Dave Oddie

@Petka "From the answers so far I get the feeling that people here have not really grasped my question..."

I think you are right and it is a very reasonable question.

People seem to be thinking how clever to include the switch-able TC but going back to first principles as you have done and asking why do it this way is valid.

I think it is a very sensible question to ask, why not just produce a 200-560?

Canon may well have a very compelling answer but it doesn't make the question any less valid and anyone who has a go at you for asking it is, in my opinion, an idiot.

"The small long screen is not cutting it."

Why not? The ever increasing size of phone screens means they become increasingly cumbersome to carry no matter how thin they become. If you just want a phone with some smart features the smaller Apple's are far more convenient for carrying around as a phone. If you want a bigger screen I don't see the point of 5 inch screens and yo may as well go the whole hog and stick a (much cheaper) 7 inch tablet in the briefcase.

I agree. If you are going to make a fixed lens aps-c camera 28mm focal length is the way to go (42mm equivalent).

In the days of film the really nice (full frame) range-finder cameras Olympus and Minolta used to make nearly all had 38mm or 40mm lenses on them. There was a good reason for that.

Also yet another digital camera that doesn't have a tilting LCD. Do companies like Nikon not realise how useful this is and how easy it is to do in the digital age?

They are not the only ones and the manufacturers seem obsessed with making camera that mimic old film range-finders to the extent they leave off this genuinely useful feature. Fuji are just as bad with their aps-c interchangeable lens cameras.

"A tiltable screen, making Rolleiflex-style belly height pictures more comfortable to accomplish."

It looks a very nice camera but it never ceases to amaze me that any high end digital camera doesn't have a tiltable screen these days.

My main camera is a Sony A77 and the tiltable screen on that is amazing and doesn't add much to the dimensions. Being able to shoot waste level is great. A camera like this little Fuji would be perfect if it had one in my opinion.

I know the Nex cameras have such screens but given the choice of an"Xe2" with tiltable screen and any of the Nex's I'd go for the Fuji because of the lenses.

"Sony never feel like they quite understand how to make a camera that is good to use."

Well given my A77 is the best camera ergonomically I have ever used (and I have been into photography for over 35 years) I would say your sweeping generalisation should be ignored.

How good cameras are from a usability point of view is largely personal preference but my comments on the A77 are largely echoed by other users. Now granted this comment section is about a different camera and one I have never used myself but I could not let your sweeping and inaccurate generalisation go by without comment

How have Nikon addressed the issue? No explanation as to why the D600 is more prone to this problem and no fix other than getting it cleaned at a Nikon service centre which is of course inconvenient for users.

From the press release:

"Sony extends the range of A-mount interchangeable lenses with three new models to satisfy the most demanding enthusiasts and photo professionals."

Extends the range? They already have lenses of these exact focal lengths in the range. The two zooms replace existing lenses and even if they keep the existing Sony 50mm 1.4 in production (which I doubt they will) then having two 50mm F1.4 lenses doesn't count as extending the range.

If they has introduced a F2.8-F4 standard FF zoom or 35mm F2 or whatever then they would be extending the range.

At least it shows some commitment to the A mount but they really do need to start actually extending the range not just replace existing lenses.

Of course it is. It's also much easier to cause one than in more modern languages.

You would have to be a bit of a masochist to choose C++ to develop a desktop application these days.

C++? Good grief, the language that invented the memory leak.

"Almost every compact camera comes with 'equivalent focal lengths' printed on the packaging. You might not like it, but it is here and you cannot ignore it."

That relates to field of view. Nothing else. I thought everyone understood that simple fact. Obviously not!

"Any noise difference between different sensor sizes will be exist over the whole ISO range (of course that is a simplification). It is just that at base ISO you really have to lift shadows significantly (and view large enough) to see the difference."

There is no practical difference at all at lower ISO's. You can theorise all you want but for this ridiculous notion of aperture equivalence to hold there would have to be a completely linear relationship noise-wise at all ISO's with aps-c demonstrably two stops worse at ISO 100 as opposed to 3200 (for example). There clearly isn't that linear relationship.

The ever improving noise performance of smaller sensors makes this equivalence theory completely irrelevant.

"Yes, of course but while the actual focal length and the actual f-stop are what they are, the equivalent focal length and the equivalent f-stop naturally are different"

No they are not. There is no "equivalent" about it. A 150mm F2.8 lens it just that. It doesn't change either focal length or f stop because you stick it on a camera with a different sized sensor.

It has nothing to do with noise levels either. Is a FF camera about two stops better noise wise than an aps-c camera? I'd say so (at higher ISO's) but that doesn't make an F2.8 lens an F5.6 lens on an aps-c camera. It is purely a reflection of one thing and one thing only - sensor noise performance.

Given at low ISO you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference in noise levels between the two sensors anyway if your logic was correct you would have to say what what ISO an F2.8 lens became "equivalent" to an F5.6 lens when used on an aps-c camera.

This equivalence stuff is absolute rubbish. An F2.8 lens is an F2.8 lens. Period. It doesn't matter what sized sensor sits behind it. Same applies to focal length.

Ok a 150mm on m4/3 will give the same d.o.f as a 300mm at F5.6 on ff but surely the point is your 300mm F5.6 is two stops slower.

The idea no should make a 350mm lens for m4/3 because it would be "incompatible with the light or EZ-carry virtue that the cameras are supposed to fulfill." has got to be a joke.

People are attracted to the OM-D because it can prove a much more compact SLR type system in the way the original 4/3 system was envisaged to do. Given a 350mm lens has a f.o.v of a 700mm lens on full frame you ought to end up with one of the most "EZ-carry" birding rigs on the market!

Such lenses would not gather dust as people ditched more bulky alternative systems. m4/3 is in fact finally on the verge of realising olys first vision for 4/3 - if they make the lenses and charge a reasonable price for them.

You have both missed the point of the test.

The object was not to compare just cameras or just lenses. We already know the Nikon is the highest resolving camera and Canon 24-70 this highest resolving lens.

The idea was to compare SYSTEMS because you can't mount the Canon lens on a Nikon body to have the ultimate resolution combination.

Therefore you need to look at the overall resolving power of a practical camera and lens combination to draw any meaningful conclusion.

What he was interested in was the resolution that a particular camera system (camera and lens combination) gives.

So as a SYSTEM the Nikon/Tamron is equivalent to a Canon/Canon system. The fact this is so because the Nikon has no AA filter and has more pixles (thus it makes up for the poorer resolving Tamron lens) is just NOT the point.

And it tells Canon users you can just about match a Nikon 800e (with either Nikon or Tamron 24-70 as the lenses are close optically) if you are can afford the Canon 24-70.

The crop factor for the nex 60 is indeed incorrect but the crop factor does not affect the aperture. The aperture is a physical characteristics of the lens that obviously can't change. The 60 is an F2.8 lens whatever you mount it on.

Put another way if you put a 60mm F2.8 lens on a FF camera and cropped the result to aps-c size the results would exactly the same as a shot with the same lens on a aps-c camera. You would not have been using a 90mm F4.2 lens because you cropped the result.

I find it very hard not to focus on the gear whenever I try and take a photo with my phone because it's a pain in the neck to use compared to a camera and no I am not trying to fiddle with settings or anything, just to get the thing to focus on what I want and to take a snap shot.

And just like many cameras that don't have a viewfinder its pants trying to use it in bright light. Compared to my current d-slr which is one of the most intuitive and ergonomically best cameras I have ever owned the phone just gets in the way.

@ jamesanthonycampbell:"So you would really setup a photo shoot in dazzling sunlight. No professional would do that unless forced to."

Wedding photographers often have little to no choice over location, weather and lighting but to use a phone camera successfully they would certainly want to manoeuvre the couple to areas of more forgiving lighting if possible - which they may not have to do with a better camera that has better dynamic range and noise handling. These safer locations may also not be the best photogenically either.

When I got married years ago I had a friend take candid shots with his Canon EOS film SLR and I am sure a 35mm compact would have worked as well, but a Kodak Instamatic? No way. Same here for me. Use a Fuji X series or something similar if you want to be unobtrusive, not a phone.

In any case an iPhone isn't exactly a cheap "camera" anyway so what is he trying to prove?

Why 20mm? And why F2.8?

It's neither equivalent to a 28mm or 35mm on full frame. A 24mm (well 23.5 really :lol: ) F2 or even better F1.4 would be far more useful. And of course there is the CZ already for that.

ianimal - I'd caution against getting a 28mm and a 35mm. 28mm isn't much wider. A better combo would be 24, 35, 50, 85.

You can get all those in Sony mount and there is one huge advantage of doing that on an A99 - the in body image stabilization. All the lenses become stabilized.

In the never ending "my high ISO is better than your high ISO" debate in-body stabilization seems to get overlooked these days but it is still a heck of a feature that extends low light capability even further for suitable subjects.

CZ 24mm F2, Sigma 35 F1.4, Sony (or Sigma) 50mm F1.4 and CZ 85mm F1.4 is a combo to die for.

Personally I'd just go for 24, 35 and 85 because I always found 50mm jack of all trades and master of none.

DPR didn't even do this review. DC resource did.

All DPR did was lifted it from here:

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_sx50-review

Now I know they have an agreement to do so but DPR calling it "our" review is disingenuous to say the least.