XF16-80mm vs. XF18-135mm for travel/landscape/architecture photography

Gaber wrote:

I'm willing to bring the 27mm pancake around town as a walk-around lens on any given day and just use that one and maybe a fast prime for the evening. No sense bringing every lens with you on vacation. 16-80 is the best range.

My approach has evolved to: bring a bag with whatever gear I think I'll need and keep it wherever we're staying. Whenever I leave the place to go out for the day, take one lens (ideally - or two if needed). If I'm hitting a zoo that day, take a tele and maybe carry my RX100 to handle the wider view. If I'm not going to go back to the rental, then bring along a faster prime/midrange to switch to when done with the zoo, for evening shots. I try to avoid having much in the car while out and about and try to avoid lens changes.

Going to an amusement park, I might leave the ILC behind and bring just the RX100. Going to the boardwalk at night, a fast prime or midrange zoom.

I might have a bit of stuff back at the rental and a number of batteries to keep charged, but while we're out & about, there's little to worry about.

One thing I've found after reviewing photos and EXIF data is that I can probably get by with an 18-55. Zoo shots ... meh ... they're a record that I went to the zoo, but what am I going to do with them ? Comparing what I shoot with an 18-55 to what I shoot with an 18-200, with the 18-200, I tend to shoot a lot near 18-55 or so, then a bunch at 200, and most of those are pretty forgettable. The biggest exception is sometimes it's nice to have a long tele for things like shorebirds or wild horses (Assateague Island) or other things that maybe aren't going to be great photos, because they're just opportunistic, but are still good memories of a time & place. My RX10 III does a good job with that, so I can bring an ILC with a midrange zoom and a fast prime, plus the RX100 and RX10. (And then choose between them on a given day). I just wish that other brands offered RX100/RX10 alternatives so you could have the same UI/controls across all your cameras.

- Dennis
--

Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Dennis wrote:

My RX10 III does a good job with that, so I can bring an ILC with a midrange zoom and a fast prime, plus the RX100 and RX10. (And then choose between them on a given day). I just wish that other brands offered RX100/RX10 alternatives so you could have the same UI/controls across all your cameras.

Just wondering, when we start bringing RX10/100 into the conversation, it's no longer about comparing IQ, more like convenience?

I stared with various Canon Powershot, but somehow I can't switch back from DSLR/mirrorless to those compacts. Not only the difference in IQ/sensor sizes, but perhaps also muscle memory of zooming by twisting the lens barrel vs zooming with buttons, the dials, ... Even shooting theater, switching back and forth between the X-T2 and X-T20 sometimes threw me off between the pad and joystick.

sluggy_warrior wrote:

Dennis wrote:

My RX10 III does a good job with that, so I can bring an ILC with a midrange zoom and a fast prime, plus the RX100 and RX10. (And then choose between them on a given day). I just wish that other brands offered RX100/RX10 alternatives so you could have the same UI/controls across all your cameras.

Just wondering, when we start bringing RX10/100 into the conversation, it's no longer about comparing IQ, more like convenience?

Yes. But just talking about what to do on vacation ... I use those convenience cameras to avoid carrying additional lenses for my ILC. I like a long tele for backyard wildlife, but for grab shots on vacation, I'll settle for the (very good) IQ from the RX10. Similarly, I'll settle for RX100 shots to avoid carrying an ILC around at an amusement park or to avoid swapping lenses when my primary shooting involves a tele. (I've also done this at my daughter's school events - concerts and plays - shoot the event using a 70-200/2.8 for quality in low light, then a few after-the-show snapshots with the RX100 that's in my pocket, rather than have to swap lenses and stow away the big tele).

Even shooting theater, switching back and forth between the X-T2 and X-T20 sometimes threw me off between the pad and joystick.

That's part of why I'd like to move to a single system sooner, even though I have little other pressing need to spend the money to do so. Also why I wish every brand offered premium compacts. The RX100 has different controls, but same menu as the Alpha mirrorless bodies. Same with the FZ1000 versus other Panasonic cameras. I assume that holds for Fuji(?) but I don't think they offer anything quite like the RX100/RX10. Even Nikon doesn't bother - I think a lot of Nikon users were looking forward to the 1" DL cameras that they announced, then cancelled.

On that note, one thing I'd like to pursue at some point is the idea of cropping photos from the 70-300 as an alternative to a small sensor camera. If I can convince myself that I never need to print my long tele shots particularly big (reasonable, based on what I shoot) and consider that an RX10 uses a sharp 220mm lens (and the Nikon 1 series only gets to 840mm equivalent with a sharp, little 70-300) then I wonder how shots taken with a 28MP Fuji and the 70-300 cropped to 600mm-equivalent compare.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Dennis wrote:

sluggy_warrior wrote:

Dennis wrote:

My RX10 III does a good job with that, so I can bring an ILC with a midrange zoom and a fast prime, plus the RX100 and RX10. (And then choose between them on a given day). I just wish that other brands offered RX100/RX10 alternatives so you could have the same UI/controls across all your cameras.

Just wondering, when we start bringing RX10/100 into the conversation, it's no longer about comparing IQ, more like convenience?

Yes. But just talking about what to do on vacation ... I use those convenience cameras to avoid carrying additional lenses for my ILC. I like a long tele for backyard wildlife, but for grab shots on vacation, I'll settle for the (very good) IQ from the RX10. Similarly, I'll settle for RX100 shots to avoid carrying an ILC around at an amusement park or to avoid swapping lenses when my primary shooting involves a tele. (I've also done this at my daughter's school events - concerts and plays - shoot the event using a 70-200/2.8 for quality in low light, then a few after-the-show snapshots with the RX100 that's in my pocket, rather than have to swap lenses and stow away the big tele).

Even shooting theater, switching back and forth between the X-T2 and X-T20 sometimes threw me off between the pad and joystick.

That's part of why I'd like to move to a single system sooner, even though I have little other pressing need to spend the money to do so. Also why I wish every brand offered premium compacts. The RX100 has different controls, but same menu as the Alpha mirrorless bodies. Same with the FZ1000 versus other Panasonic cameras. I assume that holds for Fuji(?) but I don't think they offer anything quite like the RX100/RX10. Even Nikon doesn't bother - I think a lot of Nikon users were looking forward to the 1" DL cameras that they announced, then cancelled.

On that note, one thing I'd like to pursue at some point is the idea of cropping photos from the 70-300 as an alternative to a small sensor camera. If I can convince myself that I never need to print my long tele shots particularly big (reasonable, based on what I shoot) and consider that an RX10 uses a sharp 220mm lens (and the Nikon 1 series only gets to 840mm equivalent with a sharp, little 70-300) then I wonder how shots taken with a 28MP Fuji and the 70-300 cropped to 600mm-equivalent compare.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

I’m sure I’ve tread about this on a Sony Forum. I think the conclusion was that the rx10 iv was very close to  350mm on 24 mp apsc. So I think the Fuji would be pretty close as well