On 1/9/2014 8:31 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> Just rethinking this a little bit. Why not get the new Sony RX10
> "bridge camera"? 24-200mm equivalent F2.8.
>
> The sensor is just a hair smaller than the 4/3 sensor. ...
>
> Given the listed requirements, it's right near the top of my list.
All the specs are appealing for the purpose - except for the size and weight.
Almost 2# and a good sized chunk of camera.
Just to give an idea, E-M5, M.Z 9-18 and M.Z 14-150 weigh 860 g. together. The
RX10 weighs 813 g. So there's no real
weight saving vs. an ILC.
For a very small additional weight, FL coverage goes from 24-200 both wider and
longer, 18-300. Yup, the Sony lens is
faster.
Then again, as someone mentioned, European cities are wide angle territory for
most visitors (hence my addition of the
9-18.) If 100 mm eq. is long enough, E-M5, M.Z 9-18 and M.Z 12-50 weigh 791
g. together. Add the Panny 20/1.7 for speed in dark places, and the kit is
878 g.*
> That, and a Fujifilm X100 would be a great little kit.
The Sony is not a little kit, all by itself.
Huh? You just want someone else to buy another Fuji X, is that it? It's single
focal length is covered by the other
camera and only one stop faster. As mentioned above, including the 20/1.7 in a
µ4/3 kit gives two additional stops at
about the same focal length.
Two Posts John ;-) notes that the lens on the Sony is wonderful. Will that be
enough to offset the significantly larger
4/3 sensor?
Even if overall IQ on the smaller sensor with the Zeiss lens manages to be
better, the question in my mind would be
whether enough better than the quite good µ4/3 lenses to make a difference in
what will be mostly hurried shots of a
vacation?
There's another aspect to the fixed lens that matters to me, but not to
everyone. The Sony site says nothing at all
about magnification. Dpreview says 0.45x at the wide and and 0.38 at the tele
end. That is pretty impressive, if true,
although at 24 mm, there's little working distance.
My question is what that means. The M.Z 12-50 in 43 mm Macro mode manages a
true 0.36x, eq. to 0.72x on FF. The 60/2.8
is 1x = 2x, FF.
0.45x on a 1" sensor is eq. to 1.23x, FF Has Zeiss really managed such
spectacular macro performance on a fast, general
purpose zoom? Or are the numbers already adjusted to FF eq? Still not bad, but
likely to disappoint a Moose who chafes a
bit at the 12-50 Macro.
Decisions, Decisions Moose
* A note about specs. On the Panny site, the original 20/1.7 says 'about 100g'.
The 'II' model says 87 g. I have the
original, and it weighs, wait for it, 86.9 g, without caps. With caps, 116 g.
The lens hasn't changed, except for
cosmetics; it now comes in black or silver, before only in combo black and v.
dark gray. BUT, it's lighter!!!
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|