aad
Not so new now.
What I don't get-or don't want to get- is the projected price of $1000 for the X100 vs say, $600 for a NEX-3 or NX100. Same sensor size, compact, the cheaper cameras give a choice in lens-is a built-in viewfinder really a $400 item?
I hate to think it's just because it looks cool.
I hate to think it's just because it looks cool.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I would take tried and true, comfortable and familiar gear for such a trip. My choice: one or two Leica IIIc with 2 or 3 very small CV lenses, for black & white. One or two pocket size P&S digitals for color. I can carry all that in a small vest--not really even a photo vest. I would leave the exploration of new and unproven cameras for a less important trip.
Spyro
Well-known
OT: How loud is the K5 shutter/mirror slap compared to the 5D?
Yes they are a bit average. I have a high contrast screen and a magnifier on mine and still the OM1 sh!ts allover it. Ι dont think any autofocus SLR can ever have a viewfinder that is as good as a manual focus SLR's. The AF sensor is under the mirror and it needs light to operate, therefore the main mirror can only be partially silvered to allow some light underneath it, thus only sending part of the light that comes through the lens up to the VF, hence darker VF. And no manufacturer will ever make a dedicated manual focus DSLR because it would be bad for lens sales, let alone that 90% of users want AF. Catch 22. And compared to an RF of course you have additional limitations, the lens limiting the coverage of the VF, the max aperture limiting the amount of light coming through etc. I know where you're coming from. If you want a really good VF you need to go MF film, or DRF, or hopefully X100.
Yes they are a bit average. I have a high contrast screen and a magnifier on mine and still the OM1 sh!ts allover it. Ι dont think any autofocus SLR can ever have a viewfinder that is as good as a manual focus SLR's. The AF sensor is under the mirror and it needs light to operate, therefore the main mirror can only be partially silvered to allow some light underneath it, thus only sending part of the light that comes through the lens up to the VF, hence darker VF. And no manufacturer will ever make a dedicated manual focus DSLR because it would be bad for lens sales, let alone that 90% of users want AF. Catch 22. And compared to an RF of course you have additional limitations, the lens limiting the coverage of the VF, the max aperture limiting the amount of light coming through etc. I know where you're coming from. If you want a really good VF you need to go MF film, or DRF, or hopefully X100.
Revolucion Artistico
Established
You have to figure what JUST the additional cost of the material is for the body and lens on the X100, let alone the extra labor involved in working with said materials. I do a lot of construction and remodeling of homes and people always ask "well what will X and Y cost to replace" and considering you can buy a $22 dollar or a $1200 dollar kitchen sink faucet alone it is a ridiculous question without more information on what your after. I think it is a little different with your observation but not all that different.
kuzano
Veteran
aad
Not so new now.
For either to appeal I would have to be so drunk the difference would be moot.
Pablito
coco frío
But skill is what produces return customers.
Revolucion Artistico
Established
Haha, analogies can get inappropriate sooo quickly sometimes
Last edited:
How about a better quality lens (ther sony's suck!)? And yes, the viewfinder (especially fuji's innovative one) probably does cost a lot ot implement.
Like I said before, you either get it or you don't. If you see no difference between an eye level VF and composing through an LCD, you'll never get it.
I think the Fuji is cheap for what you get... but then again, I get it.
Last edited:
viggi
Established
Few things I'm taking from this... don't overthink, use what you have and take photographs (it's a mantra that bears repeating); but make sure you know your cameras, because when you've committed to a trip, you need them to work; and the sturdy, affordable digital workhorse doesn't exist. I will always take a digital with me (at least you know right away you got some shots in the bag with digital), but it's going to be a hobbyist or enthusiast camera. Frankly, 4/3rds are starting to look good - never took to the image quality but they'll get the job done, and you can use a variety of lenses. Even if the camera bites the dust, you can re-use your lenses with another body. Once you set out to take photographs, the requirements for the tool become clearer. Use what ya brung and make sure it works, and don't let it brake the bank.
Are we talking about a vacation or covering a war in a desert environment? I would imagine that many working photojournalists would argue that there are affordable digital workhorses out there... because they use them daily.
Jeez, it is crazy how many people on this site make like a digital camera breaks the second you take it out of the box. :bang:
tokek
Member
.......the only reason why I haven't busted a X1 is because it is mine. .......... all my cameras look crap in a day or so
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, but I believe you use all of your stuff in a professional manner... not just for family and vacation pics right?
tokek
Member
careless may be more appropriate