Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Leica vs. Sony RX1  (Read 19608 times)
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #40 on: June 03, 2013, 01:26:04 PM »
ReplyReply

The bottom line is, all of us who owned 500 Series Hasselblads and 'lost' them, miss the goddam things because of the viewing system which was as perfect as any I ever found anywhere else.

Even the electronic Nikons don't seem to have the viewfinder quality of their older film sisters. Apart from size, interchangeable screens would have been nice...

They say you don't forget your first love.

When she was that good, why would you?

Rob C
Logged

theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #41 on: June 03, 2013, 01:30:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Not for me.  As Keith wrote, no darkcloth, and the size of a LV screen is much smaller than 4x5 or 8x10.  I also shoot handheld.  My comments about screens and EVFs are all about how I shoot.  I rarely use tripods except with 6x6 or larger and only for set pieces.  I don't shoot landscapes, and when I did every once in a while, I used a Mamiya 7 handheld.

I think a screen COULD be like a ground glass, and an HDMI out to a monitor looks nice, but I would only use that on a tripod, like I did when shooting motion.

But I do see your point, and for some people it may work very well.

It was a little tongue in cheek. I have used tons of formats all the way up to 4x5 handheld--but mostly 6x6 and 6x12. I am not particularly attached to eye-level cameras. I knew I would get along with the RX-1 because I really enjoyed my E-P1 and while I got a viewfinder for the E-P1, I used the rear screen most of the time. Some don't like view camera focusing (I never used a dark cloth in the field, BTW) because it it up side down--somehow turning the camera over does not change that. I bought the RX-1 because it does not work like my other cameras. I believe changing your camera changes your photography. I am not sure the RX-1 would be my only camera, but considering the whole thing is about the same size as my 35mm lens for the Pentax 645D, it is great to stick into the bag. And the great thing is the quality of the RX-1 keeps up with the 645D so I can mix work from both of them.
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710



WWW
« Reply #42 on: June 03, 2013, 01:33:51 PM »
ReplyReply

From what I've seen the RX-1 is outstanding and I may well buy one...along with the EVF.
Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #43 on: June 03, 2013, 01:44:02 PM »
ReplyReply

It seems that you are looking for a candid, street config.
Agree that the Z evf is maybe too much of an hassle to setup and belongs
To prod. (although it's 15 sex but not
Discreete). You mentioned the eyecup that fits the screen,
It could be a solution.
I personaly find that it ends to be weired because
It's in the axis of the body and no flexibility to
Change angles, unless the all lcd moves but they
Are fragile and nothing more annoying than
Thinking about not breaking a device.
In the end, the Zac evf would be the most
Efficient unless discretion is requiered.

And T, Thanks you took my previous post as it was,
Just a tease. I'm not thinking that you're an old snob,
Smoking cigars in a british view cameras club.
Nooo. That's more Keith !
You know me for awhile and that's why I allowed
Myself this post.
I know you shoot Red and cutting-edge gear too.

But through this teaser, I wanted to express an idea.
You pointed that you're a VF guy. You are not: you're an image
Maker. What you really expressed was your comfort zone.
But, sometimes, we manage to not repeat ourselves too much
And not reproducing the same image when we aren't
Anymore in our confort zone.
Just think of this alternative idea: why instead of trying
To get a config you think you want, for many good reasons
I'n sure, you just shoot with the CAM as it, with this
Uncomfortable lcd as it. But not 10 days thinking of what's
Missing. Maybe you'll end doing different images.


Fred I never took it as anything other than a tease.

I liked the IQ of the RX1, and the build, and if it were $1800 instead of $2800 I might have ended up with it.  That is to say, its too expensive to not do everything I want it to do.  The X100s on the other hand, . . .
Logged
fredjeang2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 792



« Reply #44 on: June 03, 2013, 02:27:25 PM »
ReplyReply



Hey, Fred, that new avatar reminds me of someone...


 Wink if you think of Serge Gainsbourg, you'd not be far from the truth.
I'm looking a bit like Gainsbourg, but... he had bigger hears than mine...hey...

This pic was shot in a friend studio a few week ago. We were doing chaotic candids
after a session to release pressure
and the weather in spain has been so crap so,
sunglasses... attract sunshine.
He sent me the pics where I appeared later on.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2013, 03:27:12 PM by fredjeang2 » Logged
adrian tyler
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 48


WWW
« Reply #45 on: June 03, 2013, 02:44:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Re: Leica vs. Sony RX1

i had the m9 for over a year as i loved the m6 and the m3, however, it's a little bit bigger, it makes a click sound when you shoot and as i can't focus like i used to be able to and it's so critical wide open that i missed quite a few pictures, also it's stupidly expensive, and that myth that Leicas aren't recognised as such because of the retro design may have been true in the past, but i couldn't get comfortable walking around with all that money on me.
Therefore, for me, the rx1 was a dream come true, sure, i'd prefer a 50mm lens but it's a better sensor than the m9 and regarding the absence of a viewfinder, i dropped a voightlander 35mm round metal viewfinder on mine - like i did with the m3 when i used the 35mm - adjusted it a little bit with a "shim" to hold it tight in place, it's as bang on accurate.
i carry it around almost all the time, something that with the hasselblad 500's, the fuji 6x9's, the linhof, nikon slr's was a PTA, it's not perfect, but for a carry everywhere camera it's as good as it has got so far, for me...
http://adriantyler.net/lion.html
Logged
Jim Kasson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1042



WWW
« Reply #46 on: June 03, 2013, 03:06:24 PM »
ReplyReply

...but for a carry everywhere camera it's as good as it has got so far, for me...
http://adriantyler.net/lion.html

I'll second that. My first decent 35mm camera was a Nikon S2, bought used in 1958 for $180, which everything I'd managed to save from my summer job. I used it for decades. I had an M8, and have an M9, and for some purposes, like zone focusing with the 18mm f/3.8, I love it. What I don't love is not being able to focus accurately at 50mm and above (on a bad day, it's 35 mm and above), and not being able to frame accurately. I didn't like the noisy images above ISO 640. Not being a purist, I sometimes missed AF.

The RX-1 fixes the framing. There's no 50, so that's still a problem. It's lighter than the M9. It's incredibly quiet. It's great in dim light. I've used it with both an optical viewfinder and the EVF, and I like the EVF better, for framing accuracy and parallax-free seeing, and also for having the histogram right there all the time at the corner of the screen. It looks a little silly with a RRS L-plate and hand grip, but that's the way I use it when I'm not going for minimum weight and bulk. I think the lens is great. The ergonomics are not stellar, but they're better than tolerable.

It's still amazing to me the IQ I can get in this tiny package.

Jim
« Last Edit: June 03, 2013, 03:13:19 PM by Jim Kasson » Logged

fredjeang2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 792



« Reply #47 on: June 03, 2013, 03:24:39 PM »
ReplyReply

The X100s on the other hand, . . .

If you can read spanish, they did a Fuji vs Sony comparative in this website and they were absolutly surprised by the Fuji.

http://www.quesabesde.com/noticias/fuji-x100s-analisis-muestras-comparativa-sony-rx1,1_9607

There are samples face-to-face at the very bottom of the article. You can download the Raws. The Fuji stands very well.
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #48 on: June 03, 2013, 03:29:15 PM »
ReplyReply

If you can read spanish, they did a Fuji vs Sony comparative in this website and they were absolutly surprised by the Fuji.

http://www.quesabesde.com/noticias/fuji-x100s-analisis-muestras-comparativa-sony-rx1,1_9607

There are samples face-to-face at the very bottom of the article. You can download the Raws. The Fuji stands very well.

Thanks Fred! 
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1193


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #49 on: June 03, 2013, 03:36:30 PM »
ReplyReply

You are not: you're an image Maker.


Fred's 100% right.  In commerce, our job description has changed.

Anyway,

Until the gh3, I've never used an evf except on the RED's and video cameras.

Never really like them, though find looking at a viewfinder more natural than a screen, unless your shooting motion and moving, then a way to get the lens off the face is usually smoother.

The gh3, I love the viewfinder, same with the Olympus.   In fact most of the time I never think about it being electronic, unless the white balance is way off, or the scene is very, very dark, then it's noticeable, but usable.

I've compared a lot of cameras recently, as our production model has changed.  We have to shoot motion, stills, of the same session, the best way to approach what we do is to think of it more as multimedia rather than just a still or cinema shoot.

To do this takes time and a different mindset of working.   Early on when everyone started to do video with their still sessions, everyone said you can't do both, but now, whether you like to or not , you must do both, (and do it pretty damn well) or at least with my clients and it's not uncommon to add still photography to a motion piece.

We just finished a 3 minute video that has over 106 separate pieces of media so on the average the scene changes about every 1.5 seconds, so still or digital it's all quick.

Personally, though I favor still imagery as that is my training, I'm agnostic whether it's still or motion, both have their place.

The only issue with motion is the post work monster as doing 10 elaborate still images in post can be done in a few days, doing 10 setups of motion imagery in post for a unique look can take many weeks.  

There just really isn't an easy way to effect motion imagery, but with these smaller cameras getting better and better, there is an efficient way to shoot it.

I personally like evfs to some extend, but whether I like them or not, I know they are what all cameras will be.  Mirrorless is here and effective.

Not to go off track, but I've tested aps-c cameras, 4/3's, full frame and honestly once you get below 20 mpx, they all are about the same in final output.  

Each scene per camera can produce a different look, but each camera, has different processing, lenses, etc. but pretty much put them all dead even, under 20 mpx.

What I love about the 4/3's system is I've virtually begged for a camera that would shoot a 4:3 crop native, 2:3 and 16x9 without lines but just black around the finder, so what I see is what I get.

The 4:3's cameras shoot more than acceptable video, with stabilization, more than acceptable stills.

They look small compared to modern dslrs, but modern dslrs have grown way big compared to what used to be film cameras, so I don't find the size that big of a deal.

I really wanted a camera like the Epic or Scarlet to shoot autofocus video, tight stills all from one system and the scarlet/epics are good, but really are motion picture style cameras, not run and gun video, not really tight stills.

Or a medium format style camera that would shoot exceptional video, but until you go to the gh3, nothing is close.

The GH3 does that well and for the purists that think you can't creatively autofocus a motion image they need to try the GH3 because overall it's as or more reliable than a manual focus puller, which is pretty amazing for a $1,200 camera.

Anyway, EVF's are with us and I like them or at least learn to work with and around them, the same way we did with optical finders.

This isn't a commercial for panasonic, but I honestly find the gh3 to be what modern cameras really can be.   Stabilized, electronically useful and productive as well as cost effective.

I own three RED's, two digital backed cameras,  4- 35mm ff dslrs and I can take a 4:3 gh3 and go do virtually the same work with one system that weighs 15 lbs, I've done with multiple cameras that total out hundreds of lbs.

In costs, one GH3 system with 4 lenses is about $6,000 or so, one Olympus system with 4 primes about $5,300.  That's less than a set of PL lenses.

Now I'm sorry this response is so long, but we have to realize it's a different world.  

All clients care about image quality, regardless of what anyone says, but more than the image quality, they care about telling the story and if anything has changed in the last few years it's  all imagery, still and motion must tell some kind of story.

I think the days of single purpose cameras will be with us for a long time, but I also think our roles have change from dp, director, camera operator, photographer to a mix mash of image maker.

I would love to turn back the clock 10 years and be "just" a photographer, that shoots stills as I love the still image, but I also like working.

The one thing missing in the chain, of motion/stills is a way to quickly get the same exact high end look from the still and motion frame.  

I am at a loss as to why lightroom is so different than speedgrade, photoshop's interface 180 from After Effects, DiVinci, Baselight so different than anything.

If I was Phase One, I'd beg and borrow 200 clips from all cameras and work day and night to make one suite that did the same look for stills and motion imagery.  I'd look for a hardware solution  like Matrox that sped up the process and I'd bundle my Phase One cameras with a panasonic gh3.

If I was a camera maker, I'd tear a gh3 apart, find out exactly what it's missing (pro rezz 4:4:4: in 12 to 14 bit, and dual channel xlr inputs), and I'd set up training and sell the hell out of them.

Bottom line is the GH3 and some of the Sony's prove what a camera could be . . . but aren't.  

This is an electronics game of upgrade every 18 months to get another 20% of what we need.

Search around for cameras.  You either get great dedicated still cameras that require a lot of light and shoot crappy video, great motion picture cameras that require dedicated focus pullers, way expensive lenses and tons of wattage and shoot great digital video and usually not a lot in between.

That little GH3 proves what can be done, and better yet what really could be done.  It still takes creativity, certain amount of crew, dedicated light, a good story, etc. etc., but cameras shouldn't hold us back, waiting for the next 18 month upgrade.

Once again, sorry for the rambling response.



IMO

BC



Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710



WWW
« Reply #50 on: June 03, 2013, 04:03:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm looking a bit like Gainsbourg, but... he had bigger hears than mine...

...and that, my friend, is either a wonderful error in translation or a fortunate typo, or perhaps the wittiest line I've seen here in a long time ;-)
Logged

fredjeang2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 792



« Reply #51 on: June 03, 2013, 05:50:53 PM »
ReplyReply

...and that, my friend, is either a wonderful error in translation or a fortunate typo, or perhaps the wittiest line I've seen here in a long time ;-)

Oh deer! Another big english and basic mistake...in the very line of Robin Wood
As my zen teacher says: don't trust the mind.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2013, 06:24:21 PM by fredjeang2 » Logged
fredjeang2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 792



« Reply #52 on: June 03, 2013, 06:13:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred's 100% right.  In commerce, our job description has changed.

I think that the boundaries have been razed like the Berlin's wall. Today's kids have grown-up with both lenguage naturaly. We still think dual because we belong to a time when a photographer was
well...a photographer, and a cineast a cineast. But this is already a dead reality. The pro world, as it demands a certain standart of quality, still is logicaly for specialists and specialities but this is changing really fast
and there will be soon no possibility for a photographer not doing videos. Even the major broadcast are changing their mentalities. People are going to have to be multitask.


The only issue with motion is the post work monster as doing 10 elaborate still images in post can be done in a few days, doing 10 setups of motion imagery in post for a unique look can take many weeks.  

It's evolving, slowly but still a much bigger time, money and tech blackhole. I guess in a few years we will be able to do what costs us a week in 1/2 of the time and much easier and with 1/2 people on set.

Not to go off track, but I've tested aps-c cameras, 4/3's, full frame and honestly once you get below 20 mpx, they all are about the same in final output.  

Absolutly. In fact when I first had this GH2 some years ago, it delivers a similar output than what was the not so antique 17MP Canon 1D used and abused in lots of editorials and
fashion works. Even better in low-light. And on a blind test, under 20ish MP, I doubt somebody would be able to discover any of the current cameras, FF or not.



The GH3 does that well and for the purists that think you can't creatively autofocus a motion image they need to try the GH3 because overall it's as or more reliable than a manual focus puller, which is pretty amazing for a $1,200 camera.

Yes, it's pretty amazing indeed.


I would love to turn back the clock 10 years and be "just" a photographer, that shoots stills as I love the still image, but I also like working.

Naaa...you'd miss motion. It's too fun. You'd be back to still-only and you'd be bored like hell.


If I was a camera maker, I'd tear a gh3 apart, find out exactly what it's missing (pro rezz 4:4:4: in 12 to 14 bit, and dual channel xlr inputs), and I'd set up training and sell the hell out of them.

Bottom line is the GH3 and some of the Sony's prove what a camera could be . . . but aren't.

That's the big frustration. And it's not a tech problem, wich makes it even more irritating.  

This is an electronics game of upgrade every 18 months to get another 20% of what we need.

And that's why it happens (that they never finish to put all the features we want-need).
And same on softwares. I was looking at the latest Avid upgrade and frankly, not to jump on the ceiling.
Instead of that, they had better re-new DS that would have been the truth all-in-one we all want
to avoid roundtrippings, but...
The prob is that people that take decisions aren't the ones that use their products. It became a profitable business only
and a consumism to the absurd. People buy just to buy. They just buy a new gear, a new software and it's already obsolete.
And look at the forums, at each upgrade, it's the new messiah and the promise land that of course never comes, because
just a few months later, a new promised land is anounced. Now they even put products in the market that aren't fully ready...

JJ was not kidding when he said: the ones who sell their R1 will regret it. Because the R1 was made to last, like the Alexa.


« Last Edit: June 03, 2013, 06:49:26 PM by fredjeang2 » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #53 on: June 04, 2013, 08:38:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Shot and processed to Born In The USA.

Three facts came out to greet me:

1.  I was stunned at how much bigger the apparent viewfinder of the olde worlde cameras compared with the D700;

2.  my eyes are truly shot: I'd need about two or three diopters more than the camera has...

3.  the split wedge screen is fantastic, poor eyes or not.

Progress? Yes, with digital I could shoot the shot in three or four minutes and process in a few more.

Happy? What do you think?

Rob C

P.S. The strap has been on every camera in the evolution, up to and including the F4s, since the original F.  
« Last Edit: June 04, 2013, 11:13:21 AM by Rob C » Logged

bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1193


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #54 on: June 04, 2013, 12:41:30 PM »
ReplyReply


Happy? What do you think?

Rob C

P.S. The strap has been on every camera in the evolution, up to and including the F4s, since the original F.  

The New Deal.



I'm serious.  A laptop, a $49 wifi card, $19.00 software called little snitch and you wifi to the laptop where you can process, or to an ipad where the clients can see every image without 250 lbs of computers, screens, battery backups and 3200 iso.

The lenses are fast, small, lightweight, cheap and deadly sharp.   A few moves of the menu and you can make kodachrome, epr, your own film and effects with a jpeg to show and a raw to go back to if you need changes. 

The panasonic has a setting called toy camera that's bloody beautiful, or high def which is stunning.

You can roughly calibrate the camera screens where they match your computer, what you see in the viewfinder is the look you going to see on the back end, if you want to manual focus tight, turn the focus ring and it zooms it at a billion percent then snaps back to full frame, then shoot.

The camera, lens prices are back to film days camera lens prices, including inflation.  $900 for a body, $200 for a motor winder, $499 to $699 for a lens.

Buy three carry them on your shoulder and they weight less than an F5 with a motor.

In about 2 hours you totally forget what the real format is, all you see is the look, the image, the crop, the photo.

Yes a 25mm is a 50, a 75 a 150, a 12 a 24, but that doesn't matter as long as the image is good and all the lenses are fast 1.4 to 1.8.

With settings that take a while to learn, once you've got it down your essentially setting your look in camera and the jpegs can go straight to web galleries you can upload on the fly.

These cameras IMO are the first time digital has shown promise to be what it can be.  Rather than becoming more bulky and time consuming,  it's less and it's not a democratic change in photography because you learn your settings the way you learned a film stock, you shoot to your vision and don't spend a lot of time saying, "don't worry, it will look different in post".

I have three bodies, 6 lenses, an ipad,  in one messenger bag, that goes on my shoulder, easily goes on a plane.

IMO

BC







Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #55 on: June 04, 2013, 02:38:03 PM »
ReplyReply

The New Deal.



I'm serious.  A laptop, a $49 wifi card, $19.00 software called little snitch and you wifi to the laptop where you can process, or to an ipad where the clients can see every image without 250 lbs of computers, screens, battery backups and 3200 iso.

The lenses are fast, small, lightweight, cheap and deadly sharp.   A few moves of the menu and you can make kodachrome, epr, your own film and effects with a jpeg to show and a raw to go back to if you need changes. 

The panasonic has a setting called toy camera that's bloody beautiful, or high def which is stunning.

You can roughly calibrate the camera screens where they match your computer, what you see in the viewfinder is the look you going to see on the back end, if you want to manual focus tight, turn the focus ring and it zooms it at a billion percent then snaps back to full frame, then shoot.

The camera, lens prices are back to film days camera lens prices, including inflation.  $900 for a body, $200 for a motor winder, $499 to $699 for a lens.

Buy three carry them on your shoulder and they weight less than an F5 with a motor.

In about 2 hours you totally forget what the real format is, all you see is the look, the image, the crop, the photo.

Yes a 25mm is a 50, a 75 a 150, a 12 a 24, but that doesn't matter as long as the image is good and all the lenses are fast 1.4 to 1.8.

With settings that take a while to learn, once you've got it down your essentially setting your look in camera and the jpegs can go straight to web galleries you can upload on the fly.

These cameras IMO are the first time digital has shown promise to be what it can be.  Rather than becoming more bulky and time consuming,  it's less and it's not a democratic change in photography because you learn your settings the way you learned a film stock, you shoot to your vision and don't spend a lot of time saying, "don't worry, it will look different in post".

I have three bodies, 6 lenses, an ipad,  in one messenger bag, that goes on my shoulder, easily goes on a plane.

IMO

BC









Fine looking camera.  I never really considered the 4/3 cams.  Time to take a look.
Logged
fredjeang2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 792



« Reply #56 on: June 04, 2013, 03:14:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Fine looking camera.  I never really considered the 4/3 cams.  Time to take a look.
Indeed to be considered. M4/3 has evolved and they are doing really fine advanced cameras like the elegant Olympus Coot posted (like the look of the image posted by the way),
or the more motion orientated GH3.
 

« Last Edit: June 04, 2013, 03:16:48 PM by fredjeang2 » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #57 on: June 04, 2013, 04:21:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Yep, I guess the world is full of alternatives.

However, I am comfortable(ish) with what I have, and curiosity for the new isn't high on my agenda, I'm afraid. (Agenda: well, whatever passes for one.) I hanker more for some old favourites.

Motion ability in a camera means nothing for me - I love films but have no intentions of getting into that world: far too late and utterly pointless in my case. Were I in my twenties, it could have been the way to fly, but I'm not, and so neither is motion. I have never even used my cellphone in movie-mode.

Perhaps the real photographic miracle will be a cellphone one that offers RAW. Maybe they already do... things move so quickly these day.

Rob C
« Last Edit: June 04, 2013, 04:29:22 PM by Rob C » Logged

bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1193


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #58 on: June 04, 2013, 05:55:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Fine looking camera.  I never really considered the 4/3 cams.  Time to take a look.

T.


If you do, give yourself the time to really use it.  Borrow lens has them for rent.

The panasonic, though less sexy and better at video is a better camera than the olympus, the olympus shoots a fractionally better still, but the olympus really is just a still camera, cause video is 17mbs, which is a shame because the in body stabilzation is like steadicam smooth,

Anyway, the both look a little funky out of the can but if you tune them in camera, you can get almost any look you want.

ThelPanasonic has a smoother wrap in transitions, the Olympus comes out of the box with more of a crushed black look, though both can be made to look anyway you want.

The Upside of the Olympus is the primes though they have no stabilization because the body does it, the upside of the pana is the two constant 2.8 zooms.

I don't know where these systems will go, but hopefully Olympus and panasonic will continue.  

Olympus hinted at a pro 4/3 whatever that means, panasonic seems happy owning the video market.

I can tell you that the Panasonic compared to our Sony fs100 shoots twice the video file and better autofocus, easier setup, but only has one sound input.

IMO

BC
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710



WWW
« Reply #59 on: June 05, 2013, 02:13:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Things I really love about our Micro 4/3.

The screen. Love the articulation, I wish my Hasselblad had one.
The touch screen. So clever, love how I can focus by touch.
The EVF. Love how it lets me see into pitch black ruins before I get the real camera out.
The price.
The format.

Things I really hate.

The screen. Hopeless in Mediterranean light, but there again so is any screen.
The touch screen. See above.
The EVF. Needs a few years.

Things I'm indifferent about.

The sensor, particularly the size. Nothing to get excited about.
 
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad