Your Camera Equipment

af confirm is a nice feature. I also have af chip version for my camera and have 28mm f2.8 super-takumar (great lens for the money), 50mm f1.7 auto-chinon (qualitywise competes with canon 50mm f1.8) and 135mm f2.8 auto-beroflex (a bit poorer performer).
 
Thinking of buying a camera! For the 2nd time in my life.

Want something small, but that could do everything! Looking towards those pocketable point & shoots like Canon S120, Panasonic LX7 and those Sonys RX100ds.

Really considering the Olympus XZ-2 It does almost everything, and the price now is very good. But it is a bit old maybe? 12mp is enough these days? Sony has 20pm on all three generations of their RX100ds. But their price is double too.

I could save a bit more, till November, because I think Olympus might launch XZ-3 by then and it should very good.

Should I wait, should buy the XZ-2 now for half a price of a todays generation camera.

Thanks
 
The RX100 is fantastic, especially Mk II and up what with their hotshoes and tiltable screens. Well worth the money. Larger sensor than all bar one pocket-sized camera (made by Canon and even more expensive), at 1" (tube diameter), excellent steady shot and focus peaking, not to mention they have full manual controls even for video.
 
The RX100 is fantastic, especially Mk II and up what with their hotshoes and tiltable screens. Well worth the money. Larger sensor than all bar one pocket-sized camera (made by Canon and even more expensive), at 1" (tube diameter), excellent steady shot and focus peaking, not to mention they have full manual controls even for video.

agree, I have the RX100 II, couldn't be happier with it.
 
Let's just say my 12 MP DSLR from 2007 takes better images than my 20 MP RX100 from 2012. It's all down to the optics. They're VERY good on the RX100 for the format and the f/1.8 lens at fully wide, combined with the steady shot makes it very usable in low light, but I'd say 20 is too much, really. You don't gain any advantage.
 
Thanks guys. What about the pixel count? Is it very important these days? Or should I pay attention to other parameters concerning the image quality?
MP count matters in a few ways, some where a higher count can benefit images and some ways where is negatively impacts images.

But ultimately unless you do commercial photography where you take photos meant to be blown up to incredibly large sizes like billboard or building sized prints. High MP counts do not really benefit most photography that you would do.

You should pay attention to all OTHER parameters first. MP count is advertised as a marketing tool to appeal to customers who don't understand much about photography and need a single number to wrap their heads around
 
Thanks guys. What about the pixel count? Is it very important these days? Or should I pay attention to other parameters concerning the image quality?
Just to give you an idea, even today, Canon and Nikon's flagships, 1DX and D4S, is over $6,400 (US) and they only range from 16 to 18 MP. And, lately, Sony A7s is only around 12 MP. Bottom line, don't get caught in the MPM (mega pixel marketing....just made that up...I think :D)
 
The D4 and D4S have only 16MP as their main application requires speed, which they delivers at 11 fps, but go one tier down, where the studio queens reside (where image quality is more important than speed) and you'll get 36MP. Then again, the optics paired with those cameras are light years ahead of what you get with these pocket cameras.

I still stand by my previous post. Anything above 12MP at this level is more of a hinderence than anything else (on several levels, which I can go into if you'd like).
 
More MP can be a good thing, it's gives you the opportunity to crop without loss of details.

It's also a bad thing because it usually means worse ISO performance. However, the 1" sensor in the Sony manages to both have high MP count and still maintain pretty good ISO performance (I believe it's usable up to ISO 3200).


While the Olympus is a nice camera, I'd definitely go for one of the Sony.
 
Checked some reviews for the Sony RX100 Mk3. And I want it! But it will cost a million and we dont even have it here! I think I'll wait till November, see what Olympus will do with the XZ-3 (if there ever will be such a model), and maybe the RX100 Mk3 will be a bit cheaper, because it does everything and it is small + the viewfinder! Exactly what I need.

And I dont thing that the missing hot-shoe is a big issue, what do You think? It does performe good in high ISO.

Checked the prices, here in Lithuania the RX100 Mk2 costs $800 and we dont have the Mk3 yet anywhere. In US at Sony.com the Mk3 costs $800 :D
 
Last edited:
The main goal of the hot shoe for most people on the Mk II was to fit a viewfinder, since they fixed that on the Mk III by actually having an integrated viewfinder, there's no need for a hot shoe unless you want to attach a big speedlite.
 
Or operate it via remote.

And the cropping argument was one thing I was going to mention too. It's nice to have, so you don't have to worry about perfect composition (which is indeed nigh on impossible without an optical viewfinder), but it only amplifies optical issues, which are quite apparent on the Sony at f/1.8 (at least to me), especially the chromatic and spherical aberration. Some might say it wouldn't matter, since most photos won't be used at 100%, but then again, why need the original 20MP in the first place, then?
 
Got some old shit . . .


by Boobo_oobo, on Flickr


by Boobo_oobo, on Flickr


by Boobo_oobo, on Flickr

From what I google'd its made by Lomo, model Smena 8 (Russian: ?????) and its the 3rd version (has the lomo logotype). Its functional, shutter works good, timer, no broken pieces or anything. Will buy a roll of film soon and test it out.
 
Just got my new Zeiss 135mm f1.8. Can't wait to shoot this sucker this weekend.

I was going to get the 85 f1.4 (Sigma). But, since I already have the 50 1.4 (Minolta), decided to skip it altogether and go straight to the 135.



- - - Updated - - -

Got some old shit . . .

From what I google'd its made by Lomo, model Smena 8 (Russian: ?????) and its the 3rd version (has the lomo logotype). Its functional, shutter works good, timer, no broken pieces or anything. Will buy a roll of film soon and test it out.

Did you get a chance to try this out?
 
6D or 5Dii to replace my 7D? 5Diii way out of budget...

Really want to upgrade to a full frame...
 
6D or 5Dii to replace my 7D? 5Diii way out of budget...

Really want to upgrade to a full frame...
Go 6D as its a better sensor than 5D mk II and neither have great AF systems so neither are ideal for action photography like the mk III is
 
Did you get a chance to try this out?

Oh sorry, didn't see the post till now :/

I've bought some film, but didn't have any time to play with it. Plan on doing it this week, if everything goes as planned (which i bet it wont :D)
 
Got the Sony A6000 a couple of weeks ago just so I have something small and light for close quarter shooting. Used it with an old Sony 50 1.8 E-Mount over the weekend...and, damn, the AF on this camera is freakin' accurate. It's so on-point.

For the longest time, I've had low-confidence with my A77 to where I would Focus Magnify and manually adjust if necessary, which is about 50/50. Yes, I've done the AF Micro Adjust. In contrast, I have high-confidence with the little A6000. Lock on the eye, and bam, I've never had such a high-rate of sharp eyes.
 
Got the Sony A6000 a couple of weeks ago just so I have something small and light for close quarter shooting. Used it with an old Sony 50 1.8 E-Mount over the weekend...and, damn, the AF on this camera is freakin' accurate. It's so on-point.

For the longest time, I've had low-confidence with my A77 to where I would Focus Magnify and manually adjust if necessary, which is about 50/50. Yes, I've done the AF Micro Adjust. In contrast, I have high-confidence with the little A6000. Lock on the eye, and bam, I've never had such a high-rate of sharp eyes.

I have been looking for lenses for my nex5t's. Right now I just have the standard 16-50s and an A mount SAL55200 that I need to get the real sony laea4 for but my budget prohibits that for now.

Sean
 
Top