millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Aren't some of the Leica branded VLux and Dlux Panasonic's in fact more expensive than the RX100 ?? I thought the Dlux5 was something like $800 even though its a LX5 with a red dot....
Should the RX100 really be considered in the p&s category even ? Does it have more in common with something like a Nikon System 1 camera or a Canon G1X ?
Out of curiosity, if you do shoot at 100mm quite often, why did you go with the RX100 given its range ends at 100mm and its also its slowest at that focal length.
Why not something like a m4/3 camera with a 45mm f1.8 or maybe the upcoming 35-100 f2.8 Panasonic zoom 
35mm equiv is my sweet spot really, so I like to sometimes have something a little wider or a little longer, 28-50mm would be perfect for me, and as such the RX100 works great for what I need
If you want to do a lot of portrait work though, seems like the RX100 is a poor choice on account of you've got no additional reach over your sweet spot, on top of its being rather slow.
As I said before, if someone wants a pocket sized wide to normal camera the RX100 is my hands down recommendation.
If however, they want a portrait camera, or a versatile zoom range, or a serious landscape camera, etc the RX100 is a pretty poor choice.
Get a NEX5n with a 50mm 1.8 OSS if you want AF or use any number of legacy lenses and you'll have great edge to edge sharpness, great DR, lower noise etc.
Same goes with m4/3 and a lens like the 45mm 1.8. It simply blows away the RX100 on the long end.
Wide end though, RX100 holds its own againt the likes of the 14mm f2.5 or any kit zoom etc.
Sounds like you just got the wrong camera for the type of stuff you wan to shoot and probably would be better off returning it rather than wasting a lot of time/money messing aroudn with trying to find a needle in the haystack copy.
Guess maybe a lot of people have fallen for a bit of the hype and created unrealistic expectations for a camera like the RX100
When people say its an amazing camera, thats only in the context of its size.
When people say it can replace their other camera such as a NEX or m4/3, its only in the context of using the kit zoom. Its NOT meaning it can match up with a EM-5 with a bunch of great primes that can cost more than the RX100 total.
End of the day, the RX100 basically serves the roll of a point and shoot. Its a bit better than most p&s on the market so far, but it still is what is it is
If, being a typical gear obsessed member of the alt forum and regularly spending thousands of dollars on high end glass, pixel peeping rendering styles etc who has never been happy with any p&s to date, then your still not going to be happy with the RX100.
Its no different than if you were shooting the likes of a Zeiss 35 Biogon M or a Leica 35 Lux and you went a picked up a VC35mm f2.5.
Sure the VC is nice and compact and handles great on a M camera, and sure it only cost about $300 bucks instead of $1000 or $4000, but it sure doesn't work as well.
Hopefully no one would expect a low end Voigtlander to either, just as no one should expect a fixed zoom compact styled camera to really match anything more than a kit zoom.
I just don't really understand some folks and what it takes to make them happy.
You've got what is essentially a dream compact and its still not good enough.
I guess until we get that 18-1000mm f1.8 compact that fits in your pocket but that has a Sony A900 sized OVF, and D4 auto focus and D3s high ISO performance with Leica build quality and a $299 price tag we are just always going to find something to complain about
Heck, even if we did get that camera I'm sure we'd find something about it that just doens't quite meet our needs lol
DavidWEGS wrote:
Ok, I hear you but…
#1. Its a defect in the lens, or lens design. A defect. Not simply a soft corner at the long end of the zoom, but a clear defect.
#2. Don't know about your uses, but you are only one in potentially millions of users. Given that, I DID buy it with the purpose of being able to use it at the 100mm setting. I do want it sharp there, or at the very least (considering its the most expensive P&S cam out there) uniformly softer at that end. That is reasonable, and here is why:
#3 Compared to what? The Panny LX5, and a multitude of other, much less costly P&S cameras. The lens of the RX, when set on the widest aperture, is showing a defect that other cameras don't have.
#4. The LX3, 5 and 7 have a Leica lens that is sharp corner to corner. So, I think it's reasonable to say that in a camera with less going on, and a considerably higher price tag, that has a CZ branded lens, its not only realistic, but necessary to maintain their credibility in this market segment.
I shoot it at around 35 - 50 most of the time, but have frequently found myself using it at portrait lengths of 80-100.
You may not mind, but I do....Show more →
|
