Sony RX10 is interesting for m4/3 users Locked

Started Oct 17, 2013 | Discussions
This thread is locked.
dougjgreen1
Senior MemberPosts: 2,200Gear list
Re: Jumping ship?
In reply to Dheorl, Oct 20, 2013

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. 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.

Well, the fact is, I shoot at 15-20mm AND at 28mm (equivalent), much more frequently than I shoot at 24mm. I also shoot at focal lengths of 400mm or longer (equivalent) much more frequently than I shoot at 200mm. To me, 200mm is generally either much longer than I need, or else it's nowhere near as long as I need - for things like wildlife. And yes, for wildlife, often 800mm equivalent is better.

And in actual fact, I do have, and use, lenses up to 800mm and  1200mm equivalent (a 200mm and a 300mm with a 2x converter, on m4/3, where the effective FL is doubled) when shooting wildlife.

 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: 2,200Gear list
Re: Jumping ship?
In reply to Dheorl, Oct 20, 2013

Dheorl wrote:

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.

Your definition of distortion is wrong.  Altering perspective is not distortion - and a rectilinear lens particularly if it's corrected in the camera, does not distort - distortion means bending straight lines Fisheyes do that, rectilinear lenses don't.  What it DOES do is alter perspective an a major way.  Sorry, your ignorance of wide angles is glaring.  I will grant you that you don't need one, because you obviously don't grasp what they can be used for and how to use them to accomplish that. So go ahead, buy a camera that doesn't have one - nor any capability to add one, since you clearly can't fathom what to do with an ultra-wide lens if you had one.

 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
marike6
Senior MemberPosts: 5,070Gear list
Re: And it will face the same Questions......
In reply to Sean Nelson, Oct 20, 2013

Sean Nelson wrote:

marike6 wrote:

The OP said that it should be of interest to m43 users because of some tenuous connection to an expensive Panasonic zooms. But other than that, nobody has explained why the RX10 should be of particular interest to m43. Best of luck.

In addition to Dheorl, I also provided an explaination. But you seemed intent on twisting what I said and now it appears you're ignoring the people who are giving you the explanations.

It looks to me like you're making the classic mistake of assuming that, because the camera holds no interest for you, it must therefore hold no interest for any other M43 user either. But it clearly does. You may be unable to fathom the reasons why, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

If you like the RX10 that's fine. I might like it, my neighbor might like it as well. But no matter who you look at it, it's not a camera that m43 users in particular should be interested in. In fact is pretty contrary to the entire concept of Micro 43.

It's large, heavy, and as expensive or more than the very top of the line m43 cameras.  Have you noticed the most popular camera right now on DPR, the GM-1.  Want to take a guess why m43 users are interested in it?

And no matter how much you want to rely on DxOMark as some sacred text of camera IQ, the RX10 does not have the IQ of the best m43 or APS-C camera. Low-light, high ISO performance should be somewhere between the Nikon 1 cameras and older 12 mp cameras m43 like the Panasonic GF1.

The lens, perhaps above 100mm, an f/2.8 max aperture on a 1" sensor will be sort of OK.  Below 100mm an f/2.8 max aperture on the 1" sensor is not all that interesting. Would you buy the equivalent of a 50mm f/7.4 lens? Or the equivalent of an f/7.4 portrait lens, say an 85 f/7.4?  I don't know any m43 users who are used to using some of the excellent fast m43 primes who would.

I'm not trying to be a camera snob, I'm really not. But for the last time, the Sony RX10 is almost the antithesis of a m43 camera.  So again, nobody has made the case for why the RX10 should be interesting specially for m43 users.  And no the almost bizarre theory about replacing the two Panasonic 12-35 and 35-100 f/2.8 zooms is not a valid reason why m43 users should want the RX10.  How about just buying the 35-100 f/2.8 and a 20 f/1.7 which will work with all current and future m43 bodies as part of your system and cover 99% of the needs of the majority of m43 users?  How about using much less expensive variable aperture zoom that goes out to 300mm or even 600mm?

Doesn't m43 have enough problems winning market share without users jumping ship for astronomically priced and ultimately inferior bridge cameras like the RX10?

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
dv312
Senior MemberPosts: 1,852Gear list
As compared to Rx100
In reply to Henry Richardson, Oct 20, 2013

I wasn't too happy with the RX100 as far as IQ is concerned

it's OK but still has that sharpness all the way to infinity looks of P+S cameras doesn't excite me

They do not fare well with MFT cameras/sensors

I'm not sure how the RX10 IQ can outperform the RX100

If anything it gives the user more focal range

It's an interesting camera on paper but it's not for me as the RX100 wasn't before it

I'd rather get the new Lumix GM1 for that money

My shooting doesn't require long tele lenses as much

Cheers,

 dv312's gear list:dv312's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 +7 more
Dheorl
Senior MemberPosts: 2,637Gear list
Re: Jumping ship?
In reply to dougjgreen1, Oct 20, 2013

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

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.

Your definition of distortion is wrong. Altering perspective is not distortion - and a rectilinear lens particularly if it's corrected in the camera, does not distort - distortion means bending straight lines Fisheyes do that, rectilinear lenses don't. What it DOES do is alter perspective an a major way. Sorry, your ignorance of wide angles is glaring. I will grant you that you don't need one, because you obviously don't grasp what they can be used for and how to use them to accomplish that. So go ahead, buy a camera that doesn't have one - nor any capability to add one, since you clearly can't fathom what to do with an ultra-wide lens if you had one.

Aww, and there's was me thinking how nice it was to have a conversation on this website where someone didn't result to personal attacks, hey ho.

And the distortion I'm referring to isn't perspective distortion, it's the stretching of objects towards the extremes of the frame. I'm not sure what else you'd like to call it but distortion. Maybe I am wrong and this is also known as perspective distortion, in which case thank you for educating me. I thought however that perspective distortion referred to building leaning backwards etc.

As for my skill with them, i know exactly what they can be used for and how to accomplish it, and as i have said previously my main subjects are people and mountains, neither of which are suitable subjects imo for wide angle lenses.

Dheorl
Senior MemberPosts: 2,637Gear list
Re: Jumping ship?
In reply to dougjgreen1, Oct 20, 2013

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. 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.

Well, the fact is, I shoot at 15-20mm AND at 28mm (equivalent), much more frequently than I shoot at 24mm. I also shoot at focal lengths of 400mm or longer (equivalent) much more frequently than I shoot at 200mm. To me, 200mm is generally either much longer than I need, or else it's nowhere near as long as I need - for things like wildlife. And yes, for wildlife, often 800mm equivalent is better.

And in actual fact, I do have, and use, lenses up to 800mm and 1200mm equivalent (a 200mm and a 300mm with a 2x converter, on m4/3, where the effective FL is doubled) when shooting wildlife.

Woo, go you, the RX10 clearly isn't the right camera for you then (as we established 2 pages ago... yawn). That doesn't stop it being the right camera, and a better choice than m43, for many people.

dougjgreen1
Senior MemberPosts: 2,200Gear list
Re: Jumping ship?
In reply to Dheorl, Oct 20, 2013

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

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.

Your definition of distortion is wrong. Altering perspective is not distortion - and a rectilinear lens particularly if it's corrected in the camera, does not distort - distortion means bending straight lines Fisheyes do that, rectilinear lenses don't. What it DOES do is alter perspective an a major way. Sorry, your ignorance of wide angles is glaring. I will grant you that you don't need one, because you obviously don't grasp what they can be used for and how to use them to accomplish that. So go ahead, buy a camera that doesn't have one - nor any capability to add one, since you clearly can't fathom what to do with an ultra-wide lens if you had one.

Aww, and there's was me thinking how nice it was to have a conversation on this website where someone didn't result to personal attacks, hey ho.

And the distortion I'm referring to isn't perspective distortion, it's the stretching of objects towards the extremes of the frame. I'm not sure what else you'd like to call it but distortion. Maybe I am wrong and this is also known as perspective distortion, in which case thank you for educating me. I thought however that perspective distortion referred to building leaning backwards etc.

As for my skill with them, i know exactly what they can be used for and how to accomplish it, and as i have said previously my main subjects are people and mountains, neither of which are suitable subjects imo for wide angle lenses.

I told you already - that's not distortion, it's exaggerated perspective.  If you believe that's distortion, you are simply misinformed, and I suggest you educate yourself.  But, of course, you are free to remain misinformed.  But that's unimportant.  Your comments have made perfectly clear that you don't understand nor appreciate wide angle photography - you've even admitted as much.  Which is fine, maybe given that limitation, the RX10 is fine for you.  So feel free to buy it.

 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
marike6
Senior MemberPosts: 5,070Gear list
Re: Jumping ship?
In reply to dougjgreen1, Oct 20, 2013

dougjgreen1 wrote:

marike6 wrote:

The E-PL5 is not my favorite body because it's so small but the GX7 looks terrific. And a simple three lens kit on a small rangefinder type body sounds more interesting (and more fun) for most of the images.

I bought the E-PL5 BECAUSE it's so small. BTW, with the MCG-2 grip and the VF-2, it handles like a bigger camera.

If I had purchased those items I might still have my E-PL5. But I was expecting it to be more like the GX1 in size and feel. I guess I wasn't prepared for how tiny it is. Small has it's advantages, but portability has never been high on my list of priorities. My GH2, and the GX1 I used to own is about as small and lightweight as I need.

I find the size of the RX10 to be it's major disadvantage.

+1. I can't believe that some in this thread are arguing that an almost 2 lb. camera with an even smaller sensor and less IQ should be interesting specifically to m43 users.  After all the discussions about "boat anchor DSLRs". It's like down is up and up is down.  

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
dougjgreen1
Senior MemberPosts: 2,200Gear list
Re: Jumping ship?
In reply to Dheorl, Oct 20, 2013

Dheorl wrote:

Woo, go you, the RX10 clearly isn't the right camera for you then (as we established 2 pages ago... yawn). That doesn't stop it being the right camera, and a better choice than m43, for many people.

I agree, as long as the user has no illusions about being a serious photographer with broad creative horizons who may wish to expand them further, the RX10 might be fine for them.  Even for serious photographers, it might be perfectly OK as a 2nd camera.  But most folks I know want something smaller for their 2nd camera.

 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: 2,637Gear list
Re: And it will face the same Questions......
In reply to marike6, Oct 20, 2013

marike6 wrote:

Sean Nelson wrote:

marike6 wrote:

The OP said that it should be of interest to m43 users because of some tenuous connection to an expensive Panasonic zooms. But other than that, nobody has explained why the RX10 should be of particular interest to m43. Best of luck.

In addition to Dheorl, I also provided an explaination. But you seemed intent on twisting what I said and now it appears you're ignoring the people who are giving you the explanations.

It looks to me like you're making the classic mistake of assuming that, because the camera holds no interest for you, it must therefore hold no interest for any other M43 user either. But it clearly does. You may be unable to fathom the reasons why, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

If you like the RX10 that's fine. I might like it, my neighbor might like it as well. But no matter who you look at it, it's not a camera that m43 users in particular should be interested in. In fact is pretty contrary to the entire concept of Micro 43.

It's large, heavy, and as expensive or more than the very top of the line m43 cameras. Have you noticed the most popular camera right now on DPR, the GM-1. Want to take a guess why m43 users are interested in it?

And no matter how much you want to rely on DxOMark as some sacred text of camera IQ, the RX10 does not have the IQ of the best m43 or APS-C camera. Low-light, high ISO performance should be somewhere between the Nikon 1 cameras and older 12 mp cameras m43 like the Panasonic GF1.

If your looking at high ISO performance than yes, in areas such as DR and colour reproduction however i think technology has moved on enough that it should be able to beat the GF1.

The lens, perhaps above 100mm, an f/2.8 max aperture on a 1" sensor will be sort of OK. Below 100mm an f/2.8 max aperture on the 1" sensor is not all that interesting. Would you buy the equivalent of a 50mm f/7.4 lens? Or the equivalent of an f/7.4 portrait lens, say an 85 f/7.4? I don't know any m43 users who are used to using some of the excellent fast m43 primes who would.

If that lens was 1/200th of the size of the one on the RX10 then yes, I might consider buying it. I like to at least be able to distinguish what the background is, even if it's still blurred to give a bit of pop.

(Oh, and BTW, I own the 25mm)

I'm not trying to be a camera snob, I'm really not. But for the last time, the Sony RX10 is almost the antithesis of a m43 camera. So again, nobody has made the case for why the RX10 should be interesting specially for m43 users.

Actually I have, multiple times, but people keep on ignoring it and I have no idea why, seems like a reasonable theory to me.

And no the almost bizarre theory about replacing the two Panasonic 12-35 and 35-100 f/2.8 zooms is not a valid reason why m43 users should want the RX10. How about just buying the 35-100 f/2.8 and a 20 f/1.7 which will work with all current and future m43 bodies as part of your system and cover 99% of the needs of the majority of m43 users? How about using much less expensive variable aperture zoom that goes out to 300mm or even 600mm?

Doesn't m43 have enough problems winning market share without users jumping ship for astronomically priced and ultimately inferior bridge cameras like the RX10?

Ultimately inferior in high ISO iq, seems quite superior in some areas though.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads