john175bramley
Forum Enthusiast
Here's the m43 equivalent lens(Panasonic 14-140) next to the Sony 18-200, not much difference.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Invalid comparison.. at least if I'm reading the lens markings in your posted photos correctly. The Pentax is shown as a 1:2.8 macro and the Oly as a 1:3.5. So unless the Sony isn't a true 1:1 macro, your "plain untrue" comment seems way off base.
'Everything in photography boils down to what's sharp and what's fuzzy.'
-Gaylord Herron
--The problem is that it is deceptive.
Sony wants to cry that they have the most compact system camera, but forget to mention that you need to add a lens, and that these lenses are far from compact.
Try the newly introduced 30 mm macro. Sony advertises that it is the most compact and low weight macro with 1:1 capabilities. This is plain untrue:
63mm x 46,5mm
53 x 71mm
True the Sony is lightweight, but with 165g for the Olympus and 215g for he Pentax I wouldn' call them exactly heavy...
--
Cheers,
Marc
http://www.digifotofreak.nl
'Everything in photography boils down to what's sharp and what's fuzzy.'
-Gaylord Herron
And Sony 18-200 was designed for the camcorder line (VG10, FS100). It has OS with "active mode" that comes with Sony's other camcorder line.Here's the m43 equivalent lens(Panasonic 14-140) next to the Sony 18-200, not much difference.
Are you really going to buy (or not buy) something based on dpreviews use of the word "compact" without actually looking at specs or photos or better yet, the actual item in person ?
I've seen the word "compact" used in conjunction with all manner of gear from DSLR bodies to much bigger than the 18-55. It's typically construed to mean "smaller than typical alternatives" or something to that effect.
It is what it is. If dpreview called it "big" people would scream that it isn't big.
I own one. I want a more compact normal lens to carry instead of the 18-55. I took the 18-55 with me to Disney because, compared to my DSLR, it's very compact.
Sony's $1999 A850 is "affordable FF". Do you consider that affordable ? Should everyone consider it affordable before someone is allowed to use that adjective ?
It's compact. It's not compact. Base your decisions on specs, not relative descriptions.
- Dennis
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Well, mirrorless cameras were developed as a compact alternative to DSLRs.
They're not the same type as anything, save the Samsung NX line, and no more or less compact.
I bought one. Because it's compact. Not according to dpr, according to me.
If nobody is buying them, then clearly they're not misleading anyone.
- Dennis
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Soooo ... how exactly did dpreview coax you into looking at the NEX ? Was it a google search on "compact" that led you to that term used in that paragraph on that page ? (I'm sure the word "compact" is used on thousands of pages all over the web). Did you click on some search page that brought you to the NEX instead of the S95 ? Because all I see on the search page is an option to pick "fixed lens" or "interchangeable lens" and in the latter, "rangefinder style mirrorless" or "SLR style mirrorless". The news blurb that provides a link to the preview doesn't call it a compact kit or system; it only says that it "is directly aimed at offering a compact-camera-like experience to users looking to upgrade to a large-sensor camera." So you didn't get there under false pretenses ...
There's the solution ! Just change all uses of the word "compact" to "bulky" and we'd have accurate information for your "research".
So did dpr convince you to go out and buy one ? Did you waste hours of your time researching it before realizing that the 18-55 isn't "compact" ? According to you, you're definitely not buying one and according to your year of field observations, nobody else is, either. So ... what exactly is the problem here ? How is dpreviews use of the word "compact" in a writeup aggrieving you ?
Seems like if the use of the word "compact" on page 1 fooled you, the picture at the top of page 2:
would have clued you in.
I won't disagree with your disagreement with the description of the kit as "compact". That's subjective. But I fail to see how anyone with half a brain would be "misled" by this writeup into thinking the camera (even with lens) is smaller than it is.
- Dennis
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
N
Najinsky
Guest
An alarming number of insults, name calling and put downs. Thanks for that. I'm not going to respond to them, I don't think there content warrants further air time.
An alarming number of inaccurate assumptions. Looking like many just want a sounding board. Glad you found some use for the post. But so many incorrect assumptions is just ridiculous. I'll address a few of the key ones in a general reply.
I live on a small Island, 5 x 7 miles. There are only two real camera shops, and a few A/V stores. Product choice is somewhat limited and/or inflated. Stuff can be ordered, but not speculatively, you have to order to buy and pay a deposit. So the internet is a common source for purchases, and product review sites are an important source of research for buying decisions. I'm sure Amazon thought so too when they bought DPReview. Obviously I like to get my hands on the cameras to where possible but I still value a good review site and coming to DPR has become second nature.
And and I am not suggesting DPReview is failing in this respect. Quite the opposite, I think DPReviews does a great job and while I don't always agree (on the things I have experience of), I usually get where they are coming from, and I always recommend this site to prospective purchasers or fellow photographers. It is because I respect this site that I decided to initiated some feedback via the open question. Not to troll, not to annoy you, and not to sound off.
I carry a 5DMkII around a lot of the time (and I do mean a lot) usually with a 50mm f/1.4, or a 70-200 f/4 or a 16-35mm f/2.8 which comprise my travel kit. I have no issue with its size or weight and carrying it around is second nature. But there are scenarios where carrying a camera like a 5D is not appropriate. Like business meeting, nights out on the town, inconspicuous shooting, and times when I'll be doing any sort of activity where a non-pocketable camera would be a burden.
But I still want to have a camera with me in these scenarios (or at least some of them). And like many here on DPR, I want that camera to offer great results across a wide range of scenarios, with it's design compromise. I'll take reduced utility over reduced IQ most days (but only up to a point).
For me, and it's clear from the forums it's not just me, the Sony (and not just the Sony) with the zoom offers me no carrying benefits. Obviously it's smaller and obviously it's lighter, and I understand and respect that for some that's a benefit. But it still has to be carried just the same, and for my requirements, it is just as inappropriate to carry as is the 5D in the above scenarios.
For some reason some people thought I was promoting other MILCs with their zoom over the Sony, I didn't. All I did was show that with their zooms attached, they are all pretty similar carrying packages, and I don't really care for any of them (not in a grumpy way, in a 'they don't do it for me' way). If you really want to wager which is the smallest, I'd suggest the smallest MILC with a Zoom is the compact GF-2 with the compact Oly 9-18mm. I haven't calculated the combined volume, but I can't think of any smaller combination. I've have occasionally been tempted to give that combo a try as an intermediate solution but I prefer what Oly do with the m4/3 sensor over Panasonic.
I get the physics, which is why I'm happy to take a prime over a zoom, to make it what I consider compact, but not 24mm. I'd like 35mm, maybe 40mm or 28mm, just.
If I was choosing it today, it would be the Rixcoh GXR with 28mm equiv. But I'm not choosing, I have a 28mm which fits in a large pocket. I'm just looking at what's coming to market which is why I come here. I hear from a source (of unknown reliability) that Olympus are soon to release some fantastic new cameras. But I'm sure DPR will probably know all about that! So I'll keep watching, quietly, trying not to annoy you.
-Najinsky
An alarming number of inaccurate assumptions. Looking like many just want a sounding board. Glad you found some use for the post. But so many incorrect assumptions is just ridiculous. I'll address a few of the key ones in a general reply.
I live on a small Island, 5 x 7 miles. There are only two real camera shops, and a few A/V stores. Product choice is somewhat limited and/or inflated. Stuff can be ordered, but not speculatively, you have to order to buy and pay a deposit. So the internet is a common source for purchases, and product review sites are an important source of research for buying decisions. I'm sure Amazon thought so too when they bought DPReview. Obviously I like to get my hands on the cameras to where possible but I still value a good review site and coming to DPR has become second nature.
And and I am not suggesting DPReview is failing in this respect. Quite the opposite, I think DPReviews does a great job and while I don't always agree (on the things I have experience of), I usually get where they are coming from, and I always recommend this site to prospective purchasers or fellow photographers. It is because I respect this site that I decided to initiated some feedback via the open question. Not to troll, not to annoy you, and not to sound off.
I carry a 5DMkII around a lot of the time (and I do mean a lot) usually with a 50mm f/1.4, or a 70-200 f/4 or a 16-35mm f/2.8 which comprise my travel kit. I have no issue with its size or weight and carrying it around is second nature. But there are scenarios where carrying a camera like a 5D is not appropriate. Like business meeting, nights out on the town, inconspicuous shooting, and times when I'll be doing any sort of activity where a non-pocketable camera would be a burden.
But I still want to have a camera with me in these scenarios (or at least some of them). And like many here on DPR, I want that camera to offer great results across a wide range of scenarios, with it's design compromise. I'll take reduced utility over reduced IQ most days (but only up to a point).
For me, and it's clear from the forums it's not just me, the Sony (and not just the Sony) with the zoom offers me no carrying benefits. Obviously it's smaller and obviously it's lighter, and I understand and respect that for some that's a benefit. But it still has to be carried just the same, and for my requirements, it is just as inappropriate to carry as is the 5D in the above scenarios.
For some reason some people thought I was promoting other MILCs with their zoom over the Sony, I didn't. All I did was show that with their zooms attached, they are all pretty similar carrying packages, and I don't really care for any of them (not in a grumpy way, in a 'they don't do it for me' way). If you really want to wager which is the smallest, I'd suggest the smallest MILC with a Zoom is the compact GF-2 with the compact Oly 9-18mm. I haven't calculated the combined volume, but I can't think of any smaller combination. I've have occasionally been tempted to give that combo a try as an intermediate solution but I prefer what Oly do with the m4/3 sensor over Panasonic.
I get the physics, which is why I'm happy to take a prime over a zoom, to make it what I consider compact, but not 24mm. I'd like 35mm, maybe 40mm or 28mm, just.
If I was choosing it today, it would be the Rixcoh GXR with 28mm equiv. But I'm not choosing, I have a 28mm which fits in a large pocket. I'm just looking at what's coming to market which is why I come here. I hear from a source (of unknown reliability) that Olympus are soon to release some fantastic new cameras. But I'm sure DPR will probably know all about that! So I'll keep watching, quietly, trying not to annoy you.
-Najinsky
If your point was that zooms make MILCs too big for you, then maybe you should say that instead of something inflammatory like:
"Does this look compact to you? Your preview uses the term compact dozens of time like in the comment below that image:
"The NEX-C3 is certainly small but still fits pretty well in the hand (though, like most compact cameras, its controls aren't easily accessible while in the shooting grip)."
One of us is blind, and I think it must be me because I can't see the compact camera you used to shoot your preview samples."
Maybe you didn't read that too carefully, but the they're talking about the C3 being compact. And as can be seen from the photos in this post, it is. Even compared to P&S cameras. And they even spelled it out that zooms make the cameras larger, and hardly compact anymore.
The NEX is compact:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3501/5817572072_b7bdd065e0_o.jpg
Especially with a compact prime:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2787/5817571990_1edab31fec_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3331/5817572240_3d240673f8_o.jpg
In fact, with a small prime it's even comparable to true compact cameras:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4134/4890633642_d16c420298_o.jpg
And thanks to peaking, the shortest flange-distance out there and the decent 1.5x crop-factor you're by no means limited to native lenses:
http://www.pbase.com/stringcheese/image/135416845/original.jpg
Now, to end my post on something else than criticism, have a look at the Samsung NX-line: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ci=274&N=4288584247+4291237751
Compact 24mm, 30mm and 45mm equivalent lenses. And they're all both fast, and based on the 20mm and 30mm, excellent. And the new NX line with new sensors should be out this summer.
"Does this look compact to you? Your preview uses the term compact dozens of time like in the comment below that image:
"The NEX-C3 is certainly small but still fits pretty well in the hand (though, like most compact cameras, its controls aren't easily accessible while in the shooting grip)."
One of us is blind, and I think it must be me because I can't see the compact camera you used to shoot your preview samples."
Maybe you didn't read that too carefully, but the they're talking about the C3 being compact. And as can be seen from the photos in this post, it is. Even compared to P&S cameras. And they even spelled it out that zooms make the cameras larger, and hardly compact anymore.
The NEX is compact:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3501/5817572072_b7bdd065e0_o.jpg
Especially with a compact prime:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2787/5817571990_1edab31fec_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3331/5817572240_3d240673f8_o.jpg
In fact, with a small prime it's even comparable to true compact cameras:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4134/4890633642_d16c420298_o.jpg
And thanks to peaking, the shortest flange-distance out there and the decent 1.5x crop-factor you're by no means limited to native lenses:
http://www.pbase.com/stringcheese/image/135416845/original.jpg
Now, to end my post on something else than criticism, have a look at the Samsung NX-line: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ci=274&N=4288584247+4291237751
Compact 24mm, 30mm and 45mm equivalent lenses. And they're all both fast, and based on the 20mm and 30mm, excellent. And the new NX line with new sensors should be out this summer.
N
Najinsky
Guest
All of that may be true, and the C3 is certainly a tiny body, but all I ask is you consider 2 things. 1) the preview samples were all taken with lenses that turn turn that compact body into a much bigger camera. Tripple or more.
And in light of that 'fact', the bottom line of that post
Could be taken as observational rather than inflammatory. It's up to you.
-Najinsky
All the APS-c mirrorless systems are limited by usable lenses, most lack viewfinders and have poor user controls.
m4/3 systems can provide smaller lenses. in addition, the panasonic system has a good evf.
So why is the Sony system selling? IF I wanted good low light performance, i would buy a DSLR and deal with the size (which is not that different with a lens mounted from the NEX.)
IF I want small and mirrorless, the m4/3 would be more logical.
--
A picture is worth a thousand words but talk is cheap.
Best regards
Nick
m4/3 systems can provide smaller lenses. in addition, the panasonic system has a good evf.
So why is the Sony system selling? IF I wanted good low light performance, i would buy a DSLR and deal with the size (which is not that different with a lens mounted from the NEX.)
IF I want small and mirrorless, the m4/3 would be more logical.
--
A picture is worth a thousand words but talk is cheap.
Best regards
Nick
tompower53
Senior Member
Not a compact P&S camera.
It is what it is and comparing it to a different type of product and saying it is to big is nonsensical.
People who want to buy a pocket-able compact camera will not find it in a micro 4/3 or APS-C model.
Yes yes if your pockets are big enough some will say you can. Only when you can show me one that will fit in the front pocket of my blue jeans will I believe it though - and that is strictly the territory of a small sensor camera.
--
tom power
It is what it is and comparing it to a different type of product and saying it is to big is nonsensical.
People who want to buy a pocket-able compact camera will not find it in a micro 4/3 or APS-C model.
Yes yes if your pockets are big enough some will say you can. Only when you can show me one that will fit in the front pocket of my blue jeans will I believe it though - and that is strictly the territory of a small sensor camera.
--
tom power
tompower53
Senior Member
Look the Sony is compact for an APS-C camera. The only real pocketable compact cameras are small sensor P&S'ers. Even the smallest combo m4/3 and pancake is huge compared to the smallest "compact P&S'ers.
What is so hard to understand about the fact that Dpreview is calling it compact in it's category. Obviously it is not compact compared to a different class of small sensor cameras - we all know that.
--
tom power
What is so hard to understand about the fact that Dpreview is calling it compact in it's category. Obviously it is not compact compared to a different class of small sensor cameras - we all know that.
--
tom power
What lens the sample pictures were taken with do not change the fact that the NEX-C3 is a compact camera. If you can't see it, then you're not really looking. The camera they used is compact, the lens isn't. Why would you judge the size of a camera based on the size of a lens when the lens is intechangeable? By doing so there's not one single camera out there with interchangeable lenses that can be considered compact, as every single one can be mounted with large lenses.
Besides, they used the 18-55mm because a zoom lens is arguably better suited for beginners than a prime, and the C3 is very much marketed at beginners and P&S upgraders. Thus a prime would throw a lot of them off.
"We've shown it here with the 18-55mm zoom, rather than the 16mm F2.8 lens with which it can also be bought in a kit, because we feel this is the more appropriate lens for the overwhelming majority of compact camera users Sony is hoping will buy the camera."
And your OP was inflammatory, there's no doubt about that. If it weren't, you wouldn't be complaining about the negative response you've been getting.
Besides, they used the 18-55mm because a zoom lens is arguably better suited for beginners than a prime, and the C3 is very much marketed at beginners and P&S upgraders. Thus a prime would throw a lot of them off.
"We've shown it here with the 18-55mm zoom, rather than the 16mm F2.8 lens with which it can also be bought in a kit, because we feel this is the more appropriate lens for the overwhelming majority of compact camera users Sony is hoping will buy the camera."
And your OP was inflammatory, there's no doubt about that. If it weren't, you wouldn't be complaining about the negative response you've been getting.
Mainly because the sensors Sony use handily trump anything available in m43, the cameras are small and look good, and Sony has marketed them well. And they're cheap. So there really is something for most users.
And yes, APS-C cameras might have worse EVFs than the GH line and the PENs, but both the 920k TruBlack of the NEXses and the 920k OLED of the Samsung NXes are better than anything you can find in a m43.
Why buy a DSLR when you can get dynamic range and high-ISO performance that's the best available in APS-C in a NEX-C3 that's one of, if not the smallest interchangeable lens camera out there?
And yes, APS-C cameras might have worse EVFs than the GH line and the PENs, but both the 920k TruBlack of the NEXses and the 920k OLED of the Samsung NXes are better than anything you can find in a m43.
Why buy a DSLR when you can get dynamic range and high-ISO performance that's the best available in APS-C in a NEX-C3 that's one of, if not the smallest interchangeable lens camera out there?
N
Najinsky
Guest
It's the use of this word:
The body doesn't become a camera until it has a lens.
The Sigma DP1, DP1s, DP1x, DP2, DP2s, Leica X1, Fuji X100 and Samsung NX10, NX11, Ricoh GXR A12 50mm and Ricoh GXR A12 28mm are all APS-C cameras.
If you put the 16mm pancake on, the Sony remains a compact camera. But at a compromise of IQ and range of shooting scenarios
But if you want to put a more useful, more usable and higher IQ lens on the body, to make a more useful, more usable and higher IQ camera. The Sony suddenly jumps to around 3 times it's size. And is bigger than all the above APS-C cameras. I accept the Sony is a zoom, but then again, I'd already stated I understood the physics and am willing to accept a useful prime, which the Sony prime clearly isn't.
These are just facts and numbers. You can put them into a calculator or a spreadsheet and check them for yourself. So I can only give you back your question: What is so hard to understand?
I wan't a useful APS-C that is small enough to fit in a pocket and take anywhere.
DPReview used to call pocketable cameras 'Compacts' or 'Enthusiast Compacts' in their group test, as opposed to things like 'Superzooms' or 'Entry level DSLRs'.
If DPR want to treat the C3 as a compact, I genuinely and sincerely have no problem with that. But I also think that they should be then be reviewing it with a lens that keeps it compact. Not one that triples its size.
MILCs are a new breed, and they clearly have the ability to transform from pocketable (or almost), which I think of as compacts, to zooms which are more comparable to superzooms with better IQ, or smaller DSLRs with a different mode of operation. I'm sure DPR will figure out how to treat them as they evolve, and I thought feedback would be useful.
I'm interested in the compact aspect (for when I don't want to take a DSLR), and I do realise others have a different interests, but I don't get why that means I should be subjected to name calling and the other types of animosity demonstrated in this thread, just for giving feedback in this matter.
-Najinsky
N
Najinsky
Guest
I just can't agree. Without a lens, it is not a camera, it's a body. You can take a photograph with a camera. You cant with a body (unless you join the f/0 club).
Because I want to figure out if I will take it with me to take photographs, or leave it at home with the other interchangeable lens camera.
Or, perhaps, it wasn't thought (or intended) to be inflammatory. If I thought it was inflammatory I'd have no reason to comment.
Anyway, I said it was up to and you gave your response. End of.
That all sounds great ... I enjoy the relative compactness of my NEX when it's compact enough; curse it when it isn't. It would be a whole lot better with a 30/2 pancake, but I had other reasons for choosing it over Samsung/m43. And it doesn't replace my DSLR kit in any way, shape or form ... I mostly carry it when I wouldn't otherwise carry my DSLR.
No gripes about what you have to say about NEX and you seem to have dropped the accusations that dpr is doing a disservice.
Meanwhile, we all keep waiting for the promise of technology to bring something more satisfying. Maybe Nikon's rumored smaller sensor-based system will do the trick ...
p.s. Life on a small island sounds intriguing !
Take care,
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
No gripes about what you have to say about NEX and you seem to have dropped the accusations that dpr is doing a disservice.
Meanwhile, we all keep waiting for the promise of technology to bring something more satisfying. Maybe Nikon's rumored smaller sensor-based system will do the trick ...
p.s. Life on a small island sounds intriguing !
Take care,
- Dennis
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
It's a interchangeable lens camera, with or without lenses. And it's compact. You're looking at one single lens out of the hundreds the camera accepts, and then drawing the conclusion that the camera itself isn't compact. That makes no sense at all. The only thing you can conclude from that is that the camera with that particular lens isn't compact. Only if that were the only lens you can use could you somehow conclude anything about the size of the camera.
If you want to look at how big the system is, look at the focal-lengths you wish to use, the aperture you wish to shoot at, and then look at what lenses are available that fill your wishes. Add the camera, and you're looking at the size of the system, but not the size of the camera. And the size of the system depends on the size of its lenses as well as the size of the camera. Don't look at one single lens+camera combination and then conclude that the camera isn't compact.
The C3 as a camera is the smallest in its class. It's compact. The size of the system depends on the lenses you choose, ranging from diminutive:
to ridiculous:
Whatever the intent behind your OP was doesn't change what your choice of words made it out to be. Inflammatory.
If you want to look at how big the system is, look at the focal-lengths you wish to use, the aperture you wish to shoot at, and then look at what lenses are available that fill your wishes. Add the camera, and you're looking at the size of the system, but not the size of the camera. And the size of the system depends on the size of its lenses as well as the size of the camera. Don't look at one single lens+camera combination and then conclude that the camera isn't compact.
The C3 as a camera is the smallest in its class. It's compact. The size of the system depends on the lenses you choose, ranging from diminutive:
to ridiculous:
Whatever the intent behind your OP was doesn't change what your choice of words made it out to be. Inflammatory.
1) User interface (lack of direct controls) poor on NEX
2) I will not use a camera without a viewfinder (i am not alone on this)
3) with a lens, the Pentax K5 is not much bigger than the NEX
4) Pentax k5 has even better RAW results than NEX-5 (same sensor, beter image processing)
5) Bulit in flash is useful. If you add all the attachments to the NEX (viewfinder, flash), you end up with a SLR size.
How would those make the camera better suited for high-ISO work? Considering that the NEX is the smallest of all EVILs, the Pentax is very much bigger than it.