Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the lasttwo years

Reply
Thread Tools

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

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2013
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/son...ts/sony_dscrx1

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Nick Fotis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2013
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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
philo 
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2013
On 05/14/2013 12:54 AM, RichA wrote:
> 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/son...ts/sony_dscrx1
>





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".



 
Reply With Quote
 
Nick Fotis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2013
On 14/05/2013 15:38, philo wrote:
>
> 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.


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.

> 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.


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).

> Possibly a good camera for those with money to burn...one of the
> reviewers mentioned that he used the camera to take "snapshots".


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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
philo 
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2013
On 05/14/2013 08:12 AM, Nick Fotis wrote:

<snipped for brevity>


>
> The 28-105 lens is adequate (not great),


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
> 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).
>
>> Possibly a good camera for those with money to burn...one of the
>> reviewers mentioned that he used the camera to take "snapshots".

>
> 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.
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2013
On May 14, 2:52*am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-13 22:54:50 -0700, RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
> > 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/son...ts/sony_dscrx1

>
> OK! I'm not going to be buying one of those.
> Now what?
>


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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2013
On May 14, 10:03*pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
wrote:
> On 2013-05-14 18:27:30 -0700, RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 14, 2:52 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >> On 2013-05-13 22:54:50 -0700, RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

>
> >>> 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/son...ts/sony_dscrx1

>
> >> OK! I'm not going to be buying one of those.
> >> Now what?

>
> > 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.

>
> 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.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck


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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
James Silverton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2013
On 5/16/2013 5:08 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:48:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> On May 14, 10:03 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 2013-05-14 18:27:30 -0700, RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On May 14, 2:52 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2013-05-13 22:54:50 -0700, RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>
>>>>>> 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/son...ts/sony_dscrx1
>>>
>>>>> OK! I'm not going to be buying one of those.
>>>>> Now what?
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Savageduck

>>
>> 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.

>
> 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.
>


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

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Stevens
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> 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.


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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Neil Ellwood
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I took the plunge about 2 months ago and bought An EOS 60d (my 350d is
> rather old and the batteries are on the blink.
>
> Because the 60d has interchangeable focusing screen I also invested in a
> Katzeye rangefinder screen. Even at my age (80) it was easy to change and
> went in centrally first time.
>
> I have an old 500mm mirror lens and could even focus that using the main
> body of the focusing screen.


why not use the camera's focus confirmation?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Is there any way to get the raw image data from a Nikon Coolpix S8200 P&S camera? Tony Cooper Digital Photography 16 04-17-2013 07:49 PM
Windows 8 - so bad it's hastening the death of the PC? ~misfit~ NZ Computing 18 04-15-2013 04:15 AM
Re: Is there any way to get the raw image data from a Nikon Coolpix S8200 P&S camera? nospam Digital Photography 0 04-09-2013 07:42 PM
Re: Can anyone please help me in resolving the error => Peter Otten Python 0 04-09-2013 07:57 AM
Re: Can anyone please help me in resolving the error => Steven D'Aprano Python 0 04-09-2013 05:14 AM



Advertisments