Versatility vs. IQ vs. Size.

PhotoTeach2 said:

Dennis said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

The inherent shallow-DOF was the bane of FF photography

Click to expand...

It was the bane of large format photography, requiring tilt & shift mechanisms to move the focus plane and get more in focus than f/64 allows.

Click to expand...

OK, so you are agreeing that the larger the format, (from 1/2.3" through 4"x5" to 8"x10" etc.), the shallower the DOF.

Click to expand...

At a given f-stop ... But the only relevant question is whether a given system offers what you need. My belief is that ILCs (whether m43, APS-C or FF) offer all the DOF most photographers need (including landscape) while offering shallow DOF when you need it. 1" digicams don't provide much in the way of shallow DOF options. And if they provide greater DOF, so what? Kind of like a GFX100 II captures more detail than what 99.99% of photographers use. It's true, but

PhotoTeach2 said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

35mm ("small format") makes deep DOF pretty trivial.

Click to expand...

I disagree, in lower light (requiring f/1.4 or 2.8), it can be a huge problem.

Click to expand...

You can always match the DOF you'd get with a smaller sensor by stopping down, raising the ISO, and losing nothing in the way of IQ. That's equivalence. If f/1.8 on a 1" sensor is good enough, then you shoot a FF camera at f/5 and bump the ISO as needed. No problem.

PhotoTeach2 said:

I agree that diffraction can be a factor, but it is still true that smaller-sensors can have a deeper inherent DOF with AVAILABLE f/stops on lenses.

Click to expand...

Quite possibly - most FF lenses go to f/22 (macro lenses sometimes to f/32) and I think the RX10 goes to f/16 (though I've never shot near that). Over 90% of my RX100 photos were shot from f/1.8-f/5.6 and the few shot at f/11 didn't need it - probably bad choice of settings in S mode, from a casual glance (I certainly never stopped down that far in A mode). Same story with the RX10 (just about 90% on the nose rather than more than 90%). I can safely say I'd be content with those cameras if they maxed out at f/8 (equivalent to f/22 on FF).

PhotoTeach2 said:

And the 1" bridge also offers capabilities that ILC's do not.

They are ALL compromises.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, but for the OP, doing fairly typical scenic photos (cities, restaurants), I don't think deeper DOF is something to be concerned about. Lack of shallow DOF might be. (He can decide!)

Ozzie SD said:

jonikon said:

It's a wonderful feature to have for landscape photography!

These were all shot with a Fujifilm X-T 2 and and a relatively inexpensive. XC-16-50mm f3.5-5.6 lens.

Click to expand...

Wow, these are very nice!! What a beautiful environment that is!

Click to expand...

It's Alberta and British Columbia Canada. Some of the most beautiful landscapes on earth, IMO.

Dennis said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

Dennis said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

The inherent shallow-DOF was the bane of FF photography

Click to expand...

It was the bane of large format photography, requiring tilt & shift mechanisms to move the focus plane and get more in focus than f/64 allows.

Click to expand...

OK, so you are agreeing that the larger the format, (from 1/2.3" through 4"x5" to 8"x10" etc.), the shallower the DOF.

Click to expand...

At a given f-stop ... But the only relevant question is whether a given system offers what you need. My belief is that ILCs (whether m43, APS-C or FF) offer all the DOF most photographers need (including landscape) while offering shallow DOF when you need it. 1" digicams don't provide much in the way of shallow DOF options. And if they provide greater DOF, so what? Kind of like a GFX100 II captures more detail than what 99.99% of photographers use. It's true, but

Dennis said:

Dennis said:

35mm ("small format") makes deep DOF pretty trivial.

Click to expand...

I disagree, in lower light (requiring f/1.4 or 2.8), it can be a huge problem.

Click to expand...

You can always match the DOF you'd get with a smaller sensor by stopping down, raising the ISO, and losing nothing in the way of IQ. That's equivalence. If f/1.8 on a 1" sensor is good enough, then you shoot a FF camera at f/5 and bump the ISO as needed. No problem.

Dennis said:

I agree that diffraction can be a factor, but it is still true that smaller-sensors can have a deeper inherent DOF with AVAILABLE f/stops on lenses.

Click to expand...

Quite possibly - most FF lenses go to f/22 (macro lenses sometimes to f/32) and I think the RX10 goes to f/16 (though I've never shot near that). Over 90% of my RX100 photos were shot from f/1.8-f/5.6 and the few shot at f/11 didn't need it - probably bad choice of settings in S mode, from a casual glance (I certainly never stopped down that far in A mode). Same story with the RX10 (just about 90% on the nose rather than more than 90%). I can safely say I'd be content with those cameras if they maxed out at f/8 (equivalent to f/22 on FF).

Dennis said:

And the 1" bridge also offers capabilities that ILC's do not.

They are ALL compromises.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, but for the OP, doing fairly typical scenic photos (cities, restaurants), I don't think deeper DOF is something to be concerned about. Lack of shallow DOF might be. (He can decide!)

Click to expand...

I just used the 1/2.3" as an example, as I am personally not recommending one to them anyway. I do feel that a 1"-type is his best compromise ... SPECIALLY since he is already used to the LONGER-TELE on his existing (1/2.3") camera.

And I also agree that DOF should not be his major concern.

ALL cameras are compromises ... but I do think the FZ1000-II offers the best for his stated intentions.

Ozzie SD said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

Ozzie SD said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

Ozzie SD said:

Dennis said:

Ozzie SD said:

I totally get what you are saying. Makes sense. Subject, composition, lighting all impact your final outcome. But ... that is not exactly what I meant. I understand that eventually it's me who has to make a nice picture. But to be able to do that, I need the best gear that fits my needs, and my wallet.

Click to expand...

The gear can determine how good your photos look if you're pushing limits - printing huge, for example. But for web/HDTV displays and even modestly big prints (13x19 desktop prints and even 20x30" prints hung on a wall) it really doesn't matter. So the gear is more about what you can shoot and how well you can shoot it.

Click to expand...

Clear.

Ozzie SD said:

Ozzie SD said:

In other words, the potential outcome could be better with the better equipment.

Click to expand...

Better how? In measurable terms you can only see if you're comparing images side by side at 100%? No matter what you buy, there's always something better. It would be a shame to prioritize image quality that will never make a difference in real life over usability that affects whether you want to take the camera out in the first place. Or the ability to shoot shallow depth of field or action or whatever else you might want to shoot.

Click to expand...

Good point. Food for thought!

Ozzie SD said:

Ozzie SD said:

For example a bridge camera could be an option, but will it produce images as good as for example an APS-C camera,

Click to expand...

Does it matter?

Click to expand...

It does matter in the sense of I want to see good quality images, nice colors, sharp, no noise, no dark parts (like vignetting). I am afraid a bridge camera will not have the same quality as a separate lens because compromises would have to be made for such a long zoom range in a (relatively) compact body.

Click to expand...

But there have been more complaints concerning "tele-softness" from long-zooms on APS/FF cameras than the (praised sharpness) of the Leica & Zeiss zooms on the FZ1000 & RX10-IV cameras, (400 & 600mm-EFL @ f/2.4-4).

Ozzie SD said:

Ozzie SD said:

Ozzie SD said:

If I would shoot the exact same picture with a RX100 VII and a Fuji X-S20, would you be able to see the difference in the end result?

Click to expand...

What's the end result?

Click to expand...

That's actually a very good question! Mainly the end result will be a picture being stored on my computer. I have quite a good monitor (resolution 2560x1440 pixels) . I want to watch my pictures in good quality on my monitor, preferably taken in a higher resolution than my monitor, so I can also zoom in to see nice details.

Ozzie SD said:

Ozzie SD said:

I do want zoom, I do want a compact solution, but at the same time I want good image quality.

Click to expand...

Every camera delivers good image quality. It's hard to pick based on image quality when you don't know what your requirements are.

Click to expand...

As I said, nice colors, sharp image, no noise (in daylight). I want the quality to match the quality of a picture taken by a pro with professional equipment.

Click to expand...

What is more important ... ultimate-optimate IQ from an image that does NOT exist or very-good IQ from an image that DOES exist, (because of unique features from a specific camera ???

Click to expand...

That is a very good point. I do think there will be some compromises in image quality. An $ 750 camera can't have the same quality as a $ 1.500 or $ 2.000 camera I would assume. I would have to dive further into this. But I do definitely get the point about getting a shot or not.

Click to expand...

Yes .. ALL cameras are compromises between size/weight/IQ/versatility.

But what did you think of the previously posted images ??? (note some of those were at night and in UNUSUAL shooting positions)

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67361725

Click to expand...

Pictures certainly look nice. I do sometimes miss a bit of sharpness and some parts of the pictures tend to be a bit too dark to my taste. Could be post processing, but also a matter of taste of course.

Ozzie SD said:

Note that the FZ1000-II also has PANORAMIC ... and has a FLASH that can be used up to 20' in SUN-light, (compared to only 3-4' with all cameras with interchangeable lenses).

Click to expand...

I do not understand what this means. What does "can be used to 20' in sun-light" mean? And what does "only 3-4' with all cameras with interchangeable lenses" mean?

Click to expand...

OK ... here we go ...

There are TWO basic different types of shutters.

1.) Traditionally there were "LEAF" shutters that opened (completely) and allowed the film to be (completely) exposed. All cameras had them, (especially professionals).

Note that "leaf" shutters can (flash) sync at ANY shutter-speed (SS), and thus why professionals always preferred them.

2.) With Interchangeable-Lens-Cameras (ILC's), it became necessary to have a Focal-Plane shutter that (above a certain "sync" speed), exposed the film/sensor by a traveling-slit across the film. Thus, above a certain "sync" speed the film/sensor is NEVER "COMPLETELY" exposed.

But the flash-duration can be as short as 1/50,000s, and thus MUST be fired ONLY when the film/sensor is indeed "COMPLETELY" exposed.

Today that is only at shutter-speeds < 1/160-250s ... and that is the problem (in SUN-light).

In bright-SUNlight, @ 1/250s, a correct exposure requires an f/stop of f/11, (or even f/16 if the SS is only 1/160s and/or you are at a beach/sand).

The problem is that @ f/16, the flash range is only 3-4'

The solution is a "LEAF" shutter that can indeed flash-sync at ANY shutter speed.

Thus you can actually use 1/4000s @ f/2.8 in bright-sunlight, and f/2.8 does indeed allow flash up to 20'.

Note that you can even go a step further and shoot in bright-sunlight with 1/4000s @ f/16. This allows the closer (3-4') to be correctly exposed --- however --- the background will be "black", thus high-lighting (only) the main-subject.

In the coming months, you will hear a lot about "global" shutters ... it is indeed a big-deal (the holy-grail), because it also allows fill-flash at ANY shutter-speed, (for longer-range in SUN-light).

They are a new-type of (quiet) "electronic" shutter that indeed allows for the "complete" exposure of the entire-frame -- as "leaf" shutters also do, (existing electronic shutters do not, and indeed were even slower than Focal-Plane shutters).

Ozzie SD said:

Ozzie SD said:

WITHOUT flash


with FLASH

Ozzie SD said:

Ozzie SD said:

Ozzie SD said:

And I mean that in a relatively "easy" situation like in daylight with no moving subjects. I understand the pro and his pro camera will product better results with fast moving objects or in more difficult situations like in the evening when it's darker. My current camera, though being compact and having a long zoom range, does not produce the nicest images in terms of image quality. Yes, it's acceptable, but I want to go the next step, otherwise there would not be a reason for me to buy a new camera. I could just keep using my current one.

Ozzie SD said:

Ozzie SD said:

Compact like RX 100 VII, bridge, M4/3 or APS-C? What would you do if you were in my shoes and had to spend around $ 1.000 to $ 2.500?

Click to expand...

Assuming you want to treat photography as a hobby and not just get good pictures now and then, I'd go with a subset of my current kit: Nikon Z5 with 24-200 and the 40/2 for those cozy restaurant shots Or if it falls in the budget, upgrade to a Z6II (even used) for improved autofocus (though if mostly shooting static scenes, like I do, it's overkill).

Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll be checking that out!

Ozzie SD said:

Note that I'm going after convenience here and minimizing lens changes. If you need 2+ lenses to cover wide to tele, it means a camera bag and frequent lens changes and gets to be a nuisance. I'm happy to do that out shooting nature with a tripod, but not walking around a city or on vacation. That's a conscious tradeoff between convenience and image quality (though I'm sure a 20x30" print made with the 24-200 would look fine by my standards). The small, fast prime fits in a jacket pocket or backpack or any small bag you're carrying and lens changes are infrequent - swap it when you go from outdoors to indoors or when light levels fall at night. Not every time you need to go from wide to tele!

Micro 4/3 with the 12-100/4 and fast prime (20/1.8 or 17/1.7) is another option, but the m43 bodies I like (with a decent grip and good VF) are pricey and the 12-100 costs more than the Nikon 24-200.

If you can convince yourself that 24-120 range instead of 24-200 is good enough, then a m43 body with the 12-60/2.8-4 would be less expensive and more compact - a tempting option.

A Sony FF body with 28-200 and a fast compact prime is another option. The more desirable bodies tend to be pricey and the affordable bodies tend to be old

I love the idea of simplifying down to a bridge camera and a compact digicam, but as even though my brain acknowledges that the image quality is good enough, I still find results from APS-C (and certainly full frame) more satisfying.

Click to expand...

This is interesting Can you explain why/how you find the results from APS-C or FF more satisfying? What makes the difference?

Ozzie SD said:

I would not, personally, recommend Fuji. The lens lineup has a great reputation, but I find the midrange zooms lacking. An X-S10 would be a great choice and the 18-135 would probably still be a match for a bridge camera, and then a small f/2 prime for low light would be an okay kit. The 16-80 is has great specs and is very compact; it doesn't review well due to subpar corner sharpness, but I've seen nice results online from it (gets back to the whole question of how good is good enough - we can look at all these lens tests that show lens A is so much better than lens B, then look at photos that look great from both of them).

I would not recommend Nikon APS-C because of the lack of in-body image stabilization (otherwise the 18-140 and 24/1.8 would be a nice, light, inexpensive kit). Sony APS-C is good, but the better stuff available for it is expensive and I'm not sure there are any good wide-ranging zooms.

The 1" sensor bridge cameras are great - most people could be happy with the image quality in online displays, HDTVs, prints to 13x19 (and bigger if shot well). You don't have the shallow DOF option in low light (unless you add a second camera). And as handy as I find my RX10 III for travel, I don't find it so enjoyable to shoot with the power zoom (I believe the FZ1000 II has that as well?) smaller viewfinder (harder to use with my eyeglasses) and controls that I don't love.

It's all tradeoffs. I recommend downloading some samples and viewing them however you plan to view your photos - on a TV, printed, whatever. (You can save money by printing 1/4 of an image instead of a whole image) ... 1/4 image at 8x12 instead of full image at 16x24, for example. And see if you can try out whatever you're thinking about.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your great answer!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Guy Parsons said:

Ozzie SD said:

Guy Parsons said:

Ozzie SD said:

Thanks for your information. I like using the screen for taking pictures as well. Having to unfold the screen before being able to use it, does indeed not sound like the best plan. It sounded nice on paper, but your practical use now makes me think otherwise. Thanks for the advice!

Click to expand...

I started with screens that were fixed on the back of the camera, but they were and are still a nightmare for reflections. The FAS type when flat on the back of the camera is the same as a fixed screen. Folded out sideways allows a tilt, but then the camera has this awkward thing sticking out the side of the camera.

For street type shots it's nicer to keep the camera small and less conspicuous and using a tilt screen the subjects often don't realise that you are shooting, to many it may look like you are simply looking at something on the screen and not necessarily taking a shot. A camera up to the face with EVF definitely looks like an active shooter so it's time to pose or duck for cover.

In my case once a suitable tilt screen appeared on cameras then my life became easier as I could twiddle the tilt to get rid of reflections off shirt or face etc and make the screen easier to see.

Sadly the trend is to have those FAS screens now so choices are getting more restricted for me. I'm lucky that my 2013 vintage Olympus E-P5 still works and is good enough image quality for me, plus my more modern Sony RX100M6 does OK too, both have tilt screens of course.

Click to expand...

Thank you very much. This is very useful information I could not have think of myself and which I can imagine could quite ruin my new camera experience. Definitely something to take into account, so thanks again!!

Click to expand...

If a casual or regular screen user this understanding can be important, the net effect is that some people swear by FAS screens, others like me swear at them.

Click to expand...

The way I see it is that we SHOULD be using the (regular) eye-EVF anyway whenever we can, (aka typical situations).

BUT ... WHY "LIMIT" your options when an unusual situation may REQUIRE the FAS to get the shot ???

I have often shot people at tables in a small-room and needed to hold the camera up over-my-head, and with the camera against-the-wall, (to get as much distance as possible). Only a FAS can then be pointed "straight" down for me to accurately compose.

I even remember being in a "conga-line" at a dance ... and (while leaning over), held the camera in front of me, with the camera pointing "up", for a very unusual shot of the people's faces and holding-hands above us.

But also I can't overemphasize how important it may be to PROTECT the screen when traveling.

Nothing by FAS for me after my (good) experiences with them.

Again, they take NO EXTRA TIME unless you "need/want" their versatility for otherwise impossible shots.

Ozzie SD said:

Guy Parsons said:

Ozzie SD said:

What is "a FULLY-Articulating/Reversible LCD"?

Click to expand...

FAS for short as opposed to Tilt screens. FAS usually is taken to mean a screen that folds out sideways and can twist to any angle up-down-forward-back while out there and can be stored back behind the body either in screen view or turned over so no screen is seen at all.

There is a very strong divide on screen types, the FAS type for me is seen as Flippin' Awkward Screen ( ) as I am a dedicated tilt screen user and refuse to buy a camera with the FAS screen. Choices are getting rather limited for me now as most cameras seem to have adopted that old video camera style of screen.

Sure they make some shots a bit easier but most of the time they are a 100% pain for me as a dedicated screen only user and never using the EVF. It wastes times to need to fold out the screen sideways (nearly doubling the width of the camera), then turning it to get a tilt which is needed.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You do NOT "NEED" to do that ... The LCD can be nested flat against the camera as a typical LCD.

There is the "OPTION" to swing/flip only ONLY when needed for an unusual angle-shot, (NOT POSSIBLE OTHERWISE).

Ozzie SD said:

Ozzie SD said:

It is mechanically vulnerable while carrying the camera if the screen is left out sideways, not good for crowded or constricted places.

For me with a tilt screen, then usually as I am lifting the camera (using wrist strap) my right hand is turning on the camera and the left hand is easing the simple tilt screen out to get tilt needed, then by the time the camera is at a usual mid-chest level for shooting everything is on and ready to frame and shoot. All within maybe 1.5 to 2 seconds in simple movements.

If an EVF user then the screen type is of less importance so the FAS type maybe is of more use then for those occasional awkwardly positioned camera shots. I simply make do for the awkward shots with my tilt screen and never have had any problems. Vloggers prefer FAS screens of course as the screen is more easily seen while on a tripod or hand held for selfie videos.

So there is a quite strong tilt screen only contingent amongst photographers my guess estimate is maybe near 30% or 40% of shooters here simply don't like to use the fold out sideways screens and will insist on having tilt screens, it can make or break some camera sales numbers.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your information. I like using the screen for taking pictures as well. Having to unfold the screen before being able to use it, does indeed not sound like the best plan. It sounded nice on paper, but your practical use now makes me think otherwise. Thanks for the advice!

Click to expand...

It only takes 1/2-second to swing out -- NO LONGER THAN "TILTING".

BUT: remember you do not HAVE TO swing/flip it out except when needed for a shot NOT POSSIBLE OTHERWISE.

The LCD can be nested either exposed (as typical), -- OR -- with it reversed and thus PROTECTED from scratches when traveling.

I want all my OPTIONS that are possible, and thus will not have a camera without it.

Why would anyone want a camera with fewer-options ???

Guy Parsons said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

Guy Parsons said:

Ozzie SD said:

What is "a FULLY-Articulating/Reversible LCD"?

Click to expand...

FAS for short as opposed to Tilt screens. FAS usually is taken to mean a screen that folds out sideways and can twist to any angle up-down-forward-back while out there and can be stored back behind the body either in screen view or turned over so no screen is seen at all.

There is a very strong divide on screen types, the FAS type for me is seen as Flippin' Awkward Screen ( ) as I am a dedicated tilt screen user and refuse to buy a camera with the FAS screen. Choices are getting rather limited for me now as most cameras seem to have adopted that old video camera style of screen.

Sure they make some shots a bit easier but most of the time they are a 100% pain for me as a dedicated screen only user and never using the EVF. It wastes times to need to fold out the screen sideways (nearly doubling the width of the camera), then turning it to get a tilt which is needed to get rid of most screen reflections for ease of viewing and framing. It is mechanically vulnerable while carrying the camera if the screen is left out sideways, not good for crowded or constricted places.

For me with a tilt screen, then usually as I am lifting the camera (using wrist strap) my right hand is turning on the camera and the left hand is easing the simple tilt screen out to get tilt needed, then by the time the camera is at a usual mid-chest level for shooting everything is on and ready to frame and shoot. All within maybe 1.5 to 2 seconds in simple movements.

If an EVF user then the screen type is of less importance so the FAS type maybe is of more use then for those occasional awkwardly positioned camera shots. I simply make do for the awkward shots with my tilt screen and never have had any problems. Vloggers prefer FAS screens of course as the screen is more easily seen while on a tripod or hand held for selfie videos.

So there is a quite strong tilt screen only contingent amongst photographers my guess estimate is maybe near 30% or 40% of shooters here simply don't like to use the fold out sideways screens and will insist on having tilt screens, it can make or break some camera sales numbers.

Click to expand...

I can understand what you are saying ... but (only) tilting still somewhat limits your options, (especially selfies that are specifically impossible).

Click to expand...

Just like film days, hold the camera aimed at yourself and see what happens. In film days wait two weeks, in digital days wait 2 seconds and maybe try again to get better alignment.

If the screen bends up, down or sideways to face front then of course those horrible selfies are easier.

Guy Parsons said:

I simply want as many OPTIONS as possible, including shooting straight-down from high-up, or shooting straight-up from down-low, (or extended/held off-to-the-side).

I especially appreciate being able to reverse-PROTECT the LCD screen from scratches when traveling.

Click to expand...

I use wrist straps all the time and am careful, if not using the camera for more than a few minutes it pops back into its bag (or belt pouch if it is a compact).

Click to expand...

Even if in a bag, the LCD is in "contact" with something, and even if another cloth or leather can cause "scuff" marks.

I know most people use (plastic) screen-protectors ... but why if you don't need to if you can "nest" it reversed to even better protect it ???

Guy Parsons said:

With many cameras never have scratched a screen except one old one where I created a small scratch due to misadventure with a home made loupe on the screen. I never use that any more so no more scratches.

Some people use neck straps and the dangling camera can scratch against buttons and buckles etc so I never use that sort of strap any more.

Click to expand...

Guy Parsons said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

f/8 is AVAILABLE (and usable) on 1/2.3" cameras -- FF lenses do NOT HAVE between f/45 & f/64 to EQUAL the same DOF.

Click to expand...

I do hope that you are aware that many compact 1/2.3" sensor cameras might say they have f/8 available but in truth it is nearly always the usual maximum aperture "stopped down" by an ND filter that pops into the light path when you select the "smaller aperture".

Clues: If a compact camera only seems to offer two aperture choices at any focal length then that means it is the ND filter at work and there is no true aperture control in the lens, thus no change in DOF for the "smaller aperture".

Click to expand...

For some CHEAP cameras, that is indeed true.

But on every 1/2.3" I have ever seen/used, there is indeed a true iris-diaphragm f/stop.

Ozzie SD said:

Now I start wondering, what will bring me te most fun? Currently I am thinking about buying something like a Fuji X-T5. To have some zoom in a quality lens, I could pick a 16-55 mm 2.8 lens or maybe save more money and go for a 50-140 mm 2.8 lens. Both lenses are not cheap but would make a great combo with the camera. I would get great image quality. It would however not be a compact size and I would not get a zoom range as long as my current camera. For example if I would choose the 16-55 mm lens and I was on holiday, I could not zoom in far enough to take a picture of a boat.

Another totally different option is I would buy a high-end compact like a Fuji X100V. The look/design of the camera appeals to me. IQ will be very good and also it is compact. The only thing lacking is zoom. It will force me to take pictures in a different way, I would have to walk to my subjects more often and would have to accept that I can't photograph certain things because of the lack of zoom.

Then the last alternative I'm thinking of is to buy a bridge camera, for example a Sony DSC-RX10 IV. These camera's aren't the smallest, but I would not need any extra lenses to carry. However IQ might be an issue I think?

Click to expand...

In essence you want almost everything, great IQ, fast, light, easy to carry, low weight. You are looking for the photographic equivalent of Shangri-La, most of us are. But Shangri-La only exists in the imagination so give up the search.

Let's rule out one of your picks, and notice I own the Fuji X 100f camera. The Fuji X 100 series are excellent second cameras but for the vast majority of photo hobbyists, not a good first camera. Once you've owned everything including the kitchen sink photographically speaking, a fixed lens reflex camera makes sense. It's a camera you have to grow into, you started out on vacation with a massive backpack with everything you own in it, then you buy a smaller bag and reduce the amount because...well... backpacks are no fun on a holiday, then eventually you move to one camera/two lenses. You then discover you never use the second lens you brought because...well... you are lazy. And once you have reached this stage of enlightenment, the Fuji X 100 series makes a whole lot of sense, especially as you discover the price of a Leica.

Now a bridge camera, note these puppies have almost died out. Back in the day there used to be flocks of them hither, thither and yon. But today you only get a rare glimpse of one in the wild. These cameras result from to many compromises and they offer less flexibility than a DSLR or mirrorless.

The SLR, then DSLR and now mirrorless are classics for obvious reasons, you can modify your equipment for your specific needs. If you are traveling, weight, size and simplicity of gear are most important. So you can get f1.8 or f2 lens that will be smaller and easier to stick in baggy short's pocket than an f1.4 or f1.2 lens. You can use pro lenses for serious work. You can create a small studio, own multiple flashes, etc.

And Fuji is a good starting point or a camera/lens line with the APC-S footprint in both size and weight. So I bought my Fuji X T1 when the X T3 was out. I wanted it for specific projects that weren't demanding photographically speaking. Speedy autofocus, high FPS's, and crazy high ISO were not a priority. You would probably be better served with getting the model behind the current X T5, the 4 and with the money saved purchase two decent lenses.

--
"“The truth is that I probably have collected more sturdy tripods than anyone else within a hundred-mile radius. But unless I’m within easy walking distance of home or can stash the tripod in the car for convenient transportation, you will find me happily taking pictures with a flimsy tripod at hand.”
(Popular Photography, February 1993 - Herb Keppler)

PhotoTeach2 said:

Ozzie SD said:

Guy Parsons said:

Ozzie SD said:

What is "a FULLY-Articulating/Reversible LCD"?

Click to expand...

FAS for short as opposed to Tilt screens. FAS usually is taken to mean a screen that folds out sideways and can twist to any angle up-down-forward-back while out there and can be stored back behind the body either in screen view or turned over so no screen is seen at all.

There is a very strong divide on screen types, the FAS type for me is seen as Flippin' Awkward Screen ( ) as I am a dedicated tilt screen user and refuse to buy a camera with the FAS screen. Choices are getting rather limited for me now as most cameras seem to have adopted that old video camera style of screen.

Sure they make some shots a bit easier but most of the time they are a 100% pain for me as a dedicated screen only user and never using the EVF. It wastes times to need to fold out the screen sideways (nearly doubling the width of the camera), then turning it to get a tilt which is needed.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You do NOT "NEED" to do that ... The LCD can be nested flat against the camera as a typical LCD.

Click to expand...

Yes of course, but then the painful reflections increase, the tilt is really needed to make screen use for everyday purposes more usable. Fixed flat like that is a pain to be avoided.

Q, Why do you think they even bothered to introduce tilt screens after years of fixed screens?

A. To make them usable.

PhotoTeach2 said:

There is the "OPTION" to swing/flip only ONLY when needed for an unusual angle-shot, (NOT POSSIBLE OTHERWISE).

PhotoTeach2 said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

It is mechanically vulnerable while carrying the camera if the screen is left out sideways, not good for crowded or constricted places.

For me with a tilt screen, then usually as I am lifting the camera (using wrist strap) my right hand is turning on the camera and the left hand is easing the simple tilt screen out to get tilt needed, then by the time the camera is at a usual mid-chest level for shooting everything is on and ready to frame and shoot. All within maybe 1.5 to 2 seconds in simple movements.

If an EVF user then the screen type is of less importance so the FAS type maybe is of more use then for those occasional awkwardly positioned camera shots. I simply make do for the awkward shots with my tilt screen and never have had any problems. Vloggers prefer FAS screens of course as the screen is more easily seen while on a tripod or hand held for selfie videos.

So there is a quite strong tilt screen only contingent amongst photographers my guess estimate is maybe near 30% or 40% of shooters here simply don't like to use the fold out sideways screens and will insist on having tilt screens, it can make or break some camera sales numbers.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your information. I like using the screen for taking pictures as well. Having to unfold the screen before being able to use it, does indeed not sound like the best plan. It sounded nice on paper, but your practical use now makes me think otherwise. Thanks for the advice!

Click to expand...

It only takes 1/2-second to swing out -- NO LONGER THAN "TILTING".

BUT: remember you do not HAVE TO swing/flip it out except when needed for a shot NOT POSSIBLE OTHERWISE.

The LCD can be nested either exposed (as typical), -- OR -- with it reversed and thus PROTECTED from scratches when traveling.

I want all my OPTIONS that are possible, and thus will not have a camera without it.

Why would anyone want a camera with fewer-options ???

Click to expand...

Plenty of people simply want a basic tilt screen, it's bleeding obvious if you read a few forums.

The FAS screen probably sunk the sales chances of the otherwise nice Olympus Pen-F body, as Olympus admitted "it never quite reached sales expectations" and that due in my opinion to the about 40% at the time who preferred a simple til;t screen instead of the FAS type.

We tilters would rather have ease of use for 99% of what we do and maybe suffer a little for that 1% of simply awkward shots. The reverse of that with FAS of course is having an awkward screen for 99% of shots and having just those 1% easier to do. No thanks.

By the way, no need to get all shouty, I can read unbolded non-underlined text perfectly well, thank you.

Oh yes, maybe a clue about screen preferences in this M4/3 Poll run 10 months ago....



Digest that for a moment or two.

PhotoTeach2 said:

Guy Parsons said:

I use wrist straps all the time and am careful, if not using the camera for more than a few minutes it pops back into its bag (or belt pouch if it is a compact).

Click to expand...

Even if in a bag, the LCD is in "contact" with something, and even if another cloth or leather can cause "scuff" marks.

Click to expand...

I find the usual Gorilla glass natively on all the screens protects them from harm when rubbing up against regular bag dividers. No scratches ever caused by bags for me.

My wrist straps are home made fitted to my hand loops of 1/2 inch wide cotton, so no buckles or clips to accidentally get stowed up against the screens, cotton loop is seen here....



Only ever added one "anti-glare" plastic film to a screen screen and that was with a fixed screen compact (Panasonic LX3) to get rid of reflections as its fixed screen was a nightmare to see and was like using a makeup mirror stuck to the camera. The added film made the camera usable outdoors.

PhotoTeach2 said:

I know most people use (plastic) screen-protectors ... but why if you don't need to if you can "nest" it reversed to even better protect it ???

Click to expand...

No need to do that extra effort, the usual care works well.

PhotoTeach2 said:

The way I see it is that we SHOULD be using the (regular) eye-EVF anyway whenever we can, (aka typical situations).

Click to expand...

My earlier experience using only compact style cameras taught me that I prefer to use the screen (tilt preferred) as then I can see what I'm framing as well as look at the real scene to see if something or someone is about to intrude or better still, see people or things moving that might soon move into a better part of the scene in composition terms.

Thus when I wnet system with M4.3 I used screens only, but at some starnge urege I did buy and optional EVF, buit soon abandoned it and went back to scereens, Haven't used or need to use that EVF in now about 10 or more years.

A later compact is my Sony RX100M6 that has a neat pop-up EVF. Again, never use it and never need to. I did pop it up from time to time during warranty to make sure it still worked, Forgot about it after warranty expired.

Anyhoo, 99.99% of the world's photos are taken by people using screens only and all untilted, think of that!

PhotoTeach2 said:

BUT ... WHY "LIMIT" your options when an unusual situation may REQUIRE the FAS to get the shot ???

Click to expand...

The usual tilt up/down enables the few odd shots I may take. It works for me. Quite obviously the FAS works for you.

PhotoTeach2 said:

I have often shot people at tables in a small-room and needed to hold the camera up over-my-head, and with the camera against-the-wall, (to get as much distance as possible). Only a FAS can then be pointed "straight" down for me to accurately compose.

I even remember being in a "conga-line" at a dance ... and (while leaning over), held the camera in front of me, with the camera pointing "up", for a very unusual shot of the people's faces and holding-hands above us.

But also I can't overemphasize how important it may be to PROTECT the screen when traveling.

Nothing by FAS for me after my (good) experiences with them.

Again, they take NO EXTRA TIME unless you "need/want" their versatility for otherwise impossible shots.

Click to expand...

Nah, not for me, simply not needed, tilt way preferred.

PhotoTeach2 said:

OK ... here we go ...

There are TWO basic different types of shutters.

1.) Traditionally there were "LEAF" shutters that opened (completely) and allowed the film to be (completely) exposed. All cameras had them, (especially professionals).

Note that "leaf" shutters can (flash) sync at ANY shutter-speed (SS), and thus why professionals always preferred them.

2.) With Interchangeable-Lens-Cameras (ILC's), it became necessary to have a Focal-Plane shutter that (above a certain "sync" speed), exposed the film/sensor by a traveling-slit across the film. Thus, above a certain "sync" speed the film/sensor is NEVER "COMPLETELY" exposed.

But the flash-duration can be as short as 1/50,000s, and thus MUST be fired ONLY when the film/sensor is indeed "COMPLETELY" exposed.

Today that is only at shutter-speeds < 1/160-250s ... and that is the problem (in SUN-light).

In bright-SUNlight, @ 1/250s, a correct exposure requires an f/stop of f/11, (or even f/16 if the SS is only 1/160s and/or you are at a beach/sand).

The problem is that @ f/16, the flash range is only 3-4'

The solution is a "LEAF" shutter that can indeed flash-sync at ANY shutter speed.

Thus you can actually use 1/4000s @ f/2.8 in bright-sunlight, and f/2.8 does indeed allow flash up to 20'.

Note that you can even go a step further and shoot in bright-sunlight with 1/4000s @ f/16. This allows the closer (3-4') to be correctly exposed --- however --- the background will be "black", thus high-lighting (only) the main-subject.

In the coming months, you will hear a lot about "global" shutters ... it is indeed a big-deal (the holy-grail), because it also allows fill-flash at ANY shutter-speed, (for longer-range in SUN-light).

They are a new-type of (quiet) "electronic" shutter that indeed allows for the "complete" exposure of the entire-frame -- as "leaf" shutters also do, (existing electronic shutters do not, and indeed were even slower than Focal-Plane shutters).

Click to expand...

Wow ... not having ever learned any technical aspects about photography, this is beyond my comprehension. I am not having a clue what you are talking about :-D

What does the ' sign mean in the flash range is only 3-4'? (I am not a native English speaker.)

PhotoTeach2 said:

Ozzie SD said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

Ozzie SD said:

BBbuilder467 said:

28mm is wide enough for landscape and 90mm is adequate for portraits. What do you want outside that range?

Click to expand...

I get the "wide" part for landscapes. Why the 90mm for portraits? Is that when you zoom in from a distance? I remember to recall that 50mm is the most suitable for a portrait, because it doesn't deform the face and results in realistic proportions.

What I would want outside that range? Well I can imagine seeing a nice church and wanting to photograph the top part where the clock and bells are. Or I can imagine myself walking down a boulevard and wanting to photograph a boat that is arriving. So I definitely would want some extra zoom range, but I am not sure how much I need for situations like that.

Click to expand...

Unless I am getting threads mixed up, didn't you have 720mm-EFL on your existing camera ???

Click to expand...

No, you are not getting threads mixed up. I have 720mm. I should check my pictures which focal lengths I tend to use. I did not really pay attention to it in the past.

PhotoTeach2 said:

Personally, I very often use 400-800mm-EFL.

If yes ... then how often did you use it ???

And on portraits ... "groups" are often shot at 50mm.

But a "couple" 90mm is better for waist-up.

But for "head/face" shots, often 100 to 200mm is used.

Click to expand...

Ah okay thanks. How do you know these "lengths"? Is it something you once learned? Or is it by practice?

Click to expand...

Good Question ... I realize that with zoom-lenses, most do not think about specific lens/mm like we HAD to do when all lenses were single-FL.

It took time to mount a lens and thus it was important to "know" (in your head) the approximate width-of-field you needed so that you didn't waste-time mounting the "wrong" lens, (for a specific shot).

So it indeed was critical to learn.

Click to expand...

Did you follow an education for photography?

There is something that scares me a bit. Someone in this thread suggested to use the comparison tool on this website, which I did.

For the first 2 cameras I selected the Sony A7C full frame and the Fuji X100V APS-C. When I download the JPEG files from both cameras, I see quite a big difference in sharpness in favor of the Sony.

Can this difference in sharpness be explained as the difference between APS-C and FF?

Here is the link with the 2 cameras selected.

Ozzie SD said:

Wow ... not having ever learned any technical aspects about photography, this is beyond my comprehension. I am not having a clue what you are talking about :-D

Click to expand...

Flash types vs camera types vs modes of flash vs range available is somewhere in there.

Ozzie SD said:

What does the ' sign mean in the flash range is only 3-4'? (I am not a native English speaker.)

Click to expand...

The 3-4' signifies three to four feet, that is, roughly about 900mm to 1200mm. Reason = USA, Myanmar and Liberia never caught onto this metric measure thing. Though there's more to that of course https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-that-dont-use-the-metric-system

With system cameras the usual focal plane shutters have a maximum sync shutter speed that happens when the shutter blades are fully open, that is around 1/250 sec for most modern cameras.

When needing to use faster shutter speeds like 1/1000 sec then the shutter has only a narrow slit traveling across the sensor, so the flash mode needs to be changed to emit a string of pulses, spreading the flash power available out over a longer period than usual, this limits the effective flash range and faster shutter speeds make it shrink even more.

Long ago I used a focal plane shutter at various speeds with normal flash to show how the shutter slit gets gets smaller as the speed increases....


Shutter shadow just starting to creep in at 1/320msec, really tiny slit at 1/2000 sec.

Because as the speed gets faster and the slit shrinks then the flash has to work harder to expose the ever shrinking available shutter slit properly, thus explaining the huge shrinkage of available flash range with focal plane shutters at higher shutter speeds.

I repeat the diagram from my old Nikon SB-26 flash....



Faster shutter speeds need that string of pulses instead of only one pulse for normal first and second curtain flash sync. The flash capacitor contains only so much charge so needs to spread that power out over a longer period thus part of the reason for the maximum flash range shrink.

I hope some of that explains some things for you.

Ozzie SD said:

There is something that scares me a bit. Someone in this thread suggested to use the comparison tool on this website, which I did.

For the first 2 cameras I selected the Sony A7C full frame and the Fuji X100V APS-C. When I download the JPEG files from both cameras, I see quite a big difference in sharpness in favor of the Sony.

Can this difference in sharpness be explained as the difference between APS-C and FF?

Here is the link with the 2 cameras selected.

Click to expand...

Your eyes must be much better than mine because I do not see much difference.

But even if you do see a (side-by-side) difference on a "resolution-chart" ... I guarantee you cannot see the difference in typical images.

That being said, a FF often will have an (albeit undetectable) IQ/sharpness advantage ... however, my opinion is that the ability to take "more" and "more-unique" images is much more important.

I value an image that DOES EXIST more valuable than a higher-IQ image that does NOT EXIST !!! And my FZ1000 has indeed enabled many-many-many more images than I could have taken with my FF's (and I do have FF's but seldom use them).

Ozzie SD said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

OK ... here we go ...

There are TWO basic different types of shutters.

1.) Traditionally there were "LEAF" shutters that opened (completely) and allowed the film to be (completely) exposed. All cameras had them, (especially professionals).

Note that "leaf" shutters can (flash) sync at ANY shutter-speed (SS), and thus why professionals always preferred them.

2.) With Interchangeable-Lens-Cameras (ILC's), it became necessary to have a Focal-Plane shutter that (above a certain "sync" speed), exposed the film/sensor by a traveling-slit across the film. Thus, above a certain "sync" speed the film/sensor is NEVER "COMPLETELY" exposed.

But the flash-duration can be as short as 1/50,000s, and thus MUST be fired ONLY when the film/sensor is indeed "COMPLETELY" exposed.

Today that is only at shutter-speeds < 1/160-250s ... and that is the problem (in SUN-light).

In bright-SUNlight, @ 1/250s, a correct exposure requires an f/stop of f/11, (or even f/16 if the SS is only 1/160s and/or you are at a beach/sand).

The problem is that @ f/16, the flash range is only 3-4'

The solution is a "LEAF" shutter that can indeed flash-sync at ANY shutter speed.

Thus you can actually use 1/4000s @ f/2.8 in bright-sunlight, and f/2.8 does indeed allow flash up to 20'.

Note that you can even go a step further and shoot in bright-sunlight with 1/4000s @ f/16. This allows the closer (3-4') to be correctly exposed --- however --- the background will be "black", thus high-lighting (only) the main-subject.

In the coming months, you will hear a lot about "global" shutters ... it is indeed a big-deal (the holy-grail), because it also allows fill-flash at ANY shutter-speed, (for longer-range in SUN-light).

They are a new-type of (quiet) "electronic" shutter that indeed allows for the "complete" exposure of the entire-frame -- as "leaf" shutters also do, (existing electronic shutters do not, and indeed were even slower than Focal-Plane shutters).

Click to expand...

Wow ... not having ever learned any technical aspects about photography, this is beyond my comprehension. I am not having a clue what you are talking about :-D

What does the ' sign mean in the flash range is only 3-4'? (I am not a native English speaker.)

Click to expand...

It means 3-4 FEET ... (1-meter) ... fill-flash range in SUN-light.

Note that by sunlight fill-flash I mean a situation where where the sun is behind someone, or they are wearing a hat and their face is shadowed (dark).

A leaf-shutter camera (bridge like FZ1000-II or RX10-IV) can allow sunlight fill-flash up to 7 meters, (20 FEET).


WITHOUT fill-flash


WITH FILL-FLASH




Notice how DARK it is UNDER-ROOF




Notice the CAR under-roof is now MORE VISIBLE

rsn said:

Ozzie SD said:

Now I start wondering, what will bring me te most fun? Currently I am thinking about buying something like a Fuji X-T5. To have some zoom in a quality lens, I could pick a 16-55 mm 2.8 lens or maybe save more money and go for a 50-140 mm 2.8 lens. Both lenses are not cheap but would make a great combo with the camera. I would get great image quality. It would however not be a compact size and I would not get a zoom range as long as my current camera. For example if I would choose the 16-55 mm lens and I was on holiday, I could not zoom in far enough to take a picture of a boat.

Another totally different option is I would buy a high-end compact like a Fuji X100V. The look/design of the camera appeals to me. IQ will be very good and also it is compact. The only thing lacking is zoom. It will force me to take pictures in a different way, I would have to walk to my subjects more often and would have to accept that I can't photograph certain things because of the lack of zoom.

Then the last alternative I'm thinking of is to buy a bridge camera, for example a Sony DSC-RX10 IV. These camera's aren't the smallest, but I would not need any extra lenses to carry. However IQ might be an issue I think?

Click to expand...

In essence you want almost everything, great IQ, fast, light, easy to carry, low weight. You are looking for the photographic equivalent of Shangri-La, most of us are. But Shangri-La only exists in the imagination so give up the search.

Let's rule out one of your picks, and notice I own the Fuji X 100f camera. The Fuji X 100 series are excellent second cameras but for the vast majority of photo hobbyists, not a good first camera. Once you've owned everything including the kitchen sink photographically speaking, a fixed lens reflex camera makes sense. It's a camera you have to grow into, you started out on vacation with a massive backpack with everything you own in it, then you buy a smaller bag and reduce the amount because...well... backpacks are no fun on a holiday, then eventually you move to one camera/two lenses. You then discover you never use the second lens you brought because...well... you are lazy. And once you have reached this stage of enlightenment, the Fuji X 100 series makes a whole lot of sense, especially as you discover the price of a Leica.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, do you realize how contradictory/confusing this was ... first you admitted a compact single-focal-length was not a good (first) camera.

Then you admitted that dSLR's are indeed not used to their biggest advantage because of the effort to carry/change lenses and go back to a choice of a single-focal-length ...

But you are saying this to the original-poster who has already experienced the speed/convenience & versatility advantages of a "super"-zoom (to 750mm), which is indeed what switched me over from 60yrs of the inconvenience of having to carry & change lenses, (and MISSING MANY SHOTS while changing lenses).

rsn said:

Now a bridge camera, note these puppies have almost died out. Back in the day there used to be flocks of them hither, thither and yon. But today you only get a rare glimpse of one in the wild. These cameras result from to many compromises and they offer less flexibility than a DSLR or mirrorless.

Click to expand...

I see more of them than you indicate. I use the FZ1000 professionally and know others who also do.

But they are indeed demeaned by large-sensor zealots who have never used one, and experienced their speed/convenience/versatility advantages.

rsn said:

The SLR, then DSLR and now mirrorless are classics for obvious reasons, you can modify your equipment for your specific needs. If you are traveling, weight, size and simplicity of gear are most important. So you can get f1.8 or f2 lens that will be smaller and easier to stick in baggy short's pocket than an f1.4 or f1.2 lens. You can use pro lenses for serious work.

Click to expand...

But 95% of all (especially entry level) dSLR's are never used beyond their original-purchase "kit" lenses, (which are slow and not exceptionally sharp).

rsn said:

You can create a small studio, own multiple flashes, etc.

Click to expand...

That can also be done with a bridge ...

rsn said:

And Fuji is a good starting point or a camera/lens line with the APC-S footprint in both size and weight. So I bought my Fuji X T1 when the X T3 was out. I wanted it for specific projects that weren't demanding photographically speaking. Speedy autofocus, high FPS's, and crazy high ISO were not a priority. You would probably be better served with getting the model behind the current X T5, the 4 and with the money saved purchase two decent lenses.

Click to expand...

And what would be the cost of covering 24 to 400/800mm @ f/2.4 - 4 ???

And can I do SUN-light fill-flash up to 20' ???

Guy Parsons said:

Ozzie SD said:

Wow ... not having ever learned any technical aspects about photography, this is beyond my comprehension. I am not having a clue what you are talking about :-D

Click to expand...

Flash types vs camera types vs modes of flash vs range available is somewhere in there.

Guy Parsons said:

What does the ' sign mean in the flash range is only 3-4'? (I am not a native English speaker.)

Click to expand...

The 3-4' signifies three to four feet, that is, roughly about 900mm to 1200mm. Reason = USA, Myanmar and Liberia never caught onto this metric measure thing. Though there's more to that of course https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-that-dont-use-the-metric-system

With system cameras the usual focal plane shutters have a maximum sync shutter speed that happens when the shutter blades are fully open, that is around 1/250 sec for most modern cameras.

When needing to use faster shutter speeds like 1/1000 sec then the shutter has only a narrow slit traveling across the sensor, so the flash mode needs to be changed to emit a string of pulses, spreading the flash power available out over a longer period than usual, this limits the effective flash range and faster shutter speeds make it shrink even more.

Long ago I used a focal plane shutter at various speeds with normal flash to show how the shutter slit gets gets smaller as the speed increases....


Shutter shadow just starting to creep in at 1/320msec, really tiny slit at 1/2000 sec.

Because as the speed gets faster and the slit shrinks then the flash has to work harder to expose the ever shrinking available shutter slit properly, thus explaining the huge shrinkage of available flash range with focal plane shutters at higher shutter speeds.

I repeat the diagram from my old Nikon SB-26 flash....



Faster shutter speeds need that string of pulses instead of only one pulse for normal first and second curtain flash sync. The flash capacitor contains only so much charge so needs to spread that power out over a longer period thus part of the reason for the maximum flash range shrink.

I hope some of that explains some things for you.

Click to expand...

Thank you, still quite complicated but I'm getting a better idea now!