millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.5 #17 · Sony A77 & A65 & Nex-7 Announcements Today | |
FlyPenFly wrote:
Couldn't you say the asme thing about a GH-2 or GF-3 and a 100-300 Panasonic lens?
Not really, because the 100-300 is a bit unique for a couple of reasons. Mainly while its "bigger" for a m4/3 lens, its still only about 1lb and about 6" and more so, its 600mm equiv which is pretty unique, and its just $500 which is a reasonable price for what it is.
Now it is big enough as to where its probably not something you'd take with you daily, but if your someone who enjoys shooting birds, zoo's etc, its gives some rather unique ability. I think something like the 40-150 which is half the size makes more sense for the average person as 300mm equiv is usually plenty, unless you specifically want a long lens.
You can carry it in a jacket pocket while out hiking for example. Just no way to really get that 600mm equiv with a larger sensor unless your getting into lens that are 2-3 times the size/weight and that typically cost 2-3 times as much.
It just gives options to the overall system is what it does really. You can build up your core system around something like a 9-18, 20mm f1.7 and say a 45mm f1.8. Good all around 3 lens combo thats going to give a great variety of images from a trip, or even casual outing around town.
But lets say you do plan to hit up the zoo or something while on your trip, well you've got the option to toss the 100-300 in the bag and you've got a long telephoto basis covered then.
Obviously if I really wanted to shoot 600mm I'd prefer my Nikon 400 or 200-400 w/ TC and DSLR, but if I'm on vacation with the family in San Diego and we just happen to hit up the zoo there would I really want to ship a case with $12,000 of gear for that ? Would I really want to haul that around while viewing the zoo with the kids ?
No, its rather overkill, in terms of size/weight, expense etc.
Would I want to get a $1800 80-400 type zoom for an APS-C camera ? No again, because thats still a lens thats 3-4lbs and its $1800 and it would have no real use for me to spend that type of money otherwise because a slow zoom doesn't fit into my paid work.
Theres where something like the 100-300 fits into the goldilocks zone for me. Small enough to take with if I think I'll need it, cheap enough I can buy it without feeling I need to justify it, and with a good quality, reach, and OS system to allow some pretty good shots still.
As I said before, its all relative for everyone, and just for me, if a system either ends up being too close in size to what I've got with my DSLR's, or costing thousands of dollars, it just doesn't make sense.
If someone wants to build a system around a NEX or whatever, then thats a bit different, if its their only camera. I'm a sports photographer mainly, I need long fast glass, and a high end DSLR to earn a living.
X100, NEX, m4/3 etc all are just alternatives for when I don't want to fell like I'm working lugging the heayv gear around.
iPhone usually is plenty good for day to day for me, but for vacations etc, I want more than an iPhone.
compacts aren't bad, nice size, low price, but the photographer in me wants a little more control, ability to shoot higher iso, more DOF control etc.
Thats where I've always found stuff like x100, m4/3, NEX to fit.
Near DSLR quality and near compact sizes.
I guess a lot of people want to view NEX etc as a DSLR replacment. I look at it the other way, as a compact replacement.
In that mindset, $1000 lenses, bulky zooms etc doesn't really fit the bill for me because its too much like a scaled down DSLR kit, rather than a scaled up compact, which is how I'm finding m4/3 and its tiny little lenses weighting several ounces like the 14mm f2.5, 20mm f1.7 etc.
|
buhu!