Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?  (Read 13649 times)
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #40 on: June 23, 2013, 06:01:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Do you think your head on the VF can beat a 3-stops camera stabilisation system?


That is a specious argument that misses the point.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2013, 06:24:35 AM by BobFisher » Logged
KirbyKrieger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 419


WWW
« Reply #41 on: June 23, 2013, 06:32:04 AM »
ReplyReply

No, I don't think a flipping screen would help much: can't see anything much on electronic screens in the sunshine.
Rob C

Which have you tried?

I have always been able to see enough to record the data I want.  On cameras that have LCDs that do not fully articulate, I use the FlipBac (http://flipbac.com). Neither elegant nor slick, but a useful tool that makes my tools more useful.  Will likely require an hour or more of use to develop the coordination to use effectively.

Some cameras in the near future will have either removable LCDs, or will communicate with other personal electronic devices (smart phones), allowing the user to see the sensor image and operate the camera from a distance.
Logged

Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1327



WWW
« Reply #42 on: June 23, 2013, 07:12:26 AM »
ReplyReply

That is a specious argument that misses the point.

What is a specious argument?. Anyway, I just meant that the absence of VF can be compensated and improved with the stabiliser in this camera, that's all.
Logged

RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #43 on: June 23, 2013, 07:20:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Which have you tried?

I have always been able to see enough to record the data I want.  On cameras that have LCDs that do not fully articulate, I use the FlipBac (http://flipbac.com). Neither elegant nor slick, but a useful tool that makes my tools more useful.  Will likely require an hour or more of use to develop the coordination to use effectively.

Some cameras in the near future will have either removable LCDs, or will communicate with other personal electronic devices (smart phones), allowing the user to see the sensor image and operate the camera from a distance.

The future is now.  There are numerous apps that will allow controlling many cameras via a wired connection and a couple that allow for wifi connections.  Moreso in the Android space than Apple because Apple doesn't allow the iPhone to act as a USB host and severely limits USB host functionality on the iPad.

Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #44 on: June 23, 2013, 08:23:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Bob has elegantly illustrated what's amiss with modern cameras. That piccy says it all.

Rob C
Logged

allegretto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 637


« Reply #45 on: June 23, 2013, 08:55:44 AM »
ReplyReply

and, subject material too...
Logged
Jim Kasson
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1050



WWW
« Reply #46 on: June 23, 2013, 09:38:44 AM »
ReplyReply

...squatting down to shoot low isn't that easy or comfortable anymore; it would be nice to have a reflex screen available - oh, wait - isn't that 500 Series territory again? Ironically, the more uncomfortable getting low is, the more I find motifs that include low, OOF foreground elements... so they go unshot, with cellphone or camera. No, I don't think a flipping screen would help much: can't see anything much on electronic screens in the sunshine.

Rob C

The RX-1 EVF flips up so that you can look straight down on it, kind of like a Hasselblad SLR or Rolleiflex TLR with the waist-level finder and the magnifier flipped up. That solves the not-being-able-to-see-the-screen-in-the-sunshine problem, but you'll still have to bend more than with a waist-level finder used at arm's length.

Jim
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5171


« Reply #47 on: June 23, 2013, 10:09:39 AM »
ReplyReply

this POV would be perfectly reasonable if I had only one camera.
You previous claim was for a "liberating" _advantage_ to not being able to change the lens on a camera.

My reply is that there is no advantage (one can get the benefits you claimed by buying and carrying a camera with a single lens, whether or not that camera allows the possibility of changing the lens.)

The option you now mention of owning other cameras does nothing to support your previous claim of an _advantage_ to the non-changeable lens option; at most it mitigates the disadvantages.

P. S. I agree that for now, the RX-1 offers a combination not reproducible in any "system camera", so there is a legitimate market niche for it. I also expect that niche to shrink or vanish if and when camera makers like Sony offer new mirror-less systems with 36x24mm sensors and changeable AF lenses designed for that system. (Bodies that rely on manual focus rangefinder lenses or SLR lenses do not count.)
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #48 on: June 23, 2013, 10:12:24 AM »
ReplyReply

and, subject material too...

You have zero idea what the subject matter was.

Rob, yeah, but one person's problem is another's solution.
Logged
Jim Kasson
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1050



WWW
« Reply #49 on: June 23, 2013, 10:21:55 AM »
ReplyReply

The one I am waiting to see is the Nex-9, which is reported to be full frame also, (I assume it will have the same sensor as the Rx1). 

One of the great virtues of the RX-1 is the quiet shutter. Small digital cameras with interchangeable lenses usually (universally?) have focal plane shutters. The alternative is to put a shutter in every lens, a la Hasselblad 500. Focal plane shutters are pretty noisy, at least compared to leaf shutters. The NEX-7 is moderately noisy, and the shutter mechanism is smaller than it would be on a FF camera.

There is electronic shutter technology on the horizon that could make the noise/lens interchangability tradeoff go away, though.

Jim
Logged

maxgruzen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


WWW
« Reply #50 on: June 23, 2013, 10:46:16 AM »
ReplyReply

It's a reasonable question, Bob.  Let me turn it back to you.  What do you think is the cost of a (i) body with full-frame sensor, and (ii) a Zeiss 35 f/2 lens?  The lens is no slacker, apparently testing among the best in its class.  I think it might be hard to make and sell this for less than $2k.  

The question is whether this is a reasonable price for the capability?  I think most of us are more interested in a FF NEX, or a FF X Pro, that allows us a choice of lenses on a FF camera in a small package.  I'd like to see this anyway.
I don't know. The lens on my DP2 is probably as good a lens as I've ever owned. I have owned a hell of a lot of high dollar glass. DP2 $799.00
Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #51 on: June 23, 2013, 11:26:35 AM »
ReplyReply

You previous claim was for a "liberating" _advantage_ to not being able to change the lens on a camera.

My reply is that there is no advantage (one can get the benefits you claimed by buying and carrying a camera with a single lens, whether or not that camera allows the possibility of changing the lens.)

The option you now mention of owning other cameras does nothing to support your previous claim of an _advantage_ to the non-changeable lens option; at most it mitigates the disadvantages.

P. S. I agree that for now, the RX-1 offers a combination not reproducible in any "system camera", so there is a legitimate market niche for it. I also expect that niche to shrink or vanish if and when camera makers like Sony offer new mirror-less systems with 36x24mm sensors and changeable AF lenses designed for that system. (Bodies that rely on manual focus rangefinder lenses or SLR lenses do not count.)

And if I never change the lens, then there is no advantage to an interchangeable lens camera. Looks like a lose-lose option.
Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #52 on: June 23, 2013, 11:28:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Here is a lens test for the RX-1

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Sony-Cyber-shot-RX1-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-2-35-review-Is-this-the-ultimate-moderate-wide-angle-lens
Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #53 on: June 23, 2013, 11:33:33 AM »
ReplyReply

So I'm not allowed to ask a question and state my opinion at the same time?  What a pantload.

Sure, if you want to troll, go right ahead. I get to comment on it as well. We don't have you put up with your rubbish either.
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #54 on: June 23, 2013, 12:36:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Sure, if you want to troll, go right ahead. I get to comment on it as well. We don't have you put up with your rubbish either.

Stuff the name-calling.  This was a reasonably productive discussion till you came along.
Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #55 on: June 23, 2013, 12:57:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Stuff the name-calling.  This was a reasonably productive discussion till you came along.


Bob, you are a hoot. You set the tone, but don't like it when others call you out on it.
Logged
Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 924



« Reply #56 on: June 23, 2013, 01:54:02 PM »
ReplyReply

As to the benefits of deliberate limitation...I mentioned my own reason earlier on for desiring this. But to restate: by nature I'm easily distractable. When presented with multiple options, my initial impulse is to choose all of them simultaneously.   Cheesy  My ideal state-of-being would be one of fully aware quantum superposition.

Pic-taking with a fixed-lens camera is simply a way of reducing distraction. It doesn't mean I'm in any danger of becoming a drooling cultist.   Shocked  But what works for me might not work for someone else. That's okay.

-Dave-
Logged
allegretto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 637


« Reply #57 on: June 23, 2013, 02:01:28 PM »
ReplyReply

As to the benefits of deliberate limitation...I mentioned my own reason earlier on for desiring this. But to restate: by nature I'm easily distractable. When presented with multiple options, my initial impulse is to choose all of them simultaneously.   Cheesy  My ideal state-of-being would be one of fully aware quantum superposition.

Pic-taking with a fixed-lens camera is simply a way of reducing distraction. It doesn't mean I'm in any danger of becoming a drooling cultist.   Shocked  But what works for me might not work for someone else. That's okay.

-Dave-

+1

And Bob... I am sure..
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #58 on: June 23, 2013, 03:04:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Bob, you are a hoot. You set the tone, but don't like it when others call you out on it.

Sod off.  You're the one reading into what isn't there.  One more response like the last two and I won't just lock this thread, I'll delete it entirely.
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2987


« Reply #59 on: June 23, 2013, 03:32:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Lord, have mercy!
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad