Sony RX10 is interesting for m4/3 users Locked

Started Oct 17, 2013 | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
Dheorl Veteran Member • Posts: 4,119
Re: Jumping ship?

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

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.

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.

No, if it started at 28 it would have been a lot less appealing to me.

The fact is, anyone who shoots much at 200mm wishes they could shoot at 300mm - unless they already can.

You really should stop using words like anyone when it comes to personal preferences.

I'll use any words I want, thank you very much

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.

The fact is, the difference between 28mm and 24mm is quite minor. Most folks who need wider, need A LOT wider than 24mm.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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