Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?  (Read 12850 times)
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6042


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #80 on: June 24, 2013, 09:08:58 PM »
ReplyReply

... 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.

The advantage of limited choice (including none) are one of those things in life that some intuitively grasp, while others remain eternally perplexed as to why. One of those things that you either "see the light" or you do not. Explaining it to someone who does not get it is rather futile, hence my reluctance to enter the fray earlier. And I do not mean it in a disrespectful way.

However, it has been a subject of numerous serious research papers, books, PhD dissertations, etc, in the fields of economics, psychology, philosophy, behavioral economics, including works (in part) of some Nobel Prize winners for economics (Kahneman). For instance, these books:

The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less

Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness (by two professors from my Alma Mater)

Some excerpts from The Paradox reviews (emphasis mine):

Quote
We normally assume in America that more options ... will make us happier, but Schwartz shows the opposite is true, arguing that having all these choices actually goes so far as to erode our psychological well-being.

Quote
We are, the author suggests, overwhelmed by choice, and that's not such a good thing. Schwartz tells us that constantly being asked to make choices, even about the simplest things, forces us to "invest time, energy, and no small amount of self-doubt, and dread." There comes a point, he contends, at which choice becomes debilitating rather than liberating. Did I make the right choice? Can I ever make the right choice?

Similar thing happened with the introduction of Leica Monochrom. Hordes of Internet know-it-alls ridiculed the concept with the simple "Ha! With my camera, I can always convert back to b&w in post and so much better" line of reasoning.

But forget psychology and economics for a moment. Let's go back to photography. Mike Johnston, over at The Online Photographer, argued "since forever" for a monochrome sensor, even before Leica came up with one. Basically arguing that the very absence of choice is a good thing, and yes, superior to conversion in post.  His eloquent reasoning can be found here:

Why Would a Digital Camera Have a B&W-Only Sensor?

Well worth a read, but here is one excerpt that seems pertinent to this discussion, given the aggressiveness with which the opposing views are met (emphasis mine):

Quote
Not everybody needs such a thing for their work. Only a small minority of people do. A small minority of those people are artists whose work might enrich the world. (And please, do me a favor here—if you're not amongst that small minority, have the flexibility of mind to acknowledge that that small minority exists, which is to say that other people might actually want choices you don't happen to want. I've acknowledged you; it's not too much to ask you to acknowledge me.)

Mike has also addressed a frequent argument mentioned here (emphasis mine):

Quote
Working with a camera that can convert color to B&W is not the same as working with a camera that cannot record color. The latter affects the way you see things when you're out photographing. When you know that B&W is all the camera will do, then you start to ignore colors and see luminances, tonal relationships, surface, and structure. It's a different way of seeing.

Now, let's address directly the line of reasoning that it "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."

The question, in case it is a system with interchangeable lenses, immediately becomes a plethora of choices. Ok, which single prime lens? 28, 35, 50? Let's say you firmly know that it should be 35mm. But which 35? In case of Canon, shall that be 35/2 or 35/1.4?? Or perhaps 35mm with IS? How about Mark II version of the same lens? How about versions from third parties: Sigma, Zeiss, etc. And if Zeiss with C/Y mount, which adapter works best with my camera?

But lets say we've overcome all those hurdles and settled on one lens and we happily go around for years or months snapping with it. How could this be worse than just non-interchangable system. Here is why: the very possibility that you can change that lens will slowly eat you from within. Say you acquired Canon 35/2... but then Canon comes with its IS version, which, at the same time, has oh, so much better MTF reading than your lens. Or the new Sigma 35/1.4 which has oh, so cool bokeh. Choices, choices... and temptations.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Joe S
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #81 on: June 24, 2013, 09:58:55 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.


I sure agree.   I'm glad to have a point and shoot size camera that I actually make prints from.   Plus it's just a really likeable camera.  The only thing wrong with it is that it's "yesterday's news" and the attention span of the forums have moved on.
Logged
K.C.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 653


« Reply #82 on: June 24, 2013, 11:02:46 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?

When I bought a Hassy SWC in the late '80s I used nothing else for personal work for a year. The same has been true for the last year with the DP2M.
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1161


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #83 on: June 25, 2013, 01:46:26 AM »
ReplyReply

The Sony, for me and my work would need some kind of viewfinder, interchangeable lenses or one amazing zoom to be workable.

I like a 35mm lens view point world, but not always and well, it's not just the cost, it's the usability.

I like smaller cameras, with the 4/3's system have grown to like them a lot.  

Even in professional production with two trucks of equipment, they offer some advantages.

Today was the first time I've used the 4/3's system in heavy production and learned a lot about electronic evfs, and smaller cameras.

I like em, they do some really great things, but I still went to larger formats for for their benefits, though picking up a Canon 1dx after shooting with an Olympus OMD and a Pana Gh3, the 1dx seemed bloody huge and almost too big.  Going to the RED's was like using a truck with a lens on the front.

The thing about evf's they're very good now, but quirky.  I shot a billion set ups today, with motion and stills and can't say I really have the hang of it yet.

Of course I'm using the smaller cameras mostly for their video aspect and the stills are just a big bonus, but also because when everything goes well, they're very quick to shoot, offer a different look and are highly manageable.

I find Sony just a strange company.   They obviously make Rolex quality cameras, but always seem to have a what if, stuck somewhere in their systems.  The FS100 video  I have could be great if the sensor or processing was better, (though the gh3 just roasts it),  the A99 I find very, very good, but not very, very great and the RX1 with changeable lenses, in body is, sound in and out, autofocusing of the GH3 quality would really get my attention.

But Sony always seems to play to the beat of their own drum.

For some that's great.

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: June 25, 2013, 02:10:30 AM by bcooter » Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #84 on: June 25, 2013, 02:36:39 AM »
ReplyReply

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?


Nostalgia is my middle name.

;-)

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #85 on: June 25, 2013, 02:43:43 AM »
ReplyReply

The advantage of limited choice (including none) are one of those things in life that some intuitively grasp, while others remain eternally perplexed as to why. One of those things that you either "see the light" or you do not. Explaining it to someone who does not get it is rather futile, hence my reluctance to enter the fray earlier. And I do not mean it in a disrespectful way.

However, it has been a subject of numerous serious research papers, books, PhD dissertations, etc, in the fields of economics, psychology, philosophy, behavioral economics, including works (in part) of some Nobel Prize winners for economics (Kahneman). For instance, these books:

The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less

Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness (by two professors from my Alma Mater)

Some excerpts from The Paradox reviews (emphasis mine):

Similar thing happened with the introduction of Leica Monochrom. Hordes of Internet know-it-alls ridiculed the concept with the simple "Ha! With my camera, I can always convert back to b&w in post and so much better" line of reasoning.

But forget psychology and economics for a moment. Let's go back to photography. Mike Johnston, over at The Online Photographer, argued "since forever" for a monochrome sensor, even before Leica came up with one. Basically arguing that the very absence of choice is a good thing, and yes, superior to conversion in post.  His eloquent reasoning can be found here:

Why Would a Digital Camera Have a B&W-Only Sensor?

Well worth a read, but here is one excerpt that seems pertinent to this discussion, given the aggressiveness with which the opposing views are met (emphasis mine):
 
Mike has also addressed a frequent argument mentioned here (emphasis mine):

Now, let's address directly the line of reasoning that it "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."

The question, in case it is a system with interchangeable lenses, immediately becomes a plethora of choices. Ok, which single prime lens? 28, 35, 50? Let's say you firmly know that it should be 35mm. But which 35? In case of Canon, shall that be 35/2 or 35/1.4?? Or perhaps 35mm with IS? How about Mark II version of the same lens? How about versions from third parties: Sigma, Zeiss, etc. And if Zeiss with C/Y mount, which adapter works best with my camera?

But lets say we've overcome all those hurdles and settled on one lens and we happily go around for years or months snapping with it. How could this be worse than just non-interchangable system. Here is why: the very possibility that you can change that lens will slowly eat you from within. Say you acquired Canon 35/2... but then Canon comes with its IS version, which, at the same time, has oh, so much better MTF reading than your lens. Or the new Sigma 35/1.4 which has oh, so cool bokeh. Choices, choices... and temptations.



Slobodan, a change of diet might help you!

;-)

Rob C
Logged

kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4056



« Reply #86 on: June 25, 2013, 03:30:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Slobodan, a change of diet might help you!

Not if someone gives him a menu, though.

Jeremy
Logged
Paulo Bizarro
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1634


WWW
« Reply #87 on: June 25, 2013, 03:51:31 AM »
ReplyReply

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?

Well, the OP was challenging Sony for the high price of the RX1. I just pointed out that for someone who is looking into large sensor compact cameras that have an equivalent 35mm f/2 lens, the EOS M provides that option. And at the current discount price, it is a great value. The camera operates smoothly in Av mode, and the 22mm lens is very good. And if you are keen on shoe mount VF, you can always mount an optical one with a 35mm angle of view. Sure it is not full frame sensor, but the quality of the files is very good.

I could also ask you why would someone looking for a RX1 would buy a NEX? For its impressive selection of lenses? Someone looking into a RX1 couldn´t care less for this, since it would be someone that really likes the 35mm focal length. I do like 35mm focal length, and do like the RX1, but unfortunately can not afford it. So I just shared that for people like me, there are other cheaper options, that actually have very high quality.

And I am speaking from experience, since I have two of these little EOS M.
Logged

RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #88 on: June 25, 2013, 06:01:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Slobodan, what Johnston says about seeing in black and white when shooting monochrome also applies when shooting colour and I'd suggest that if people went out with a colour camera and the intent to convert to colour from the outset, thereby forcing themselves to think in shades of grey that their b&w conversions would improve immensely.

I too am an advocate of monochrome sensors and would love to see some affordable options.  Not going to happen though.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6042


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #89 on: June 25, 2013, 07:39:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Slobodan, a change of diet might help you!

How so?

I mean, I should surely take seriously any advice from someone who's been keeping us abreast with his own trials and tribulations with dietary choices and indigestion Wink
« Last Edit: June 25, 2013, 11:27:21 AM by Slobodan Blagojevic » Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #90 on: June 25, 2013, 11:47:05 AM »
ReplyReply

How so?

I mean, I should surely take seriously any advice from someone who's been keeping us abreast with his own trials and tribulations with dietary choices and indigestion Wink


You've answered your own question very well indeed. Trust me: relax, step aside gracefully and let endless arguments (they are not debates) carry on until they bore themselves to death. Not a soul wants to listen, be converted or admit to being wrong about anything. It could be the season, disappointment with the summer so far, who knows the reasons, but it's noticeable that more and more ill-natured exchanges are taking place here these weeks.

;-(

Rob C
Logged

Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 866



« Reply #91 on: June 25, 2013, 03:45:05 PM »
ReplyReply

IMO Slobodan's long post above is dead-on-the-mark. At least as regards the more distractable amongst us (such as myself).   Wink

This thread got going a bit wrong-footed but seems to have righted itself now.

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

Posts: 8906


« Reply #92 on: June 25, 2013, 10:20:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Slobodan certainly makes a strong point that the limiting of choice may have a beneficial effect on the  creation of certain photographic images. I can well appreciate that in certain circumstances carrying only one camera with a fixed lens, when out shooting, might result in certain images having an appealing perspective as a result of the photographer having to change his position and distance to the subject in an attempt to fill the frame.

Using a zoom instead of one's feet will inevitably result in a different perspective. (I take it we all know by now that changing position changes perspective.  Wink )

There may also be other advantages in respect of higher resolution resulting from that lack of choice. For example, if one is unable to step back far enough to fit the composition into the frame, then instead of taking a single shot, which one might have taken using the wide-end of a zoom if one had the choice, one might be forced to take a number of shots for stitching purposes, resulting not only in a higher resolution image but possibly an even wider composition with more potential for creative cropping during post processing.

However, there are also disadvantages in having a fixed lens. By the time one has farted around trying to fit the composition into the frame, the interesting moment may have passed. Stitching images to create a wider composition my not be practicable if the subject is moving, and shots that require a significantly longer focal length may be missed entirely.

The advantages of the fixed lens have to be offset against the disadvantages. It's a personal choice.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6042


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #93 on: June 25, 2013, 10:44:06 PM »
ReplyReply

... The advantages of the fixed lens have to be offset against the disadvantages. It's a personal choice.

Indeed personal, Ray.

The trouble with this debate is that people insist on absolutes: either, or and... for everyone. I was just pleading for understanding that some people can find it advantageous, without necessarily shoving it down the throats for everyone else that it must be advantageous for them too (or vice versa).

My position can be summarized like this: if you think that a fixed lens is advantageous, you are right... if you think it is disadvantageous, you are right just as well Wink
Logged

Slobodan

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

Posts: 5163


« Reply #94 on: June 26, 2013, 09:45:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Slobodan,

    Thank you for at last trying to answering the questions that I actually posed. Let me repeat that I am solely interested in the specific comparisons of permanently attached lens vs interchangeable lens, and have no dispute with the more general idea that _sometimes_, less choice is an advantage. In particular, I agree that when in the field with a camera, some people, some times have perfectly good reasons for preferring to have only a single lens of a single focal length with them.

So the only part of your response that relates to my questions is the last part:
Now, let's address directly the line of reasoning that it "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."

The question, in case it is a system with interchangeable lenses, immediately becomes a plethora of choices. Ok, which single prime lens? 28, 35, 50? Let's say you firmly know that it should be 35mm. But which 35? In case of Canon, shall that be 35/2 or 35/1.4?? Or perhaps 35mm with IS? How about Mark II version of the same lens? How about versions from third parties: Sigma, Zeiss, etc. And if Zeiss with C/Y mount, which adapter works best with my camera?

But lets say we've overcome all those hurdles and settled on one lens and we happily go around for years or months snapping with it. How could this be worse than just non-interchangable system. Here is why: the very possibility that you can change that lens will slowly eat you from within. Say you acquired Canon 35/2... but then Canon comes with its IS version, which, at the same time, has oh, so much better MTF reading than your lens. Or the new Sigma 35/1.4 which has oh, so cool bokeh. Choices, choices... and temptations.

You are now (correctly) moving the issue  away from what happens when you are out in the field with a camera, to arguing that there is an advantage to:

1) avoiding decisions about which lens to buy, or

2) avoiding decisions about which of the lenses that you own to take on a given outing.


Firstly, I suspect that you are by now arguing for the sake of arguing; I doubt that you really suffer such severe decidophobia as first discussed by the philosopher Walter Kauffmann in the book Without Guilt and Justice (see, I can cite academic sources too!)

But if you are serious, I have some bad news for you:

1) Decisions about which single focal length lens to buy still exist when the lens comes with a camera attached: Sony RX1, Leica X2, Sigma DP1, DP2, DP3 ... ? The addition of further lens purchasing options, in the form of lenses with cameras attached, does not simplify the purchasing choices; it just adds to the options that must be considered. All those upgrade temptations are still there too: have the original Sigma DP1 or DP2, get tempted by the new Merrill versions ...

2) If you succumb to the temptation of owning several lenses (each with body attached) for different outings, like two of those Sigmas for different FOV, then you have to choose which to take with you. In fact, I am sure that you do indeed already own multiple lenses, so that you already have to decide which lens or lenses to take with you on a given outing. Adding yet another lens, albeit it one with a camera permanently attached to it, will not save you from dealing with your decidophobia. The worst case scenario is that out of indecision, you pack two cameras, and then ....


Maybe you should consider instead putting the price of an RX1 into Energy Psychology therapy!. But probably these forums provide an adequate support group for all of us with quirky equipment preferences.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2013, 12:35:45 PM by BJL » Logged
adrian tyler
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 48


WWW
« Reply #95 on: June 26, 2013, 09:53:25 AM »
ReplyReply

IMO Slobodan's long post above is dead-on-the-mark. At least as regards the more distractable amongst us (such as myself).   Wink

+1
Logged
Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 866



« Reply #96 on: June 26, 2013, 01:59:45 PM »
ReplyReply


The advantages of the fixed lens have to be offset against the disadvantages. It's a personal choice.

Absolutely. There are no absolutes.   Grin

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

Posts: 5163


« Reply #97 on: June 26, 2013, 02:11:09 PM »
ReplyReply

I can well appreciate that in certain circumstances carrying only one camera with a fixed lens, when out shooting, might result in certain images having an appealing perspective as a result of the photographer having to change his position and distance to the subject in an attempt to fill the frame.
...
However, there are also disadvantages in having a fixed lens. By the time one has farted around trying to fit the composition into the frame ...
I have no disagreeement with anything you say Ray, and AFAIK, nor does anyone in this discussion.

But I hope you realize that my questions are specifically and exclusively about the claimed virtues of having a lens that is permanently fixed to the camera body, not about carrying only a single lens of a single fixed focal length. So do you have any comment on that issue?
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6042


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #98 on: June 26, 2013, 02:20:37 PM »
ReplyReply

BJL, it is not about eliminating all the choices in the world, it is about reducing them and reducing temptation. In the example of Sigma DPx, it is not really a temptation. You are either a single focal-lenght man or you are not. If you are, and you chose, say, 50mm then 75 mm or 28mm are not temptations. The fact that there are many people owning all three of them simply means they are not single focal-lenght people.

It is also not about me. I currently own (and had over the years) more lenses and cameras that I care to remember. I am certainly not a a single focal-lenght man. But I accept and respect that there are such creatures.

As for advantages of fixed lenses, apart from psychological, there is a least one technical: it allows a different lens or sensor design, the one that works extremely well in just that combination. Examples: Hasselblad SWC, Sony RX1, Sigma DP2M.
Logged

Slobodan

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

Posts: 5163


« Reply #99 on: June 26, 2013, 02:44:02 PM »
ReplyReply

As for advantages of fixed lenses, apart from psychological, there is a least one technical: it allows a different lens or sensor design, the one that works extremely well in just that combination. Examples: Hasselblad SWC, Sony RX1, Sigma DP2M.
Agreed on the possible technical advantages, though in all your examples, the advantage is compared to SLR alternatives, with their disadvantage of having a mirror box that interferes with optimal wide-angle lens design. Bring on the mirror-free 36x24mm systems with well-implemented live view!


(But I still think that if anyone truly suffers from having to choose which prime lens to buy, or which to carry, some therapy might help more than spending $2,800 on a 35mm f/2 lens with integral "choice prevention device".)
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad