Re: Sony beats Nikon to FF mirrorless

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Me, Sep 12, 2012.

  1. Me

    Me Guest

    On 12/09/2012 6:20 p.m., Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <>, Rich says...
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-cybershot-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.
    Me, Sep 12, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Me <> writes:

    > On 12/09/2012 6:20 p.m., Alfred Molon wrote:
    >> In article <>, Rich says...
    >>> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-cybershot-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
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 13, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Me

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    In article <>,
    David Dyer-Bennet <> 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
    Paul Ciszek, Sep 13, 2012
    #3
  4. Me

    Bruce Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:

    >Me <> writes:
    >
    >> On 12/09/2012 6:20 p.m., Alfred Molon wrote:
    >>> In article <>, Rich says...
    >>>> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-cybershot-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).
    Bruce, Sep 13, 2012
    #4
  5. Me

    Me Guest

    On 14/09/2012 10:20 a.m., Bruce wrote:
    > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >
    >> Me <> writes:
    >>
    >>> On 12/09/2012 6:20 p.m., Alfred Molon wrote:
    >>>> In article <>, Rich says...
    >>>>> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-cybershot-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.
    Me, Sep 14, 2012
    #5
  6. Me

    RichA Guest

    On Sep 13, 9:39 pm, Me <> wrote:
    > On 14/09/2012 10:20 a.m., Bruce wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:

    >
    > >> Me <> writes:

    >
    > >>> On 12/09/2012 6:20 p.m., Alfred Molon wrote:
    > >>>> In article <>, Rich says...
    > >>>>>http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-cybershot-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.
    RichA, Sep 14, 2012
    #6
  7. (Paul Ciszek) writes:

    > In article <>,
    > David Dyer-Bennet <> 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
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 15, 2012
    #7
  8. Me <> 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
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 15, 2012
    #8
  9. Me <> wrote:
    > On 14/09/2012 10:20 a.m., Bruce wrote:
    >> David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Me <> writes:
    >>>
    >>>> On 12/09/2012 6:20 p.m., Alfred Molon wrote:
    >>>>> In article <>, Rich says...
    >>>>>> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-cybershot-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
    Chris Malcolm, Sep 15, 2012
    #9
  10. Me

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    Lumix 20mm f/1.7

    In article <>,
    David Dyer-Bennet <> 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/35853148@N05/7914457746/in/set-72157631369048820

    --
    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
    Paul Ciszek, Sep 17, 2012
    #10
  11. Re: Lumix 20mm f/1.7

    (Paul Ciszek) writes:

    > In article <>,
    > David Dyer-Bennet <> 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/35853148@N05/7914457746/in/set-72157631369048820


    I use an EPL-2 as my "little" camera, with the 14/2.5, 20/1.7, and
    45/1.8 as my primary lenses. I do think the 20/1.7 is a great lens
    (certainly *outstanding* price/performance!).

    People on the Internet can make a name for themselves by identifying
    some very rare, hard to produce weird outcome, and promoting it as a big
    deal. I certainly haven't had any kind of "banding" problem in low
    light (and I got the EPL-2 because my LX3 just wasn't good enough in low
    light).

    The EPL-2 is tolerably useful in low light, though far inferior to my
    Nikon D700. But then that's *still* after all these years in the top
    group of low-light performers, and cost close to an order of magnitude
    more. And is NOT small or light. I'm kind of eyeing the new model that
    probably has the same sensor as the OM-D, which I used one night (a
    friend has one) and thought was very good, but it's a bit big for what I
    use my M43 gear for (my carry-everyehwere camera, not what I take to
    planned photo shoots).
    --
    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
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 18, 2012
    #11
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. GTO
    Replies:
    86
    Views:
    1,475
    measekite
    Oct 3, 2005
  2. RichA

    Samyang 85mm f1.4 beats Nikon? (Resolution)

    RichA, Jun 20, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    4,270
    RichA
    Jun 21, 2010
  3. Rich

    Re: Nikon to go mirrorless

    Rich, Jul 19, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    268
    Bruce
    Jul 20, 2010
  4. Paul Ciszek

    Re: Sony beats Nikon to FF mirrorless

    Paul Ciszek, Sep 13, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    261
  5. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    Re: Sony beats Nikon to FF mirrorless

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 14, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    241
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Sep 14, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page