Re: Sony beats Nikon to FF mirrorless
 

On 12/09/2012 6:20 p.m., Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <c-OdnfTwPdqgvs3NnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Rich says...
>> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/son...shot-dsc-rx1/2
>
> Impressive, but fixed lens and no zoom. I wonder when they will launch a
> model with a zoom or with interchangeable lenses.
>
It's very exciting - not.
Another example of how Sony should stick to what they can do well, and
forget about trying to be what they're not.
Yep - the lens and sensor image quality will be superb.
Too narrow FOV for landscape, too wide for portrait. So what's the
point? I predict there will be a lot of (tame) cat photos on DPreview's
forums. Oh - and "street photography". I can hardly wait.

Re: Sony beats Nikon to FF mirrorless
 

Me <user@example.net> writes:

> On 12/09/2012 6:20 p.m., Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <c-OdnfTwPdqgvs3NnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Rich says...
>>> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/son...shot-dsc-rx1/2
>>
>> Impressive, but fixed lens and no zoom. I wonder when they will launch a
>> model with a zoom or with interchangeable lenses.
>>
> It's very exciting - not.
> Another example of how Sony should stick to what they can do well, and
> forget about trying to be what they're not.
> Yep - the lens and sensor image quality will be superb.
> Too narrow FOV for landscape, too wide for portrait. So what's the
> point? I predict there will be a lot of (tame) cat photos on
> DPreview's forums. Oh - and "street photography". I can hardly wait.

It's probably the most popular single field of view across all
photographers and cameras. It's certainly the one that most of the film
P&S had.

Not good at all for cat photos, by the way, at least in my experience.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Re: Sony beats Nikon to FF mirrorless
 

In article <ylfkd31qh2zc.fsf@dd-b.net>,
David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>It's probably the most popular single field of view across all
>photographers and cameras. It's certainly the one that most of the film
>P&S had.
>
>Not good at all for cat photos, by the way, at least in my experience.

Is the Lumix "pancake" lens that is so popular for micro-four-thirds
supposed to be the equivalent? I remember there being some talk of
its focal length being equal to the diagonal size of the sensor (it's
actually about 11% shorter than that), but a 35mm fl lens on a full
frame would be significantly shorter than that.

--
Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
| remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984

Re: Sony beats Nikon to FF mirrorless
 

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:

>Me <user@example.net> writes:
>
>> On 12/09/2012 6:20 p.m., Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> In article <c-OdnfTwPdqgvs3NnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Rich says...
>>>> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/son...shot-dsc-rx1/2
>>>
>>> Impressive, but fixed lens and no zoom. I wonder when they will launch a
>>> model with a zoom or with interchangeable lenses.
>>>
>> It's very exciting - not.
>> Another example of how Sony should stick to what they can do well, and
>> forget about trying to be what they're not.
>> Yep - the lens and sensor image quality will be superb.
>> Too narrow FOV for landscape, too wide for portrait. So what's the
>> point? I predict there will be a lot of (tame) cat photos on
>> DPreview's forums. Oh - and "street photography". I can hardly wait.
>
>It's probably the most popular single field of view across all
>photographers and cameras.


The consensus view is that 50mm is the most popular and 35mm comes
second, but some way behind.


>It's certainly the one that most of the film P&S had.


That's true. For film P&S, the manufacturers provided a wider field
of view than that from a 50mm so that tourists could get more into
their vacation shots. In mass market film P&S, fixed focal lengths
varied from 28mm (rare) thru 35mm, 38mm and 40mm (all very common)
ending up with 42mm and 45mm (rare).

Re: Sony beats Nikon to FF mirrorless
 

On 14/09/2012 10:20 a.m., Bruce wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> Me <user@example.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 12/09/2012 6:20 p.m., Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>> In article <c-OdnfTwPdqgvs3NnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Rich says...
>>>>> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/son...shot-dsc-rx1/2
>>>>
>>>> Impressive, but fixed lens and no zoom. I wonder when they will launch a
>>>> model with a zoom or with interchangeable lenses.
>>>>
>>> It's very exciting - not.
>>> Another example of how Sony should stick to what they can do well, and
>>> forget about trying to be what they're not.
>>> Yep - the lens and sensor image quality will be superb.
>>> Too narrow FOV for landscape, too wide for portrait. So what's the
>>> point? I predict there will be a lot of (tame) cat photos on
>>> DPreview's forums. Oh - and "street photography". I can hardly wait.
>>
>> It's probably the most popular single field of view across all
>> photographers and cameras.
>
>
> The consensus view is that 50mm is the most popular and 35mm comes
> second, but some way behind.
>
>
>> It's certainly the one that most of the film P&S had.
>
>
> That's true. For film P&S, the manufacturers provided a wider field
> of view than that from a 50mm so that tourists could get more into
> their vacation shots. In mass market film P&S, fixed focal lengths
> varied from 28mm (rare) thru 35mm, 38mm and 40mm (all very common)
> ending up with 42mm and 45mm (rare).
>
It would be interesting to see prices from back in the late 70s or early
80s when I first bought a 28mm lens (F2.8 AI Nikkor). I recall that it
was expensive (it wasn't very good either - I lucked out and should have
waited for the AI-s version).
Were there any good but affordable slr lenses, wider than 35mm back
then? My recollection of the time was that 24mm was out of my price
range, and 18mm was unreachable and exotic - I don't recall knowing
anybody who owned such a thing.

Re: Sony beats Nikon to FF mirrorless
 

On Sep 13, 9:39*pm, Me <u...@example.net> wrote:
> On 14/09/2012 10:20 a.m., Bruce wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
> >> Me <u...@example.net> writes:
>
> >>> On 12/09/2012 6:20 p.m., Alfred Molon wrote:
> >>>> In article <c-OdnfTwPdqgvs3NnZ2dnUVZ_q6dn...@giganews.com>, Rich says...
> >>>>>http://www.dpreview.com/previews/son...shot-dsc-rx1/2
>
> >>>> Impressive, but fixed lens and no zoom. I wonder when they will launch a
> >>>> model with a zoom or with interchangeable lenses.
>
> >>> It's very exciting - not.
> >>> Another example of how Sony should stick to what they can do well, and
> >>> forget about trying to be what they're not.
> >>> Yep - the lens and sensor image quality will be superb.
> >>> Too narrow FOV for landscape, too wide for portrait. *So what's the
> >>> point? *I predict there will be a lot of (tame) cat photos on
> >>> DPreview's forums. *Oh - and "street photography". *I can hardly wait.
>
> >> It's probably the most popular single field of view across all
> >> photographers and cameras.
>
> > The consensus view is that 50mm is the most popular and 35mm comes
> > second, but some way behind.
>
> >> It's certainly the one that most of the film P&S had.
>
> > That's true. *For film P&S, the manufacturers provided a wider field
> > of view than that from a 50mm so that tourists could get more into
> > their vacation shots. *In mass market film P&S, fixed focal lengths
> > varied from 28mm (rare) thru 35mm, 38mm and 40mm (all very common)
> > ending up with 42mm and 45mm (rare).
>
> It would be interesting to see prices from back in the late 70s or early
> 80s when I first bought a 28mm lens (F2.8 AI Nikkor). *I recall that it
> was expensive (it wasn't very good either - I lucked out and should have
> waited for the AI-s version).
> Were there any good but affordable slr lenses, wider than 35mm back
> then? *My recollection of the time was that 24mm was out of my price
> range, and 18mm was unreachable and exotic - I don't recall knowing
> anybody who owned such a thing.

Anything from Olympus.

Re: Sony beats Nikon to FF mirrorless
 

nospam@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) writes:

> In article <ylfkd31qh2zc.fsf@dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>
>>It's probably the most popular single field of view across all
>>photographers and cameras. It's certainly the one that most of the film
>>P&S had.
>>
>>Not good at all for cat photos, by the way, at least in my experience.
>
> Is the Lumix "pancake" lens that is so popular for micro-four-thirds
> supposed to be the equivalent? I remember there being some talk of
> its focal length being equal to the diagonal size of the sensor (it's
> actually about 11% shorter than that), but a 35mm fl lens on a full
> frame would be significantly shorter than that.

The Lumix 20mm f/1.7? I think of M43 as 2x, so that's 40mm-e by that
standard. Haven't actually calculated diagonals. Or the 17mm? The
20mm is the famous one, though; that and the Olympus 45/1.8 seem to be
the really famous ones (with smaller followings for others including the
Olympus 12mm f/2)

--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Re: Sony beats Nikon to FF mirrorless
 

Me <user@example.net> writes:

> It would be interesting to see prices from back in the late 70s or
> early 80s when I first bought a 28mm lens (F2.8 AI Nikkor). I recall
> that it was expensive (it wasn't very good either - I lucked out and
> should have waited for the AI-s version).
> Were there any good but affordable slr lenses, wider than 35mm back
> then? My recollection of the time was that 24mm was out of my price
> range, and 18mm was unreachable and exotic - I don't recall knowing
> anybody who owned such a thing.

I've got some pages of photo ads out of the magazines on my site,
covering some of that period.

<http://dd-b.net/photography/PriceHistory/>

Don't have the 28/2.8 in the 1973 ad, though (and it's all used prices,
Olden was like that; bit of a scam really). I should go back and get
more ads (after building the frame to get squarer pictures).
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Re: Sony beats Nikon to FF mirrorless
 

Me <user@example.net> wrote:
> On 14/09/2012 10:20 a.m., Bruce wrote:
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Me <user@example.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 12/09/2012 6:20 p.m., Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>>> In article <c-OdnfTwPdqgvs3NnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Rich says...
>>>>>> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/son...shot-dsc-rx1/2
>>>>>
>>>>> Impressive, but fixed lens and no zoom. I wonder when they will launch a
>>>>> model with a zoom or with interchangeable lenses.
>>>>>
>>>> It's very exciting - not.
>>>> Another example of how Sony should stick to what they can do well, and
>>>> forget about trying to be what they're not.
>>>> Yep - the lens and sensor image quality will be superb.
>>>> Too narrow FOV for landscape, too wide for portrait. So what's the
>>>> point? I predict there will be a lot of (tame) cat photos on
>>>> DPreview's forums. Oh - and "street photography". I can hardly wait.
>>>
>>> It's probably the most popular single field of view across all
>>> photographers and cameras.
>>
>>
>> The consensus view is that 50mm is the most popular and 35mm comes
>> second, but some way behind.
>>
>>> It's certainly the one that most of the film P&S had.
>>
>> That's true. For film P&S, the manufacturers provided a wider field
>> of view than that from a 50mm so that tourists could get more into
>> their vacation shots. In mass market film P&S, fixed focal lengths
>> varied from 28mm (rare) thru 35mm, 38mm and 40mm (all very common)
>> ending up with 42mm and 45mm (rare).
>>
> It would be interesting to see prices from back in the late 70s or early
> 80s when I first bought a 28mm lens (F2.8 AI Nikkor). I recall that it
> was expensive (it wasn't very good either - I lucked out and should have
> waited for the AI-s version).
> Were there any good but affordable slr lenses, wider than 35mm back
> then? My recollection of the time was that 24mm was out of my price
> range, and 18mm was unreachable and exotic - I don't recall knowing
> anybody who owned such a thing.

It was probably 1983 when I got fed up with my 24mm widest angle prime
on my SLR often not being wide enough and went for a Vivitar 19mm
f3.8. Good optical value at the time, but I soon found that I'd like
to go even wider. But it wasn't possible to go wider without spending
far more money and my photography hobby budget was seriously limited
by having acquired a mortgage and a child. So 19mm ended up as being
the widest I ever went with SLR lenses.

My wanting to go wider was clearly not a passing fancy. My APS-C
crop-sensor DSLR now has 8mm as its widest linear focal length. That's
able to photograph all four walls of a room while standing in a corner
of the room. Plus I have a fisheye for wider shots, which I sometimes
computationally defish in order to get a nearly linear perspective
projection which is wider than my 8mm gives.

--
Chris Malcolm

Lumix 20mm f/1.7
 

In article <ylfkhar0dn9q.fsf@dd-b.net>,
David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>
>> Is the Lumix "pancake" lens that is so popular for micro-four-thirds
>> supposed to be the equivalent? I remember there being some talk of
>> its focal length being equal to the diagonal size of the sensor (it's
>> actually about 11% shorter than that), but a 35mm fl lens on a full
>> frame would be significantly shorter than that.
>
>The Lumix 20mm f/1.7? I think of M43 as 2x, so that's 40mm-e by that

That's the one. On the one hand, I read people raving about it, for
the Olympus OM-D as well as the Lumix m4/3 cameras. On the other hand,
I read about the "banding issue", which some people say happens at all
ISO's, not just the higher values. I bought one so I could do some
existing light photography, and I don't think I see any artifacts so
far. This photo is a crop taken out of a landscape mode candid "action"
shot:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/3585314...57631369048820

--
Please reply to: | "If more of us valued food and cheer and song
pciszek at panix dot com | above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world."
Autoreply is disabled | --Thorin Oakenshield