PKR
Veteran
The camera he's using in the Youtube video on the link, looks more like a Panasonic compact (don't know which model), than the Sony RX100 series. Not that it changes the essence of what's being discussed, of course...
Sometimes, I forget this forum is more about cameras than photography. My bad. And yes, I know the thread is about "Little Cameras".
" As far as the photos themselves, now I'm using a little Sony, an RX 100 II, which is a great camera, but earlier I used an iphone and a dslr, and there are even some film shots in there, too - whatever I was working with at the time. All the photos are downloaded to the phone through Dropbox, but the Sony I'm using now can connect directly, I'm told."
"whatever I was working with at the time."
http://time.com/3809031/lightbox-follow-friday-matt-black/
X
PKR
Veteran
In terms of print quality, it's somewhat better than film, in most instances. The biggest problem with APS-C, with the exception of Fuji, is the lack of quality prime lenses. Most of us don't want to pack a 1kg zoom lens around to get a quality 35mm equivalent in one of its FLs.
I used a Nikon 17-35 on FF for it's 35mm FL, until I just refused to pack that big lens with my stuff. The zoom culture needs to be broken. And, who needs AF with a real WA? At f8-11 most all is sharp with a FF 20mm or a 14mm on APS-C. I don't need the motor or the added weight.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
Not me.
I'm getting much better IQ from APS cameras than I ever got with 35mm film.
Seriously, I am getting very nice 20x30 prints from my 24MPx cameras; I never had such good big prints from film.
Recently did a straight up comparison of digital vs. film and it was no contest. This with my APS bodies (Nikon D7200 and Sony A6000, both 24MPx).
I can't substantiate it, but I think my D70 at 6MPx was about the equivalent of 35mm film.
CMur12
Veteran
This is an excellent point (and one I never thought of, as I have no cameras/lenses with auto-focus).
In the case of my 28mm WA lens on 35mm film SLRs, I set the focus with the DOF scale on the lens barrel. Auto-focus would just get in the way. A DOF scale on the lens barrel of a WA lens (as unlikely as we are to get it), with no AF, would suit me perfectly.
- Murray
tbhv55
Well-known
I didn't intend my post to be a distraction - I, too, would rather concentrate on the photography than on the equipment. It was simply that I watched the video and was struck by the fact that he was using a hot-shoe-mounted EVF attachment, so I thought that it must be a Panasonic compact. Subsequently, I remembered that the RX100 Mk2 had a hot-shoe, so it's probably that model.
Anyway, who cares?
Back to photography... 
Axel
singleshooter
Small ones are good ones.
Bigger ones may do it better...
But there is no rule saying bigger is better.
Bigger ones may do it better...
But there is no rule saying bigger is better.
robert blu
quiet photographer
Probably I didn't express myself well, english is not my native language!, sorry!
I wanted to say that in the film "era" many pro photographers used 35 mm film cameras for their works and the quality of APS-C is not inferior. As someone already said is even better therefore in my opinion there is no need for FullFrame if we consider image quality. Of course as once there was need for medium format or large format for some specific jobs in some cases full frame will be necessary.
For the jobs where 35mm was used today APS-C can be used.
My wife's (already old) Nikon D5100 still gives excellent results when used with the 35/1.8 lens. Unfortunately there are not many other primes from Nikon for APS-C cameras. As PKR says using FF lenses on haps-c camera is possible but not the best solution, size, weight, cost.
After almost 7 years with the Leica x1 and its 12 MP APS-C sensor I cannot say its image quality was bad. And the prints up to A3+ size were not worse than what I could get from the M7 !
robert
I wanted to say that in the film "era" many pro photographers used 35 mm film cameras for their works and the quality of APS-C is not inferior. As someone already said is even better therefore in my opinion there is no need for FullFrame if we consider image quality. Of course as once there was need for medium format or large format for some specific jobs in some cases full frame will be necessary.
For the jobs where 35mm was used today APS-C can be used.
My wife's (already old) Nikon D5100 still gives excellent results when used with the 35/1.8 lens. Unfortunately there are not many other primes from Nikon for APS-C cameras. As PKR says using FF lenses on haps-c camera is possible but not the best solution, size, weight, cost.
After almost 7 years with the Leica x1 and its 12 MP APS-C sensor I cannot say its image quality was bad. And the prints up to A3+ size were not worse than what I could get from the M7 !
robert
This thread has solidified my stance that I need a RX100 III for when I go to places that I have a greater chance of being robbed in. Thanks...
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
Fair point. The 35 f/1.8 for Nikon APS is excellent, but not many others.
On Sony APS, the 24mm and 55mm f/1.8 Zeiss lenses give me excellent primes in the focal lengths I use most (moderate wide and portrait). These two lenses are significant in my choice to use that system. (The 55 is a full frame lens, the whole package of A6000 plus the 55 is still compact enough for me.)
"I, too, would rather concentrate on the photography than on the equipment."
photography good / equipment bad
Film good / digital bad
Candid good / staged bad
Big good / small bad
Small good / big bad ... oops!
photography good / equipment bad
Film good / digital bad
Candid good / staged bad
Big good / small bad
Small good / big bad ... oops!
shawn
Veteran
This thread has solidified my stance that I need a RX100 III for when I go to places that I have a greater chance of being robbed in. Thanks...
Interesting little camera. Compared to your Fuji they are annoying to shoot with and the pop up EVF looks good on paper but is finicky to use in operation. Feels to flimsy to leave it extended all the time.
If you like 28mm FOV grab a used Coolpix A for cheap. Great little camera that is nicer to shoot with than the Sony and it has considerably better picture quality, it is right there with the 16mp Fuji's. In Raw, JPEGs aren't quite as good but the Coolpix A has the Nikon Picture Control system from their pro SLRs that let you add additional JPEG options including rolling your own.
Shawn
Axel
singleshooter
We can´t consider "image quality" because that is similar to "quality of life".
Ask ten people to get twelve answers...
Film times were easy. Good flexibility of equipment and moderate costs - 35mm.
Digital times have a wider spectrum of aspects. So I wouldn´t compare in this way at all. If we talk about resolution, a measurable unit, best 35mm film cams were on par with best fullframe / or average midsize sensors.
But that was and is not the fact that counts much in reality.
Another example from the lower end and suitable for this thread: in film times you could have an average resolution with smallest equipment in form of a fixed focal length Minox 35 and ISO 800. Today you get digital pocket cams in the same size with better resolution, 25-500mm lens, image stabilisation and ISO 3200.
Shawn, I've used this Sony, the Coolpix, the GR, the X70, etc. The reason I am going with the RX100 is because I can use it as 50mm. I hated the Coolpix A because it focuses slow. I've grown away from the 28mm FL, so the X70 will be sold (I have a 28mm for my other Fujis). I agree with you on its limitations, but it offers something to me that most other cameras of its size do not... an EVF, a MR setting to remember my 50mm FL, and fast AF. After using them all, it is the best compromise FOR ME.
willie_901
Veteran
Robert
The fact is low light performance is a depends on a combination sensor surface area and lens surface area.
For instance, no APS-C camera can outperform an M10 with a wide-open Noctilux-M 50mm f/0.95. Both the sensor and lens surface areas are high.
However, an M10 with a 50mm f/2.8 ELMAR-M will not outperform an APS-C sensor with an f 1.4 23 mm lens when both lenses are wide open. The smaller APS-C sensor area is offset by the difference in lens surface areas.
So, if the APS-C camera can use an M-mount adapter, using a Noctilux-M 50mm f/0.95 will outperform an M10 using a Leica 75mm F/2 Summicron-M.
To be clear, I assumed:
- the APS-C and M10 sensor technologies have similar S/N
- The lens T factors are similar
- The terms maximum aperture is and maximum lens surface area can be used interchangeably.
- Narrow DOF is not a limitation
A 24 x 36 mm sensor with an f 1.4 lens offers a significant practical advantage because very few native lenses with wider apertures exist for APS-C cameras (an exception is the Fujinon 56/1.2).
Finally, I am only addressing S/N and maximum analog dynamic range when the shutter is open.
robert blu
quiet photographer
PKR
Veteran
Willie's mini treatises are always accurate and succinctly written. Thanks for taking the time Willie.
pkr
willie_901
Veteran
From 2008 through 2012 I purchased a D200, D300 and then two D700 bodies and lots of lenses.
I agree with your comments. I have to assume Nikon and Canon were afraid of cannibalizing their DSLR lines. I suggest they also assumed anyone who bought an APS-C sensor camera would prefer zoom lenses.
I imagine FUJIFILM's success was a shock to Nikon and Canon. Nikon and Canon literally gave that market share away. Ironically, their penchant (assumed of course) to protect 24 X 36 mm DSLR market share had the opposite effect.
Hindsight is 20/20. However, suppose resources Nikon devoted to the V1/J1 line (released in 2011) were spent on a high-end mirrorless APS-C product line. I'm not sure FUJIFILM would be in the market.
A decade ago I decided to ignore Canon. So, I have no idea about their strategy.
Dogman
Veteran
As someone who has used Canon for almost 20 years, I believe Willie's observation is correct. Canon's strategy seems to me to have been the same as Nikon's--APS-C was a treated as a stepping stone to full frame. They assumed everyone wanted and would eventually buy into the full frame models. Early on APS-C was treated as an unloved stepchild as far as lenses were concerned. The picture's not much better today. But both Canon and Nikon continue to sell a bunch of cameras.
I really should sell off my remaining Canon cameras and lenses. I haven't used them in almost two years, since buying my first Fujis.
I really should sell off my remaining Canon cameras and lenses. I haven't used them in almost two years, since buying my first Fujis.
Well, after using the RX100 IV for a few weeks, I would have to say that my cut-off point is APSC. Under the right circumstances, the RX100 works ok. However, my Fuji APSC camera work well under MOST circumstances. Oh well...
PKR
Veteran
That's too bad John. Hope you can recover the funds spent. APS-C is my choice as well. In reading about Matt Black, the primary use of the x100, in his case, was his instagram log and the mass of readers attracted to and following his work. I think he wanted a big audience and, got one.
I hope you find a friendly camera for your purpose. And, thanks for the heads-up.
pkr