Dheorl
Senior MemberPosts: 2,073Gear list
Re: Jumping ship?
In reply to dougjgreen1, 10 months ago

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

Really? So you've spoken to just about everyone who shoots in inclement weather? Because I know a substantial number as unless they're pros or wildlife enthusiasts they never seem bothered about much outside that range.

No, they are rationalizing - just as you are - you tailored your needs to what you could get. If you could have gotten only 28mm on the wide end, or 300mm on the long end, that would have become your need.

No, if it started at 28 it would have been a lot less appealing to me.

The fact is, anyone who shoots much at 200mm wishes they could shoot at 300mm - unless they already can.

You really should stop using words like anyone when it comes to personal preferences.

I'll use any words I want, thank you very much

Alright, no need to get your panties in a twist. I just find a lot of disagreement often comes from poor communication, especially online, and therefore people should try to use the most accurate language possible. Unless of course you come here just to argue, in which case your a troll and I'll add you to my ignore list.

The fact is, the difference between 28mm and 24mm is quite minor. Most folks who need wider, need A LOT wider than 24mm.

I find much wider than 24mm starts to distort too much for mh liking of my preferred subjects, the amount extra you can get in compared to 28mm however is not insubstantial. Even if i still bought it if it had a 28mm wide end, I would have often been wishing it had a 24mm wide end. Thankfully it has that so I don't need to worry. What cameras are produced does not change what my needs as a photographer are.

Quite simply, 24mm is just as likely to not be wide enough as 28mm is.

The fact is, the difference between 28mm and 24mm is very minor.

It's about 12.5% different. People pay a lot of money for a 12.5% difference in some areas of a cameras performance.

With your logic though there's just no stopping. Why buy a 9-18mm lens when chances are it's still not going to be wide enough and you'll need a 7mm, but then chances are that's not wide enough so you get a fisheye, and eventually your still not happy but there's nothing you can do about it because short of a panorama you can't go any wider. Everyone has a point of diminishing returns/point that suits their subjects best, for me it's around 24mm.

I agree, you should buy the widest lens you can. I bought the 7-14 because the 9-18 isn't wide enough.

But be honest with yourself, is that really wide enough? I'm personally not a huge wide lens fanatic, I shoot a lot in the mountains and no matter how big the mountain it always looks distant with such a wide lens.

I could tell you're not much of a wide angle user, because your comments about 24mm being entirely sufficient when 28mm is not demonstrated that quite clearly. And the fact is, I'd buy the widest lens available that was rectilinear.

What can i say, i don't like lenses where distortion is so pre leant.

dougjgreen1
Senior MemberPosts: 2,056Gear list
Re: Jumping ship?
In reply to Dheorl, 10 months ago

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

Really? So you've spoken to just about everyone who shoots in inclement weather? Because I know a substantial number as unless they're pros or wildlife enthusiasts they never seem bothered about much outside that range.

No, they are rationalizing - just as you are - you tailored your needs to what you could get. If you could have gotten only 28mm on the wide end, or 300mm on the long end, that would have become your need.

No, if it started at 28 it would have been a lot less appealing to me.

The fact is, anyone who shoots much at 200mm wishes they could shoot at 300mm - unless they already can.

You really should stop using words like anyone when it comes to personal preferences.

I'll use any words I want, thank you very much

Alright, no need to get your panties in a twist. I just find a lot of disagreement often comes from poor communication, especially online, and therefore people should try to use the most accurate language possible. Unless of course you come here just to argue, in which case your a troll and I'll add you to my ignore list.

The fact is, the difference between 28mm and 24mm is quite minor. Most folks who need wider, need A LOT wider than 24mm.

I find much wider than 24mm starts to distort too much for mh liking of my preferred subjects, the amount extra you can get in compared to 28mm however is not insubstantial. Even if i still bought it if it had a 28mm wide end, I would have often been wishing it had a 24mm wide end. Thankfully it has that so I don't need to worry. What cameras are produced does not change what my needs as a photographer are.

Quite simply, 24mm is just as likely to not be wide enough as 28mm is.

The fact is, the difference between 28mm and 24mm is very minor.

It's about 12.5% different. People pay a lot of money for a 12.5% difference in some areas of a cameras performance.

With your logic though there's just no stopping. Why buy a 9-18mm lens when chances are it's still not going to be wide enough and you'll need a 7mm, but then chances are that's not wide enough so you get a fisheye, and eventually your still not happy but there's nothing you can do about it because short of a panorama you can't go any wider. Everyone has a point of diminishing returns/point that suits their subjects best, for me it's around 24mm.

I agree, you should buy the widest lens you can. I bought the 7-14 because the 9-18 isn't wide enough.

But be honest with yourself, is that really wide enough? I'm personally not a huge wide lens fanatic, I shoot a lot in the mountains and no matter how big the mountain it always looks distant with such a wide lens.

I could tell you're not much of a wide angle user, because your comments about 24mm being entirely sufficient when 28mm is not demonstrated that quite clearly. And the fact is, I'd buy the widest lens available that was rectilinear.

What can i say, i don't like lenses where distortion is so pre leant.

If you knew how to use them, you'd know how to use them where they didn't distort, but rather, simply exaggerated perspective.  The fact is, a GOOD ultra-wide lens, like the 7-14mm doesn't distort.

 dougjgreen1's gear list:dougjgreen1's gear list
Olympus Stylus XZ-10 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Nikon 1 V2 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5 +11 more
Dheorl
Senior MemberPosts: 2,073Gear list
Re: Jumping ship?
In reply to dougjgreen1, 10 months ago

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

Really? So you've spoken to just about everyone who shoots in inclement weather? Because I know a substantial number as unless they're pros or wildlife enthusiasts they never seem bothered about much outside that range.

No, they are rationalizing - just as you are - you tailored your needs to what you could get. If you could have gotten only 28mm on the wide end, or 300mm on the long end, that would have become your need.

No, if it started at 28 it would have been a lot less appealing to me.

The fact is, anyone who shoots much at 200mm wishes they could shoot at 300mm - unless they already can.

You really should stop using words like anyone when it comes to personal preferences.

I'll use any words I want, thank you very much

Alright, no need to get your panties in a twist. I just find a lot of disagreement often comes from poor communication, especially online, and therefore people should try to use the most accurate language possible. Unless of course you come here just to argue, in which case your a troll and I'll add you to my ignore list.

The fact is, the difference between 28mm and 24mm is quite minor. Most folks who need wider, need A LOT wider than 24mm.

I find much wider than 24mm starts to distort too much for mh liking of my preferred subjects, the amount extra you can get in compared to 28mm however is not insubstantial. Even if i still bought it if it had a 28mm wide end, I would have often been wishing it had a 24mm wide end. Thankfully it has that so I don't need to worry. What cameras are produced does not change what my needs as a photographer are.

Quite simply, 24mm is just as likely to not be wide enough as 28mm is.

The fact is, the difference between 28mm and 24mm is very minor.

It's about 12.5% different. People pay a lot of money for a 12.5% difference in some areas of a cameras performance.

With your logic though there's just no stopping. Why buy a 9-18mm lens when chances are it's still not going to be wide enough and you'll need a 7mm, but then chances are that's not wide enough so you get a fisheye, and eventually your still not happy but there's nothing you can do about it because short of a panorama you can't go any wider. Everyone has a point of diminishing returns/point that suits their subjects best, for me it's around 24mm.

I agree, you should buy the widest lens you can. I bought the 7-14 because the 9-18 isn't wide enough. That being said, I never met anyone who regularly shoots at 200mm who wouldn't also wish to shoot at 300mm or longer on many occasions if they could. and if I could get a 5mm lens that was NOT a fisheye and covered the whole frame, I would do so.

The fact is, the 24-200 is a compromise at both ends, that someone who has interchangeable lenses need not ever make .

Seemingly if the person owning the interchangeable camera is anything like you they'll buy everything from a 7mm to a 800mm and still feel like they want a bit more at either end. There's always a compromise if you look at it that way.

I can look through my light room catalogue of my last holiday where i took the 12-35mm and 35-100mm and find a fair distribution  among all focal lengths, although mainly around the 40mm ish length (I just like it) but don't find myself excessively butting up against either end.

Dheorl
Senior MemberPosts: 2,073Gear list
Re: Jumping ship?
In reply to dougjgreen1, 10 months ago

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

Really? So you've spoken to just about everyone who shoots in inclement weather? Because I know a substantial number as unless they're pros or wildlife enthusiasts they never seem bothered about much outside that range.

No, they are rationalizing - just as you are - you tailored your needs to what you could get. If you could have gotten only 28mm on the wide end, or 300mm on the long end, that would have become your need.

No, if it started at 28 it would have been a lot less appealing to me.

The fact is, anyone who shoots much at 200mm wishes they could shoot at 300mm - unless they already can.

You really should stop using words like anyone when it comes to personal preferences.

I'll use any words I want, thank you very much

Alright, no need to get your panties in a twist. I just find a lot of disagreement often comes from poor communication, especially online, and therefore people should try to use the most accurate language possible. Unless of course you come here just to argue, in which case your a troll and I'll add you to my ignore list.

The fact is, the difference between 28mm and 24mm is quite minor. Most folks who need wider, need A LOT wider than 24mm.

I find much wider than 24mm starts to distort too much for mh liking of my preferred subjects, the amount extra you can get in compared to 28mm however is not insubstantial. Even if i still bought it if it had a 28mm wide end, I would have often been wishing it had a 24mm wide end. Thankfully it has that so I don't need to worry. What cameras are produced does not change what my needs as a photographer are.

Quite simply, 24mm is just as likely to not be wide enough as 28mm is.

The fact is, the difference between 28mm and 24mm is very minor.

It's about 12.5% different. People pay a lot of money for a 12.5% difference in some areas of a cameras performance.

With your logic though there's just no stopping. Why buy a 9-18mm lens when chances are it's still not going to be wide enough and you'll need a 7mm, but then chances are that's not wide enough so you get a fisheye, and eventually your still not happy but there's nothing you can do about it because short of a panorama you can't go any wider. Everyone has a point of diminishing returns/point that suits their subjects best, for me it's around 24mm.

I agree, you should buy the widest lens you can. I bought the 7-14 because the 9-18 isn't wide enough.

But be honest with yourself, is that really wide enough? I'm personally not a huge wide lens fanatic, I shoot a lot in the mountains and no matter how big the mountain it always looks distant with such a wide lens.

I could tell you're not much of a wide angle user, because your comments about 24mm being entirely sufficient when 28mm is not demonstrated that quite clearly. And the fact is, I'd buy the widest lens available that was rectilinear.

What can i say, i don't like lenses where distortion is so pre leant.

If you knew how to use them, you'd know how to use them where they didn't distort, but rather, simply exaggerated perspective.

I know how to use them, but for the environments I'm normally shooting i just don't like the effects they produce. Also sorry, but they alays distort, it's an inescapable fact of wide angle lenses. I'd thought you'd know that considering how much you use them.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads