Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the lasttwo years

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by RichA, May 14, 2013.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    No, not the Pentax K-01, but this Sony. The more I thought about it,
    the more I realized the fixed lens was the silliest idea they could
    have had and there was NO reason for it. There are no design
    constraints with mirrorless, you can design lenses that almost touch
    the sensor, if you need to. However, Sony blew it big time by being
    the first out of the blocks with a FF mirrorless (Yes, I know Leica
    has one, but they are MF lenses) and they made the monumentally crazy
    decision to have a fixed lens. They could have creamed off lots of
    (for a mirrorless FF) Nikon and Canon customers, even at $2800. Now,
    they are stuck with another curiosity.

    http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/compacts/sony_dscrx1
     
    RichA, May 14, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Savageduck Guest

    OK! I'm not going to be buying one of those.
    Now what?
     
    Savageduck, May 14, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Nick Fotis Guest

    Personally, I am fascinated by this camera.

    It could be called the direct descendant of the medium format Fuji GW690
    which I own.

    And that Zeiss lens nearly touches the sensor, as far as I know.

    N.F.
     
    Nick Fotis, May 14, 2013
    #3
  4. RichA

    philo  Guest




    The camera got very good reviews but I cannot believe the camera is
    really worth that kind of money. Having Carl Zeiss on the lens may
    justify it for some...but not me.


    With my Canon 50D and a "modest" 28-105mm lens I can get a 24" x 36"
    (approx) print so razor sharp that it beat my medium format camera which
    I then retired for good.


    Possibly a good camera for those with money to burn...one of the
    reviewers mentioned that he used the camera to take "snapshots".
     
    philo , May 14, 2013
    #4
  5. RichA

    Nick Fotis Guest

    The only troublesome part I could identify from the reviews is the slow
    AF, and the difficulty of focusing in low light. Maybe the small battery
    is a limit.
    The 28-105 lens is adequate (not great), usually I prefer using the
    24-70/2.8L on my 5D, despite the weight (having this lens hanging on my
    neckstrap together with a 5D-class body, can be very tiring).
    I admit this is a specialized camera, for people wanting image quality
    at a very compact size.
    If I was to buy a fixed-lens compact camera, I think I would go for the
    Fuji X100S instead, or the Olympus OM-D if I wanted interchangeable lenses.

    The truth is, I am 'married' to Canon due to the relatively large
    investment in lenses accumulated over 15+ years.

    N.F.
     
    Nick Fotis, May 14, 2013
    #5
  6. RichA

    philo  Guest

    On 05/14/2013 08:12 AM, Nick Fotis wrote:

    Correct...it's a good lens but not top-of-the line by any means.
    I bought it with my 35mm Rebel and have kept it all along.
    It's now on it's 3rd camera.

    Some day I hope to buy a top-line lens for the camera...but the shots I
    get with this lens are so good, I am in no rush to get another lens.


    usually I prefer using the
     
    philo , May 14, 2013
    #6
  7. RichA

    RichA Guest

    If you are a died-in-the-wool DSLR'er, you wouldn't buy a mirrorless
    except (perhaps) as a portable body. However, people who LIKE
    mirrorless cameras won't buy it because of the fixed lens. At least
    Canon's "M" which looks superficially similar can change lenses.
     
    RichA, May 15, 2013
    #7
  8. RichA

    Savageduck Guest

    I come from a 35mm rangefinder/SLR school and for now I am content with
    a DSLR. However, as much as I would like a Leica M of some sort, I
    realistically can't afford the body, to provide it with the glass it
    deserves. There have been several tempting offerings in recent years,
    but nothing which gets me to take the bait just yet.

    That Canon M is interesting. I see Amazon has it available with the
    f/2.0 22mm for $499.
    ....but I do like to have a VF I can put my old eye-ball up to.
     
    Savageduck, May 15, 2013
    #8
  9. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Whatever anyone says, an LCD in anything brighter than cloudy
    conditions is just plain HORRIBLE to use. And since LCD's can't be
    diopter corrected like EVF's and DSLR optical viewfinders, 50% of the
    population have to wear glasses if they intend to do any manual
    focusing.
     
    RichA, May 16, 2013
    #9
  10. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass
    view finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR
    offer the same certainty.
     
    Eric Stevens, May 16, 2013
    #10
  11. I'm glad to see I am not alone in having difficulties with an LCD
    display out of doors. Judging by the lack of optical viewfinders in less
    expensive cameras, I thought I might be handicapped :)
     
    James Silverton, May 16, 2013
    #11
  12. RichA

    Guest Guest

    oh yes they can, with focus confirmation, focus peaking or just zooming
    into the image 100%, and at lower light levels too.

    or let the camera do the focusing, which can do a better job and faster.
     
    Guest, May 16, 2013
    #12
  13. RichA

    Guest Guest

    why not use the camera's focus confirmation?
     
    Guest, May 16, 2013
    #13
  14. RichA

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    An LCD viewfinder, like the one that comes standard with the Olympus OM-D
    and can be bought as an accessory for other Olympus u4/3 cameras, has an
    eyecup you can mash against your face to solve this problem, just like a
    DSLR. There is also has a little knurled wheel for diopter correction.
    I'll conceed the manual focusing woes, but there are workarounds, such
    as magnifying a portion of the image while focusing.

    I wonder why, though, since the image is provided via wire rather than
    optical path, they don't make the detatchable viewfinder a separate thing
    like a jeweler's loupe so you don't need to mash the body of the camera
    against your face.
     
    Paul Ciszek, May 16, 2013
    #14
  15. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    I regret not doing that when I bought a D300.
     
    Eric Stevens, May 17, 2013
    #15
  16. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Don't trust it.

    Don't know what it thinks it's confirming focus on.
     
    Eric Stevens, May 17, 2013
    #16
  17. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    .... confirming focus on what?
    ... that might be useful but I have no experience of it.
    ... while all the time you are trying to frame the image as well as
    focus.
    ... then you are relying on the camera's opinion of what needs to be
    in focus.

    My D300 has the ability to play all kinds of tricks with focus and
    focus points but these all take time.
     
    Eric Stevens, May 17, 2013
    #17
  18. RichA

    Guest Guest

    whatever you want.
    it's very useful.
    it's hard to focus if you keep moving the camera around, and in some
    cases, it will change the focus.
    only if you don't know what you're doing.
    depends what tricks you want it to do.

    pick one focus point, put it on your subject and focus until you get
    confirmation. some cameras even beep.

    it's no different than putting the split-image or microprism part of a
    focusing screen on your target and focusing, except for being less
    accurate than had you used focus confirmation.
     
    Guest, May 17, 2013
    #18
  19. RichA

    Guest Guest

    it's more accurate than you are, and in much lower light too.
    whatever is under the selected focus point.
     
    Guest, May 17, 2013
    #19
  20. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    I thought it was what the camera was currently aimed at.


    Which is a pain if your subject actually moves quickely.

    Must be why they invented autofocus because peole donl;t know what they want in focus.

    I'd just want it to focus on what I wanted in focus.

    By the time that happens the shot over.
    When I did that the lens remained at the same focus until I changed it, it didn't vary depending on what the camera was pointing at.

    I used to use my eye for focus confirmation, those were the days :)
     
    Whisky-dave, May 17, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.