New RX100 to have 24-70mm f1.8-2.8 lens!

Started 8 months ago | Discussions
maple
Senior MemberPosts: 2,760
Like?
Re: RX100 duo?
In reply to technic, 7 months ago

technic wrote:

It would not be smaller than RX10, just the 80-300mm model would be a lot bigger due to the 300mm. Not a good idea, this would not have any practical advantage except maybe optimizing the optical performance of the lens which would be tele only (but the target audience doesn't seem very interested in high optical quality ...).

Hey, I didn't even say the f number.

Lens for smaller sensor is always proportionally smaller. The advantage is all the more pronounced in the tele focal range, when a lens can get just too big. Sony's 1" sensor is very competitive in IQ and holds great potential if paired with quality glass. It should be taken good advantage of. A fixed tele zoom seems to make a lot of sense to me.

There is a 70-300mm equiv. zoom for Nikon 1. But this works be

That lens is 189-810mm FF equivalent.

cause Nikon 1 has removable lenses ...

I think the opposite is true: fixed lens has the advantage of retracting a little into the body to be smaller, as well as optimized matching of sensor and lens.

-- hide signature --

Maple

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
technic
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,660Gear list
Like?
Re: RX100 duo?
In reply to maple, 7 months ago

maple wrote:

technic wrote:

It would not be smaller than RX10, just the 80-300mm model would be a lot bigger due to the 300mm. Not a good idea, this would not have any practical advantage except maybe optimizing the optical performance of the lens which would be tele only (but the target audience doesn't seem very interested in high optical quality ...).

Hey, I didn't even say the f number.

The f number is important, but there is a limit to how much you can shrink a tele lens, assuming a decent aperture (otherwise no one will buy it).

Lens for smaller sensor is always proportionally smaller. The advantage is all the more pronounced in the tele focal range, when a lens can get just too big.

yes, but as long as the sensor size is the same (1 inch) there is not much you can do about lens size. I think a 80-300mm equivalent lens with e.g. f/4 would still be bigger than the 2.8/24-200 on the RX10. Of course you could make the lens even dimmer, but it would be of very little use. You could just as well use a pocketable superzoom with 30-50x tele (and pinhole aperture and matching low light performance and DOF...) ;-(

There is a 70-300mm equiv. zoom for Nikon 1. But this works be

That lens is 189-810mm FF equivalent.

sorry, my error - the Nikon 1 lens is indeed 70-300mm nominal, so super telephoto.

cause Nikon 1 has removable lenses ...

I think the opposite is true: fixed lens has the advantage of retracting a little into the body to be smaller, as well as optimized matching of sensor and lens.

what I meant was that you can make the Nikon 1 smaller for certain jobs by mounting a small prime. Can't do that with an RX10 or other long zoom RX camera.

 technic's gear list:technic's gear list
Canon EOS 450D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
technic
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,660Gear list
Like?
Re: Too expensive?
In reply to John Gellings, 7 months ago

John Gellings wrote:

It's a little bit expensive, but then again ... it's the only camera of its type. The Ricoh GR and Nikon Coolpix A have larger sensors but are fixed wide angle cameras. The Nikon 1 series lenses don't retract enough to be truly pocketable in pants.

$850 can buy a better camera, but maybe not at this size. If this rumor pans out, it appears that Sony added everything most people who used the MK1 and MKII versions wanted.

Agree in general, but not about the last part: apparently quite some current RX100-1/2 users are disappointed. I think the RX100-3 appeals most to people who were not really happy with the RX100-1/2 (and didn't buy it, or sold it for something else).

I'm interested after swearing off the II version... I felt the Ricoh GR was better at 28mm and that it was too slow at the 50-100mm mark.

24mm will come in handy and the fast aperture will be nice at telephoto. Makes more sense than the tiny m4/3 cameras with larger lenses (GM1).

For telephoto I don't think there is a big gain. What most people want is better DOF control, and shrinking the maximum tele from 100 to 70 makes using limited DOFmore difficult. The smaller maximum tele is compensated by a little over 1 stop (?) gain in aperture compared to 70mm on the RX100-1/2, but in the end the gain for DOF is relatively small. With the originally rumored f/1.8-2.8 28-100mm the gain would have been much more obvious.

My main concern is image quality: how will it compare to a GM1 with the 12-32 (24-64 equiv.) kit zoom? The GM1 zoom is slow but good quality. If the RX100-3 has the same optical quality, 1.5-2 stops more usable aperture (on equivalent basis less because of sensor size), an EVF + tiltscreen and hopefully an improved IS unit it should be an excellent alternative to the GM1.

 technic's gear list:technic's gear list
Canon EOS 450D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
2eyesee
Senior MemberPosts: 1,676
Like?
Re: Too expensive?
In reply to technic, 7 months ago

technic wrote:

For telephoto I don't think there is a big gain. What most people want is better DOF control, and shrinking the maximum tele from 100 to 70 makes using limited DOFmore difficult. The smaller maximum tele is compensated by a little over 1 stop (?) gain in aperture compared to 70mm on the RX100-1/2, but in the end the gain for DOF is relatively small. With the originally rumored f/1.8-2.8 28-100mm the gain would have been much more obvious.

I'm one of those disappointed that we're only getting f/2.8 at 70mm rather than the 100mm that was initially rumoured. f/2.8 would have been a significant advantage over the f/4.9 on the RX100/M2 at 100mm. The RX100M3 is still 1 stop better at 70mm than the R100/M2 (which is f/4.0), but it's not going to be the big gain I was hoping for.

The other question in this new lens is how quickly the maximum aperture reduces. We already see the RX100/M2 drop from f/1.8 at 28mm to f/2.8 at 35mm - that's a 1.3 stop drop in a very narrow focal range. The Canon G1X Mk II drops from f/2.0 at 24mm to f/2.8 at 28mm - 1 full stop.

I don't expect this much for the RX100M3 - f/1.8-2.8 is only a 1.3 stop range after all - but I would expect to see at least 0.5 stops. So we could see the RX100M3 drop to f/2.2-2.4 at 28mm. This would be significant for me, as I use my RX100M2 at f/1.8 28mm all the time in low light, but 24mm is too wide for general photography and to lose half a stop or more at 28mm on the RX100M3 would be a step backwards for me.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sulis2
Senior MemberPosts: 1,050
Like?
Re: vs GM1
In reply to technic, 7 months ago

technic wrote:

My main concern is image quality: how will it compare to a GM1 with the 12-32 (24-64 equiv.) kit zoom? The GM1 zoom is slow but good quality. If the RX100-3 has the same optical quality, 1.5-2 stops more usable aperture (on equivalent basis less because of sensor size), an EVF + tiltscreen and hopefully an improved IS unit it should be an excellent alternative to the GM1.

I think this is exactly what Sony is doing here - they are making the RX line into a prosumer, higher margin line that brackets m43 with 1" and FF sensors.

Sony's expertise is in electronics and miniaturisation - not optics. Creating lenses is not really the game they want to be in - so they leave it to Zeiss for that. So it's better for them if they can sell all-in-one cameras for a premium rather than selling (as it were) the razor and letting someone else benefit from selling the blades.

I'm increasingly coming round to this view myself. Rather than carrying around a body and several lenses I now prefer to have one carry-everywhere body and another with a prime lens - in my case an RX100 mk1 and an X100. The GM1 does look quite tempting, but if the RX100 mk3 does come with a 24mm lens then I will be sorely tempted. (If it came with a touchscreen I would slam my money down right now - why do so many camera makers still seem to think of it as a fad? Even Leica has realised how useful it is...)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
a5519
Regular MemberPosts: 221
Like?
Re: Too expensive?
In reply to Dandrewk, 7 months ago

This is an ideal landscape camera for hikers, climbers, travellers and everyone else who likes outdoor and photo activities at the same time. Something like Canon 5D mark III with 20-70 f/2.8L but in miniature size?

But still I not firmly believe that the specs will be as rumored.

o) EVF in such a small size? Is it possible.

o) Good image quality at 24 in such a small size? Hopefully software corrections will help.

If Sony finally learned how to put a reasonable exposure bracketing into this camera, almost any price will be not too high for such high tech wonder.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads