FL0

FL0

Joined on Dec 29, 2012

Comments

Total: 3, showing: 1 – 3
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1461 comments in total)
In reply to:

FL0: ....or you could build a system around a mirrorless ILC (either micro 4/3 or APS-C) with respective (not FF) lenses to keep bulk down and keep it as a second system alongside the FF you might or might not buy in the future. I find that unless you need very shallow DOF or need to shoot low light/high ISO, or are a pixel peeper, there is no need to schlepp around a FF body/lens these days. And unless you are on a professional assignment (and maybe even then depending on what it is and what your client expects you to have) the advantages of a lighter more compact system can outweigh the slight compromise in picture quality that goes along with it. You can always keep the FF body/lens in the car (Mercedes, BMW or Audi preferrably) to show that you are a professional and/or can afford it. And if you can afford the FF system you surely can afford a RX100 to have on you pretty much all the time for the casual snapshot and such. The best camera is the one you have with you.

yes. my comments were based on using APS-C sized sensor as a starting point. APS-C makes a lot more sense to me in smaller mirrorless bodies than in DSLR sized bodies. There is a significant bump in quality (and a noticeable reduction in noise at all iso) when going from 1" (largest compact) sensor to APS-C, more so than when going from APS-C to FF IMO, but you may disagree. I often carry both when I'm on vacation or out with the family, a compact RX100 to cover standard zoom range and a Nex-6 (APS-C) with a prime lens for portraits and such. It's still a lot less bulk than carrying a single FF DSLR. Shooting RAW and with a little tweaking in Lightroom I am usually happy with the results either way - happy enough to take a wait and see approach to other formats for the time being.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2015 at 19:38 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1461 comments in total)

....or you could build a system around a mirrorless ILC (either micro 4/3 or APS-C) with respective (not FF) lenses to keep bulk down and keep it as a second system alongside the FF you might or might not buy in the future. I find that unless you need very shallow DOF or need to shoot low light/high ISO, or are a pixel peeper, there is no need to schlepp around a FF body/lens these days. And unless you are on a professional assignment (and maybe even then depending on what it is and what your client expects you to have) the advantages of a lighter more compact system can outweigh the slight compromise in picture quality that goes along with it. You can always keep the FF body/lens in the car (Mercedes, BMW or Audi preferrably) to show that you are a professional and/or can afford it. And if you can afford the FF system you surely can afford a RX100 to have on you pretty much all the time for the casual snapshot and such. The best camera is the one you have with you.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 17:32 UTC as 190th comment | 3 replies
On Dpreview Users' Poll: Best Camera of 2012? article (1509 comments in total)

My personal decision came down to OM-D vs. NEX-6 as I was looking for a pocketable solution that maximizes picture quality and minimizes bulk. I opted for the NEX-6. I know it didn't even make the short list here and I know the arguments for the OM-D. But after learning first hand what the NEX-6 can do, I am convinced it was the right choice for me. Focus peaking with MF lenses works like a charm, it has enough customizable buttons, dials and screens to not have to deal with the menu (which isn't all that bad after all) and you can use your cellphone to share files instantly via email/text/Instagram or any other app you can think of. That's not to mention its video capabilities or the open system that allows you to use virtually any lens (legacy or otherwise) via adapter. No other camera I know of shows this kind of versatility. Here's to hoping Sony/Zeiss will put their money where their mouth is and come out with enough quality (PDAF capable) lenses to make this a quality system.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 29, 2012 at 06:41 UTC as 33rd comment
Total: 3, showing: 1 – 3