Implications of RX100 for low end mirrorless

Started Jul 13, 2012 | Discussions thread
MP Burke Regular Member • Posts: 124
Re: Implications of RX100 for low end mirrorless

The RX 100 strikes me as being rather expensive for such a crippled camera: by crippled I mean it seems to have no filter thread, no connection for an external flash and no viewfinder (or connection for one). As for the lens, to my mind it is too restrictive, there is little point to me in having something small if I frequently need to take a bigger camera to use the focal lengths I want.

I am not convinced by the arguments that I read from time to time, that there are lots of people who are buying CSCs that do not change the lens. There seem to be a lot of people saying "I change lenses but a lot of others don't".

When I bought my Panasonic G2 the first thing I did was get an adaptor so that I could use my old Pentax macro lens. With all the legacy lenses available second hand, sales of new lenses are not a realistic indicator, so who really knows how many owners of CSCs are using interchangeable lenses?

Since I am English I do not understand what is meant by a "soccer mom". In the article it seems to be a supercilious term for women who are buying CSCs but, according to the author, do not need one, is that correct?

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow