Joined on Dec 16, 2013


Total: 3, showing: 1 – 3
On article Enthusiast compact camera roundup (2013) (233 comments in total)

I initially bought an RX100 to fill the gap between my OMD M1 and my iPhone 5S. But, I ended giving up on it.
1. I find it almost impossible to do serious photography in bright daylight without a view finder. 2. The camera was very fiddly to use. 3. The color on the JPEG's is way too cool and I was never able to correct for this in post processing.

I replaced it with a LX7 with the optional EVF. Unlike the Sony, this camera is a joy to use. And, in a back-to-back comparison of the same subjects taken at the same time with both cameras I preferred the LX7 pic the RX100 pic every time.

I recently spent 2 weeks in Paris with the LX7. I didn't think it was worth carrying the M1 for the small amount of time I would have for photos in grey January weather — and I didn't fancy looking like a tourist.

The pics were all excellent — including people and action shots taken at a night time PSG soccer game. Great to have an unobtrusive little camera with a a fast lens.

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2014 at 23:14 UTC as 19th comment
On article Enthusiast compact camera roundup (2013) (233 comments in total)

I would suggest that the RX-10 is most likely to be cross-shopped against the both the super zoom bridge cameras (e.g. Panasonic FZ-200) and MFT and APS-C cameras.

I tend to think of it as a quite big, and quite expensive super zoom with a considerably larger sensor and a shorter maximum zoom range.

For me, an enthusiast compact camera is one that I will choose when my iPhone 5S will not be sufficient but I want something much smaller, lighter and less obtrusive than my OMD M1.

I would have to really need the reach of that 200mm zoom to choose an RX10 over, say, an OMD M10 with a decent zoom lens.

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2014 at 23:02 UTC as 20th comment
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Review (611 comments in total)

I have a question about the EVF:

The specs say that it has 1.39 (.70X APS-C equivalent) magnification — and this is the number you use in your graphic that compares the relative sizes of viewfinders. However, unlike the cameras you are comparing it to, the GX7 viewfinder has a 16:9 aspect ratio. 3:2 and 4:3 are crops from this.

The rectangle in your graphic looks to be close to 4:3 in aspect ratio. I am confused. Is the GX7 really .70X when displaying a 4:3 image?

It seemed smaller than that when I tried it.

I really like the form factor and handling of this camera. The M1 is bigger and quite a bit more expensive.

The thing that is giving me pause is the GX7 viewfinder. I have to try really hard to see even a hint of tearing, so this does not bother me. I presume that the $15 eyecup will cure the ambient light problem. But, indoors in the camera store, the GX7 viewfinder image seemed to be smaller and appreciably less "natural" than the M1 viewfinder image.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2013 at 02:50 UTC as 65th comment | 3 replies
Total: 3, showing: 1 – 3