I would have said a fixed lens camera with a decent length zoom and a sensor bigger than the one in my phone is a fair sized niche. The introduction price can be debated til hell freezes over, it's one of a kind so sony clearly just set the price at what they thought would sell. I have enough money that I'm happily buying one. Not to mentioned the fact that it will also seemingly make a much more passable video tool than any other fixed lens camera, oh yea, and the weather sealing =)
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
- Status
But it still might be closer to what is needed than is attainable through configuring a camera system. I doubt sony would have gone to all the effort of designing a new camera if it would only appeal to me.
Really? So you've spoken to just about everyone who shoots in inclement weather? Because I know a substantial number as unless they're pros or wildlife enthusiasts they never seem bothered about much outside that range.
dougjgreen1
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,068
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 2,395
No, they are rationalizing - just as you are - you tailored your needs to what you could get. If you could have gotten only 28mm on the wide end, or 300mm on the long end, that would have become your need.
The fact is, anyone who shoots much at 200mm wishes they could shoot at 300mm - unless they already can.
No, if it started at 28 it would have been a lot less appealing to me.
You really should stop using words like anyone when it comes to personal preferences.
Sean Nelson
Forum Pro
The Sony RX100 is very successful, and it's an even more limited tradeoff. Not everyone needs or is willing to deal with / pay for the ultimate flexibility in a system. If they were, we'd probably all be using FF cameras because they have the best range of lens options available.
For an all-in-one package, the RX10 covers a pretty decent range with image quality closer to M43 than to the small-sensor cameras, and that combination hits a sweet spot for some users. That's no different than M43 hitting a sweet spot for others who want the flexibility that interchangeable lenses bring to the table.
Nothing says the RX10 has to be your only camera.
In fact, an all-Sony shooter might own both RX10 and RX100 II. The RX100 II is more pocketable than any m43 camera currently in production, and I suspect with potruding lens, the GM1 will be less pocketable than RX100 II.
dougjgreen1
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,068
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 2,395
I'll use any words I want, thank you very much
The fact is, the difference between 28mm and 24mm is quite minor. Most folks who need wider, need A LOT wider than 24mm.
Last edited:
dougjgreen1
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,068
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 2,395
The fact that the RX100 is good while being VERY small is why it succeeds. The RX10 is a HUGE camera for the size of it's sensor.
Most folks who own the RX100 bought it as a high quality camera that is pocketable, or can fit in a purse.
Last edited:
dougjgreen1
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,068
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 2,395
Alright, no need to get your panties in a twist. I just find a lot of disagreement often comes from poor communication, especially online, and therefore people should try to use the most accurate language possible. Unless of course you come here just to argue, in which case your a troll and I'll add you to my ignore list.
I find much wider than 24mm starts to distort too much for mh liking of my preferred subjects, the amount extra you can get in compared to 28mm however is not insubstantial. Even if i still bought it if it had a 28mm wide end, I would have often been wishing it had a 24mm wide end. Thankfully it has that so I don't need to worry. What cameras are produced does not change what my needs as a photographer are.
dougjgreen1
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,068
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 2,395
Quite simply, 24mm is just as likely to not be wide enough as 28mm is.
The fact is, the difference between 28mm and 24mm is very minor.
It's about 12.5% different. People pay a lot of money for a 12.5% difference in some areas of a cameras performance.
With your logic though there's just no stopping. Why buy a 9-18mm lens when chances are it's still not going to be wide enough and you'll need a 7mm, but then chances are that's not wide enough so you get a fisheye, and eventually your still not happy but there's nothing you can do about it because short of a panorama you can't go any wider. Everyone has a point of diminishing returns/point that suits their subjects best, for me it's around 24mm.
dougjgreen1
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,068
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 2,395
I agree, you should buy the widest lens you can. I bought the 7-14 because the 9-18 isn't wide enough. That being said, I never met anyone who regularly shoots at 200mm who wouldn't also wish to shoot at 300mm or longer on many occasions if they could. and if I could get a 5mm lens that was NOT a fisheye and covered the whole frame, I would do so.
The fact is, the 24-200 is a compromise at both ends, that someone who has interchangeable lenses need not ever make.
Last edited:
But be honest with yourself, is that really wide enough? I'm personally not a huge wide lens fanatic, I shoot a lot in the mountains and no matter how big the mountain it always looks distant with such a wide lens.
dougjgreen1
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,068
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 2,395
I could tell you're not much of a wide angle user, because your comments about 24mm being entirely sufficient when 28mm is not demonstrated that quite clearly. And the fact is, I'd buy the widest lens available that was rectilinear. The reason for ultra wide lenses is not to shoot mountains. It's to get an exaggerated perspective between something that's extremely close, relative to something in the background. For shooting mountain landscapes, a 24mm is fine, and so is a 28mm - there's extremely little difference.
Last edited:
What can i say, i don't like lenses where distortion is so pre leant.
dougjgreen1
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,068
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 2,395
If you knew how to use them, you'd know how to use them where they didn't distort, but rather, simply exaggerated perspective. The fact is, a GOOD ultra-wide lens, like the 7-14mm doesn't distort.
Last edited:
Seemingly if the person owning the interchangeable camera is anything like you they'll buy everything from a 7mm to a 800mm and still feel like they want a bit more at either end. There's always a compromise if you look at it that way.
I can look through my light room catalogue of my last holiday where i took the 12-35mm and 35-100mm and find a fair distribution among all focal lengths, although mainly around the 40mm ish length (I just like it) but don't find myself excessively butting up against either end.
I know how to use them, but for the environments I'm normally shooting i just don't like the effects they produce. Also sorry, but they alays distort, it's an inescapable fact of wide angle lenses. I'd thought you'd know that considering how much you use them.
- Status
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum