Smaller is not always better
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Deciding on RX1R III
- Thread starter Tubbycub
- Start date
tbcass
Forum Pro
Last edited:
I am not arguing his preference. I am just stating the obvious. If he doesnt like the camera, then he doesnt like the camera, why get upset when people state it.
"OH I dont hate that camera, I just like every other camera more."
Its F2.8 at 18mm. But you wont see an 18mm view, you see 27mm. You wont see F2.8, you will see F4.2.
If you are using equivalence on the fov, then it should be applied to dof as well.
You dont have to own a Prius AND a Corvette to know which one is faster, or which one has better gas mileage.
Unreliable AF, with bad MF. Thats a pretty bad combination.
Yes. internal dust does show up on images when stopped down..
IBIS is nice to have, but its not needed for a 35mm lens with a leaf shutter. It doesnt shock like a mechanical shutter.
Getting an image in focus is much more important than some minor motion blur. Canon EF ruled the industry for decades. No IBIS, no IS on their $2100 35mm F1.4L lens. Thats with mirror slap and shutter shock.
Last edited:
Anyone thats considering the RX1Riii, probably has size near the top of their list of most important things.
If this were family feud, the top 3 answers would be:
- Size/pocketability
- Full Frame sensor
- Zeiss lens
I have no idea what 'family feud' is but I would agree with these three strengths.
For me though it is too small which doesn't help handling and it can make it harder to use at lower shutter-speeds.
The weaknesses which spoil it for me are -
1. No stabilization
2. EVF from an entry-level camera has no place in a £4k GBP camera. Sony have some fantastic evfs in their top-tier cameras I would add.
3. Poor battery-life
4. No weather-sealing
5.Convaluted menu system
I would add that this camera is capable of first-rate quality but like all cameras it has its limitations.
It wouldn't be my choice ,but this is based on my own needs and wants of course.
Tubbycub
Forum Enthusiast
Completely valid.
I ended up with the A7CR and 35 1.4 GM and couldn’t be happier. The images are fantastic and handling is great!
I almost ended up getting a 28mm Q3 but came to my senses lol
Enjoy your new camera!
Tubbycub
Forum Enthusiast
Thank you
If you dont understand why people want the size of the RX1R, then you dont understand the RX1R. The small size is its reason for existing. If you disregard the size, the A7CR is better in every way. (They both have the same EVF)
What I disagree on, are the Leica Q3 and the Ricoh GR. Aside from the size differences, they have worse and even worse AF. And the Ricoh GR has a slew of other negatives.
And about stabilization, its nice to have. This is a 35mm lens, without shutter shock and without a mirror slap. Its pretty easy to get sharp 1/60, and 1/15 with some concentration.
-keep in mind that I do have a wood grip taped to my camera. Makes it a little easier to hold.
Last edited:
What makes you say the Sony has better AF than the Q3. Is it personal experience.? I have been very happy over two years with a Q3. Note that I don't use the subject-detection modes etc.
The default as setting is 1/125 seconds which suggests real-world usage. Q3 is around 1/15sec.
Adding the necessary grip will make the Sony bigger of course.
The latest professional objective review of the Sony is pretty average with the summary being it's compromised.
UK.pcmag.com
How can you say the Q3 has a better EVF than the RX1Riii? Do you own both? How can you say the A7C is better than the RX1R? How can you recommend a Ricoh GR or Fuji X100.... have you used those cameras enough to be comfortable recommending those cameras?
Simply put, you dont have to own everything to form an opinion on it. You can watch/read reviews. No unbiased reviewer would put the Q3 AF on par with a the AF of a newer Sony Camera.
I am sure AF-S works great on the Q3, but my Sony A850 was also great with AF-S. But how is it when you use AF-C, or subject tracking?
I am not arguing that the Q3 stabilization works. My point is, do most people typically handhold shoot at 1/15? The RX1R can do 1/60 without issues. 1/15 works, with concentration.
And as I said earlier, missed focus is much worse than a minor amount of shake.
Did you see the picture I posted? MY grip does not add a single MM to the width or height or depth of the camera.
Last edited:
I own one and have handled the other a fair bit. Few would argue that the Sony EVF is close to the Q3....
how can you say the A7C is better than the RX1R?
Because it has stabilisation, ergonomics and battery-life.
How can you recommend a Ricoh GR or Fuji X100.... have you used those cameras enough to be comfortable recommending those cameras?
Yes, I have owned both these camera and used them extensively.
Simply put, you dont have to own everything to form an opinion on it. You can watch/read reviews. No unbiased reviewer would put the Q3 AF on par with a the AF of a newer Sony Camera.
I am sure AF-S works great on the Q3, but my Sony A850 was also great with AF-S. But how is it when you use AF-C, or subject tracking?
I said din my post I don't use tracking etc. nor do i use AF -c. Sony AF S and tracking will be better as I acknowledged earlier. It is not a sports or wildlife camera though of course but it maybe important to some I suppose.
The default as setting is 1/125 seconds which suggests real-world usage. Q3 is around 1/15sec.
I am not arguing that the Q3 stabilization works. My point is, do most people typically handhold shoot at 1/15? The RX1R can do 1/60 without issues. 1/15 works, with concentration.
Yes is I handhold at a lot at slower speeds e.g building interiors. I have taken thousands of these types of shots with various setups.
And as I said earlier, missed focus is much worse than a minor amount of shake.
In two years I had to switch to manual focus 3-4 times.
Adding the necessary grip will make the Sony bigger of course.
Did you see the picture I posted? MY grip does not add a single MM to the width or height or depth of the camera.
Noted.
The OP I believe chose the AC7 in the end...
So you knew that RX1Riii has better AF, but instead of just admitting it....
1) You questioned the validity of my statement, knowing that it was correct
2) You say that you dont use "Subject Detection"
3) Even later you say that you dont even use AF-C.
The fact that it was so hard for you to admit something so obvious, indicates a heavy bias.
My question was "Do you think most people" handhold shoot at 1/15. If they do, they would have to consider if 1/15 is more important than the size.
But have how many OOF images did you have before switching to manual. There are plenty of moments that, if you miss them, they are gone.
The A7CR is better in every way except for size. Its something I said earlier, and something I can say easily without gritting my teeth.
Last edited:
I gave my opinion in response to the OP's query.
Everyone has biases . I note you have the the earlier version of this Sony.
I am sure the OP has enough replies now to make his own decision so I will bow out.
Tubbycub
Forum Enthusiast
Yes I bought the A7CR with a 35 1.4 GM.
For DOF it's f/4.2. Whether that's good or bad is up to the user.
For exposure, it's f/2.8. IMO, that's a good thing.
Faster lenses are typically much more expensive than slower lenses.
Why would that be a good thing? APSC sensors typically have more noise at the same ISO as FF sensors.
It's better than if it was actually like f/4.2, no? More light, better autofocus.
That doesnt seem to be helping the Ricoh GR much.
Non-sequitor.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum