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 10266 times)
Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 763



« Reply #60 on: June 23, 2013, 03:46:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Hey, as long as we're (well, some of us are) moving into the subject of deliberate limitation...who among us has actually taken photos over an extended period of time with just one lens on one camera? How was the experience?

I did this in the Middle East in 1983-85 with a Canon AE-1 & 50mm lens. Not exactly by choice...I was young and ca$h was tight, but I also wanted to travel light. Worked out quite well. I'd never actually used a 50mm lens previously...grew up with a 35/90mm pair on a Leica M2. Then in late 1994 I spent ten days in Grand Canyon National Park. My 70-200mm zoom jammed up on day one and I was forced to fall back on a 90mm macro as my sole lens. This worked out great...I sync'd up with the lens right off and never missed the zoom. In fact I'm sure I saw better due to the lack of zooming capability/distraction. I ended up sticking with the 90 for months afterward too. I've done the same sort of thing a few times since then by choice, but it doesn't work as well for me when I know I have other lens options available.

I've included two photos, the first taken by my Nederlander friend Kees deGroot in February 1984 (of me, using the AE-1/50mm combo, on Kodachrome 25) and the second (a selfie!) at the Grand Canyon with the 90mm (on Provia 100). Any intimation of self-absorption is quite unintentional.   Wink

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

Posts: 370


« Reply #61 on: June 23, 2013, 07:11:25 PM »
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.)

I never underpack. Just like I never arrive late. Just not me. So taking the Sony and leaving a DSLR body and 2-3 lenses at home sure as heck liberates my shoulders...!
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3855



WWW
« Reply #62 on: June 23, 2013, 09:02:40 PM »
ReplyReply

I've given up trying to take something light. Now I just grab one of the big SLRs and either 50 or 90, the one which is not mounted has a chance to go into my pocket. A big SLR (Nikon, or Canon pro model) with a 50/1.8 is very fast and pleasant to use.

Interestingly I've found that whether people get angry with me for taking pictures depends more on my haircut than on the camera.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5120


« Reply #63 on: June 23, 2013, 09:14:45 PM »
ReplyReply

... taking the Sony and leaving a DSLR body and 2-3 lenses at home sure as heck liberates my shoulders...!
But as I have said several times, there is the middle way of taking a camera body with a single lens attatched.

To answer Telecaster:
a) my first few years with an SLR were with a single lens, a 50mm. I found this rather limiting, but in those days my budget rather than my back was the biggest limit.
b) some years later, I made do with just a 28-105 for several years on my last film SLR, unwilling to buy more lenses until I decided what to do about this new digital thing. That was mostly quite satisfactory, and I am still happy most days with a single lens --- but I almost always want it to be a zoom, like the 12-50 on my E-M5. That kit keeps my back very happy.
Logged
Paulo Bizarro
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1493


WWW
« Reply #64 on: June 24, 2013, 03:21:52 AM »
ReplyReply

If you are looking for an affordable, but still very good, sort of compact camera with large sensor (albeit not FF), look no further than the Canon EOS M plus the 22 f/2 lens (equivalent to 35mm in FF). Much cheaper than the Sony and the Fuji X100S.
Logged
ripgriffith
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


« Reply #65 on: June 24, 2013, 04:09:04 AM »
ReplyReply

who among us has actually taken photos over an extended period of time with just one lens on one camera? How was the experience?

Leica M(3,2,4 and finally, 6), Summi(cron,lux)35mm. And one film, tri-x mostly at ASA 400 (does anyone remember ASA instead of ISO?).  Does 20 odd years count as an extended period of time?  The experience was fine, albeit limiting (but that's the point, isn't it?)
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #66 on: June 24, 2013, 07:31:44 AM »
ReplyReply

If you are looking for an affordable, but still very good, sort of compact camera with large sensor (albeit not FF), look no further than the Canon EOS M plus the 22 f/2 lens (equivalent to 35mm in FF). Much cheaper than the Sony and the Fuji X100S.

Haven't read a lot of good things about the M.  And philosophically I don't think I could buy a Canon product again. 
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5120


« Reply #67 on: June 24, 2013, 09:47:24 AM »
ReplyReply

If you are looking for an affordable, but still very good, sort of compact camera with large sensor (albeit not FF), look no further than the Canon EOS M plus the 22 f/2 lens (equivalent to 35mm in FF). Much cheaper than the Sony and the Fuji X100S.
Once you accept the EOS-M's sensor size and complete lack of EVF (not even available as an accessory), lots of other options arise, like even the cheapest NEX models, 3N and 5R. And why would someone contemplating paying $2,800 for the RX1 choose instead to pinch pennies on the now heavily discounted EOS-M rather than paying a bit more for something like a Fujifilm X model, or a high end NEX with EVF, which have a far more impressive selection of lenses that are designed for and function well with the bodies?
« Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 10:02:17 AM by BJL » Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #68 on: June 24, 2013, 10:33:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Once you accept the EOS-M's sensor size

It's an APS-C sensor, so there really isn't a whole lot to 'accept', is there?  

Quote
and complete lack of EVF (not even available as an accessory)

The lack of a viewfinder, optical or electronic is a killer, even optional in the shoe (as with the RX1).  Problem with a shoe option is no way to link it to the angle of view of the lens, unless it were electronic and signals were sent through the shoe contacts in some fashion.

If I were going to go for an exchangeable lens option in a smaller, 'streetable', carry around camera, I'd probably look at the X Pro 1, X-E1 or the Nikon 1 (despite its smaller sensor), the Nex line, or maybe M4/3 although some of those are a bit larger.

The idea of being limited by a single focal length is, as others have said, a misleading viewpoint.  It can be seen both ways.  Limiting and liberating.  Also challenging from the standpoint of testing one's ability to create compelling images with a single lens.  Who isn't up for a challenge?

I just picked up a 'Texas Leica' for not a bad price to mess around a bit with MF film again.  Same consideration wrt a fixed lens.  There were plenty of those sold 'in the day', in a variety of formats. 
« Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 10:43:48 AM by BobFisher » Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5120


« Reply #69 on: June 24, 2013, 11:03:07 AM »
ReplyReply

It's an APS-C sensor, so there really isn't a whole lot to 'accept', is there?  
The topic of this thread is the RX1, and one of its main selling points is that is has a 36x24mm sensor rather than the 60% smaller "1.6x crop" "APS-C" sensor of the EOS-M: of course there is an issue of whether people contemplating the RX1 would accept any such "APS-C" alternative.

Quote
The idea of being limited by a single focal length is, as others have said, a misleading viewpoint.  It can be seen both ways.  Limiting and liberating.

I keep asking this and no-one answers:

1) How is a permanently attached lens any more "liberating" than fitting a system camera body with a single lens?
(Which many of us have done from time to time over the years.)


2) How is

a) owning a fixed lens cameras and also another system camera with multiple lenses, and sometimes _choosing_ to carry just the fixed lens camera

any more liberating than

b) owning just the a system with several lenses,  and sometimes _choosing_ to carry that camera with just one lens?
The "Devo" argument that "freedom from choice is what you want " clearly fails in this scenario, due to the same level of choice involved in both options.

The only liberation I see from a permanently fixed lens design is through reduction in weight or cost or such -- which the RX1 offers in comparison to other current options with its sensor size, but not if APC-S size is acceptable.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 11:18:17 AM by BJL » Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #70 on: June 24, 2013, 11:40:10 AM »
ReplyReply

The topic of this thread is the RX1, and one of its main selling points is that is has a 36x24mm sensor rather than the 60% smaller "1.6x crop" "APS-C" sensor of the EOS-M: of course there is an issue of whether people contemplating the RX1 would accept any such "APS-C" alternative.

Yes, but, as with many discussions it has morphed and mutated into something broader and includes discussion of other options. 

Quote
I keep asking this and no-one answers:

1) How is a permanently attached lens any more "liberating" than fitting a system camera body with a single lens?
(Which many of us have done from time to time over the years.)

It's not the camera system.  At least, I don't look at it that way.  It's the idea of a single focal length lens.


Quote
2) How is

a) owning a fixed lens cameras and also another system camera with multiple lenses, and sometimes _choosing_ to carry just the fixed lens camera

any more liberating than

b) owning just the a system with several lenses,  and sometimes _choosing_ to carry that camera with just one lens?
The "Devo" argument that "freedom from choice is what you want " clearly fails in this scenario, due to the same level of choice involved in both options.

The only liberation I see from a permanently fixed lens design is through reduction in weight or cost or such -- which the RX1 offers in comparison to other current options with its sensor size, but not if APC-S size is acceptable.

I can't speak for anyone else but in terms of liberating, it's not just weight.  It's somewhat freeing to be unburdened by the choice of focal length for composition.  You have a single choice which frees you to concentrate on the actual image and not the multitude of ways you could render the scene with different lenses or focal lengths of a zoom lens.  That's also the challenging aspect of working with a single focal length.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5120


« Reply #71 on: June 24, 2013, 01:27:10 PM »
ReplyReply

It's not the camera system.  At least, I don't look at it that way.  It's the idea of a single focal length lens.
...
I can't speak for anyone else but in terms of liberating, it's not just weight.  It's somewhat freeing to be unburdened by the choice of focal length for composition.  You have a single choice which frees you to concentrate on the actual image and not the multitude of ways you could render the scene with different lenses or focal lengths of a zoom lens.  That's also the challenging aspect of working with a single focal length.
I have no problem with people sometimes wanting to do this; I have even chosen to do it myself, though very rarely. (And I used to do it often, but due to financial limits, not choice.)

But this is simply a matter of carrying just a camera with a single prime lens, regardless of whether that lens is permanently attached to the body or not.

My disagreement is with the separate claim that it is somehow superior for it to be impossible to ever change that lens on any occasion.
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #72 on: June 24, 2013, 02:03:35 PM »
ReplyReply


My disagreement is with the separate claim that it is somehow superior for it to be impossible to ever change that lens on any occasion.

I'm not sure anyone is making that argument.  At least I'm not.  The other considerations, which may be advantages for some, are size/weight and possibly noise.  That's where it may be superior to carry the small camera with the fixed lens.  Smaller, lighter and in some cases extremely quiet to silent.  Good for situations where some measure of unobtrusiveness is a benefit. 
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #73 on: June 24, 2013, 02:40:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Leica M(3,2,4 and finally, 6), Summi(cron,lux)35mm. And one film, tri-x mostly at ASA 400 (does anyone remember ASA instead of ISO?).   Does 20 odd years count as an extended period of time?  The experience was fine, albeit limiting (but that's the point, isn't it?)

With much affection. But I seem to remember them running in parallel during the same period, ISO being a European measure and ASA the American which, of course, we all adopted. There was another European measure - Scheiner, or something like that, long-forgotten, of which 27 degrees was equivalent to 400ASA...

Rob C
Logged

woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #74 on: June 24, 2013, 02:44:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Anyone tried comparing prints from an RX100 and comparing to RX1 up to 11*14. I'm amazed at how good the RX100 is. Printed up to about 11*14 it's up there with anything. Crazy but true. Nice files too, not just detailed, great tonality, great colour. Just beautiful. I was going to get an RX1 until I started printing from the RX100 I have and I'm so impressed.
Logged
Jim Kasson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 744


WWW
« Reply #75 on: June 24, 2013, 03:29:42 PM »
ReplyReply

There was another European measure - Scheiner, or something like that, long-forgotten, of which 27 degrees was equivalent to 400ASA...

Rob C

DIN. Logarithmic, with a increment of three doubling the ISO/ASA speed.
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5120


« Reply #76 on: June 24, 2013, 03:40:11 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not sure anyone is making that argument.  At least I'm not.
Maybe you and I are in agreement. After all, I was replying originally to allegretto's comment that "There is something also liberating about a fixed lens. No debate about which lens to use and no dust on the mirror" which seemed to be offered as an advantage of the RX-1's lens being permanently attached, not just the idea of sometimes working with only a single fixed focal length lens on one's camera.

So if no-one is actually claiming an advantage for the non-interchangeability of the RX-1's lens, let me return to the original topic of this thread:
1. I find that the inability to ever use anything other than one lens of one focal length on a camera costing US$2,800 is a severe disadvantage.
2. Compared to current alternatives with a comparable (36x24mm) sensor and lens combination, the RX-1 is for now justified for some users by a significant advantage in size and weight.
3. If and when something like a 36x24mm format "NEX" (and matching 35/2 lens) arrives, the RX-1 wil become obsolete, much as did its ancestor the Sony DSC-R1 from the days before Sony made DSLR's.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5120


« Reply #77 on: June 24, 2013, 03:52:53 PM »
ReplyReply

With much affection. But I seem to remember them running in parallel during the same period, ISO being a European measure and ASA the American which, of course, we all adopted.
Actually, the ISO standard for film speed is simply the adoption and maintenance by the ISO of the standard originally developed in the USA by ANSI (American National Standards Institute), with ANSI being a member of ISO. (The acronym ASA dates back to the earlier name "American Standards Association" for what later became ANSI.) By the way, the ISO film speed standard also includes the alternative logarithmic DIN scale from the German member of ISO (something like "Deutsch Industrie Norm".) So overall, the American (linear) scale eventually dominated over the European (logarithmic) one, not the other way around.

Are you seriously nostalgic over a simple name change for the same standard?
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5484



WWW
« Reply #78 on: June 24, 2013, 04:28:44 PM »
ReplyReply

... So if no-one is actually claiming an advantage for the non-interchangeability of the RX-1's lens...

I am.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5120


« Reply #79 on: June 24, 2013, 05:52:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I am. [claiming an advantage for the non-interchangeability of the RX-1's lens.]
Great! Would you care to answer my questions in post #71 of this thread?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=79645.msg642301#msg642301
« Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 05:54:13 PM by BJL » Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad