whensly: Like the long lens but sorry, for $700 clams? I'd buy the Sony RxIII which has a newer sensor, an EVF which is a game changer, or for $200 more I'd go for the Panasonic LX100 which will likely be my choice.
Canon seems oblivious to what is happening out there in photo-world.
No need to offer this also-ran-cam
What makes you think the RX100 III sensor is any newer?
Dave Oddie: Aren't these lenses a throwback to a former era? Just because in the days of film 70-200 F2.8's were kind of state of the art in terms of fast tele zooms why on smaller sensors do we want to replicate that particular focal length range on a 50-150 or whatever?
I don't consider F2.8 fast for focal length on 150 even in a zoom and you can get 50-200 lenses that are a stop slower at 150 (i.e. F4) so given the superior high ISO capabilities of modern sensors that in my opinion reduced the need even further. The 50-200's are cheap to buy and a lot lighter and weight seems to be a factor in the article.
Depth of field, F2.8 v F4? There is virtually nothing in it at 50mm or 150mm.
Don't see the point myself.
It says in the title that this is an opinion piece and throughout the article I write: 'I'd argue that' at which point it should be fairly apparent that it's a personal perspective.
I do make clear that a 70-200mm is equivalent to a 105-300mm in full frame terms in the same way that a 50-150mm is equivalent to a 70-200mm on full frame. I don't do this at every mention because it's important to reinforce why I'm comparing the two types of lenses: a full frame lens and a lens designed for APS-C that mimics its range.
And no, I've neither suggested that a 70-200mm equiv F2.8 makes an *ideal* portrait lens nor that it's a substitute for an 85mm F1.8. You raised the idea of buying a 70-200 F4 and a prime, I'm saying that a 70-200mm equiv can cover *some aspects* of both roles in a single lens.
The article already makes the argument that an actual 70-200mm gives more reach and that some people prefer that, so you're not adding anything by making the point again.
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner: Sad to see no mention whatsoever of the Sigma DP-1, one of the first large-sensor compacts that showed other camera makers there was a viable market and a value to that kind of camera.
Except the mention at the bottom of the third page?
Scottelly: Sigma was the first to the large sensor compact camera game. In fact, I remember a photo of a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Model, shooting a photo of herself in a mirror, using the Sigma DP1 compact camera. I couldn't find it on-line here, or I would post a link to it below. Here's a link to the DP1 page at Wikipedia though, so you can educate yourself Richard:
Are you sure the phrase about educating myself is necessary, given that I wrote on page 3:
"I'd argue the antecedent of the latest large-sensor photographers' compacts is Sigma's DP1, which combined a prime lens and near-APS-C-sized sensor in a much more portable package."
We'll have to disagree. I personally prefer using a 70-200mm *equivalent* F2.8 lens on APS-C to either a 70-200mm F4 or a 70-200mm F2.8.
I acknowledge in my article that some people prefer the reach that using an actual 70-200mm gives and if that's your preference, fair enough. It doesn't mean my perspective is wrong, though.
An 85mm F1.4 plus a 70-200mm F4 is likely to cost more than a 50-150mm F2.8 and requires more lens changing. The 50-150mm covers the entire classic portrait ~90-135mm equiv range (and no, I'm not going to accept ~100mm equiv as a cut-off).
Ultimately you're welcome to your opinion but please don't put your own words in quotes as if to imply they're mine. I'm also not clear on what makes my preference 'sales/marketing speak' any more than yours is.
Banhmi: DPReview, the equivalent aperture vs. equivalent focal length chart is confusing when both the x and y scale are continuously changing. It makes the chart misleading.
**Option 1** Isn't very helpful: the two cameras wouldn't line-up horizontally (different focal lengths), despite offering the same diagonal angles of view. Using F-numbers based on these focal lengths makes the X30 look like it has a slower lens.
**Option 2** This at least expresses that both cameras offer the same basic zoom capabilities but still suggests the X30's lens is slower and less capable.
**Option 3** This would show the lenses as having different focal lengths, despite the identical behaviour, but would show the lenses as being similarly capable in terms of light gathering and depth-of-field.
**Option 4** Is the one we've chosen because it shows, on the horizontal axis, that the XZ-2 and X30 offer the same zoom range and, on the vertical axis, that they offer similar control over depth-of-field and total light passed to the sensor.
Ultimately we believe Option 4 gives the clearest at-a-glance understanding of the two camera's capabilities.
@Banhmi The chart is calculated based on the area of the sensor that the LX100 uses (around a 2.2x crop), rather than assuming a full Four Thirds sensor.
@Mike FL - equivalent apertures are most (arguably only) useful when comparing capabilities across different sensor sizes, which is essential to understand the many different offerings in this class of camera.
There are four ways of plotting this graph:
**1)** Actual FL v Actual F#
**2)** *Equivalent* FL v Actual F#
**3)** Actual FL v *Equivalent* F#
**4)** *Equivalent* FL v *Equivalent F*#
The best way of seeing which of these makes most sense is to look at the following example:
**A)** Olympus XZ-2: FL 6-24mm, F# 1.8-2.5
**B)** Fujifilm X30: FL 7.1-28.4, F# 2.0-2.8
Or, in equivalent terms:
**A)** Olympus XZ-2: EFL: 28-112mm, EF# 8.3-11.1
**B)** Fujfilm X30: EFL: 28-112mm, EF# 7.9-11
abi170845: For those people comparing the X100T to some other camera like the Pana LX100 etc, don't you get it? The reason to get this camera is the Leaf Shutter and the high synch flash speed. Before comparing the X100T to another camera, please compare it to another camera that has a leaf shutter, APS-C sensor AND high flash synch to 1/4000th of a sec. This is the ONLY reason why I bought the X100S. Please, don't compare the X100T to another camera that can barely synch to 1/250 or has fake Hi Speed Flash. Let see other cameras with a BUILD IN flash that are able to belt out shot after shot fill flash like the X100T.
Given the sensor size, lens speed and level of control offered by the LX100, it's not at all clear-cut that it's in a different class from the X100 series.
The Canon G1 X II and Panasonic LX100 are pretty close competitors for the Fujifilm, unless you're set on shooting with a prime lens.
I agree the RX100 and X30 are rather different.
JonB1975: Reading this it sounds like if you change a button in the Q-menu, there's no way at all of changing it again or changing back to the original setting... can this be right???
@jeremyclarke - that's good, it suggests I've made it a little clearer.
It's not so much that there's no way to reset slots one at a time, it's that you need to reset every change you've made to the Setup menu in order to reset the Q Menu (meaning all the system sounds turn back on and the four-way controller reverts to Fn mode, etc).
Equally, if you select a slot to change and then decide not to, there's no way of cancelling - you can only get the original setting back by remembering what it was.
Yes, you can reset the entire Setup menu to revert to defaults.
I'm going to clarify the text now - I can see I didn't make it very clear.
geetees2: It's interesting how a user's equivalent-FOV requirements - e.g."I need a 35mm E-FOV" - translate on APS-C sensors as a wider-angle lens (in this case about 24mm), including what appears to be a more pronounced effect on perspective as well as increased DOF.While perspective correction and DOF adjustment are possible in software, how much do we want to tie ourselves to these routines?Alternatively, should we bother trying to control perspective and DOF at the point of making the picture, at all?
Perspective is purely a function of camera to subject distance, which in turn is usually defined by the framing that the angle of view gives you.
Since this lens and a 35mm lens on full frame will give the same angle of view, it's reasonable to assume you'll shoot from the same distance, relative to the subject, and thus get the same perspective.
I'll update the text to clarify that. You can change it back, but you have to rember what the option was - as soon as you enter the screen to look through the other options, there's no 'cancel' button.
John McMillin: The best reason to buy a mirror less is to get a smaller and lighter camera. So doesn't it make sense to provide smaller and lighter lenses for it? That hardly seems worth arguing about. And bring on the f4 lenses, too. If they were useful in the days of !SO 200 films, they certainly have a use now. Recently I used a Minolta 70-210/4 Beercan with my a850 FF for a portrait shoot, and the results delighted me, and my customer. How fuzzy a background do you want, anyhow?
I've add 'on APS-C' to the end of that sentence, to ensure that there's no ambiguity.
Yes, I'm comparing 70-200mm equiv F2.8s to 70-200mm F2.8s on the same format.
"You do realize that a 70-200/2.8 lens has a different purpose than a 50-140/2.8 lens would on the same format. Right?"
That's the point! 70-200mm lenses were designed to perform certain roles (on full frame). I'm arguing that, if you shoot APS-C, then a 50-150mm F2.8 performs a wider variety of those roles than a 70-200mm F2.8 does on APS-C (and offers a size/weight/cost benefit).
I've intentionally not gone into whether that size/weight/cost/light gathering balance holds up against full frame, because that's a different subject.
Stephen Ingraham: And don't forget the superzooms which are alive and well in all the maker's lines. This is another niche where the compact format and flexibility of a P&S is not going to be replaced by a phone. There are enough wildlife and nature photographer's (not to mention sports) out there to keep the superzoom niche filled for the foreseeable future. We might even see a long zoom with a 1.7 or 1 inch sensor. That would be something to behold!
Yes, superzooms are one of the other surviving niches. There are already a couple of larger-sensor long zoom cameras. The Olympus Stylus 1 is 1/1.7"-type. The Fujfilm X-S1 is (was?) 2/3"-type and the Sony RX10 and Panasonic FZ1000 are 1"-type.
Obviously there's a trade-off between sensor size, cameras size and zoom range, which limits what's possible, but there's some diversification and one-upmanship going on in that sphere, too.
Where does this article compare 50-140mm F2.8s to 70-200mm F2.8s **on full frame**?
The only place full frame is referenced in the entire article is saying that 70-200mm F4s offer similar capabilities.
mpgxsvcd: What makes the LX100 a "Point and Shoot" camera. Yes it has an Auto mode. However, all cameras including Full Frame DSLRs have an Auto mode.
The term "Point and Shoot" is what should die. There is no such thing as a point and shoot camera. All cameras have some sort of camera control now.
The more appropriate term is compact or more specifically you can say small sensor compact or large sensor compact.
I've adjusted the first page to try to make a clearer distinction between small-sensor, limited control 'point-and-shoots' and the larger-sensor enthusiast compacts that offer more control and better features.
@EinsteinsGhost - the article doesn't compare 50-140mm F2.8 on APS-C to 70-200mm F2.8 on full frame, it compares them both on APS-C.
It then mentions that 70-200mm F4s on FF are the closest equivalents, but that you need to have a full frame camera.
Equivalence is only relevant when comparing across formats, so is only discussed in the two places where other formats (full frame and Micro Four Thirds) are referred to.
shademaster: Hey, Sony. If you make an APS-C A-Mount 50-150 f/2.8 at 770g like the sigma, I'll buy it and an SLT.
Also: it is frustrating that all the long e-mount stuff is full frame. It would be nice to make an e-mount fast long zoom for aps-c that doesn't weight/cost a ton. I guess we'll all stick with samsung and fuji.
...and is a stop faster.
telefunk: Did it occur to anyone (reviewers included) that the sensor might be from the first generation RX100? Would make sense for Sony to sell old tech... But plenty good for my needs.
The first generation RX100 used an FSI CMOS sensor.
The RX100 II and III use a BSI sensor, as does the G7 X. Equally, it's the BSI version that Sony Semiconductor has publicised the specs of.
rufusrm44: This statement is false:
"Quite simply, the smaller sensor will receive less light at matched exposures (same shutter speed and aperture) and this means more noise."
It's only true if the pixel pitch is lower (meaning the pixel density is greater.) But if the number and size of the pixels are identical, that less light received on the m43 sensor is equivalent to the 'more' light gathered by full frame because the full frame requires more light to cover the larger sensor.
Imagine if you had a sensor that was cut 1/4 the size of the full frame sensor. That means it only needs the same shutter speed and aperture to produce the same quality of image, but that image would be only 1/4 the pixels of the ff sensor, and would therefore only need 1/4 the light.
The error is in assuming you *need* more light for the larger sensor.
If you look at [the diagram at the top of this page](http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care/2), you'll see that you don't *need* more light, you *get access to* more light at any given f-number.
If you use the same lens on each sensor, then the larger sensor collects all the additional light around the edges.
If you use a wider lens on the small sensor to match the wider angle-of-view offered in the first diagram, then you'll use a shorter focal length and therefore the same f-number will be using a smaller aperture diagonal. Either way, the larger sensor gets more light (it's not the same amount of light averaged over a larger area).