Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the last two years

On 2013-05-13 22:54:50 -0700, RichA said:

No, not the Pentax K-01, but this Sony. The more I thought about it,
the more I realized the fixed lens was the silliest idea they could
have had and there was NO reason for it. There are no design
constraints with mirrorless, you can design lenses that almost touch
the sensor, if you need to. However, Sony blew it big time by being
the first out of the blocks with a FF mirrorless (Yes, I know Leica
has one, but they are MF lenses) and they made the monumentally crazy
decision to have a fixed lens. They could have creamed off lots of
(for a mirrorless FF) Nikon and Canon customers, even at $2800. Now,
they are stuck with another curiosity.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/son...ts/sony_dscrx1

OK! I'm not going to be buying one of those.
Now what?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2013-05-14 18:27:30 -0700, RichA said:

On May 14, 2:52*am, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-05-13 22:54:50 -0700, RichA said:

No, not the Pentax K-01, but this Sony. *The more I thought about it,
the more I realized the fixed lens was the silliest idea they could
have had and there was NO reason for it. *There are no design
constraints with mirrorless, you can design lenses that almost touch
the sensor, if you need to. *However, Sony blew it big time by being
the first out of the blocks with a FF mirrorless (Yes, I know Leica
has one, but they are MF lenses) and they made the monumentally crazy
decision to have a fixed lens. *They could have creamed off lots of
(for a mirrorless FF) Nikon and Canon customers, even at $2800. *Now,
they are stuck with another curiosity.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/son...ts/sony_dscrx1

OK! I'm not going to be buying one of those.
Now what?


If you are a died-in-the-wool DSLR'er, you wouldn't buy a mirrorless
except (perhaps) as a portable body. However, people who LIKE
mirrorless cameras won't buy it because of the fixed lens. At least
Canon's "M" which looks superficially similar can change lenses.

I come from a 35mm rangefinder/SLR school and for now I am content with
a DSLR. However, as much as I would like a Leica M of some sort, I
realistically can't afford the body, to provide it with the glass it
deserves. There have been several tempting offerings in recent years,
but nothing which gets me to take the bait just yet.

That Canon M is interesting. I see Amazon has it available with the
f/2.0 22mm for $499.
....but I do like to have a VF I can put my old eye-ball up to.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:48:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On May 14, 10:03*pm, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2013-05-14 18:27:30 -0700, RichA said:









On May 14, 2:52 am, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-05-13 22:54:50 -0700, RichA said:

No, not the Pentax K-01, but this Sony. The more I thought about it,
the more I realized the fixed lens was the silliest idea they could
have had and there was NO reason for it. There are no design
constraints with mirrorless, you can design lenses that almost touch
the sensor, if you need to. However, Sony blew it big time by being
the first out of the blocks with a FF mirrorless (Yes, I know Leica
has one, but they are MF lenses) and they made the monumentally crazy
decision to have a fixed lens. They could have creamed off lots of
(for a mirrorless FF) Nikon and Canon customers, even at $2800. Now,
they are stuck with another curiosity.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/son...ts/sony_dscrx1

OK! I'm not going to be buying one of those.
Now what?

If you are a died-in-the-wool DSLR'er, you wouldn't buy a mirrorless
except (perhaps) as a portable body. *However, people who LIKE
mirrorless cameras won't buy it because of the fixed lens. *At least
Canon's "M" which looks superficially similar can change lenses.

I come from a 35mm rangefinder/SLR school and for now I am content with
a DSLR. However, as much as I would like a Leica M of some sort, I
realistically can't afford the body, to provide it with the glass it
deserves. There have been several tempting offerings in recent years,
but nothing which gets me to take the bait just yet.

That Canon M is interesting. I see Amazon has it available with the
f/2.0 22mm for $499.
...but I do like to have a VF I can put my old eye-ball up to.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Whatever anyone says, an LCD in anything brighter than cloudy
conditions is just plain HORRIBLE to use. And since LCD's can't be
diopter corrected like EVF's and DSLR optical viewfinders, 50% of the
population have to wear glasses if they intend to do any manual
focusing.

And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass
view finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR
offer the same certainty.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 16 May 2013 21:08:33 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

On

Whatever anyone says, an LCD in anything brighter than cloudy conditions
is just plain HORRIBLE to use. And since LCD's can't be diopter
corrected like EVF's and DSLR optical viewfinders, 50% of the population
have to wear glasses if they intend to do any manual focusing.

And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass view
finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR offer the
same certainty.

I took the plunge about 2 months ago and bought An EOS 60d (my 350d is
rather old and the batteries are on the blink.

Because the 60d has interchangeable focusing screen I also invested in a
Katzeye rangefinder screen. Even at my age (80) it was easy to change and
went in centrally first time.

I have an old 500mm mirror lens and could even focus that using the main
body of the focusing screen.



--
Neil
Reverse ‘a’ and ‘r’
Remove ‘l’ to get address.

On 5/16/2013 5:08 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:48:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On May 14, 10:03 pm, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2013-05-14 18:27:30 -0700, RichA said:









On May 14, 2:52 am, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-05-13 22:54:50 -0700, RichA said:

No, not the Pentax K-01, but this Sony. The more I thought about it,
the more I realized the fixed lens was the silliest idea they could
have had and there was NO reason for it. There are no design
constraints with mirrorless, you can design lenses that almost touch
the sensor, if you need to. However, Sony blew it big time by being
the first out of the blocks with a FF mirrorless (Yes, I know Leica
has one, but they are MF lenses) and they made the monumentally crazy
decision to have a fixed lens. They could have creamed off lots of
(for a mirrorless FF) Nikon and Canon customers, even at $2800. Now,
they are stuck with another curiosity.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/son...ts/sony_dscrx1

OK! I'm not going to be buying one of those.
Now what?

If you are a died-in-the-wool DSLR'er, you wouldn't buy a mirrorless
except (perhaps) as a portable body. However, people who LIKE
mirrorless cameras won't buy it because of the fixed lens. At least
Canon's "M" which looks superficially similar can change lenses.

I come from a 35mm rangefinder/SLR school and for now I am content with
a DSLR. However, as much as I would like a Leica M of some sort, I
realistically can't afford the body, to provide it with the glass it
deserves. There have been several tempting offerings in recent years,
but nothing which gets me to take the bait just yet.

That Canon M is interesting. I see Amazon has it available with the
f/2.0 22mm for $499.
...but I do like to have a VF I can put my old eye-ball up to.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Whatever anyone says, an LCD in anything brighter than cloudy
conditions is just plain HORRIBLE to use. And since LCD's can't be
diopter corrected like EVF's and DSLR optical viewfinders, 50% of the
population have to wear glasses if they intend to do any manual
focusing.

And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass
view finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR
offer the same certainty.


I'm glad to see I am not alone in having difficulties with an LCD
display out of doors. Judging by the lack of optical viewfinders in less
expensive cameras, I thought I might be handicapped :-)

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass
view finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR
offer the same certainty.

oh yes they can, with focus confirmation, focus peaking or just zooming
into the image 100%, and at lower light levels too.

or let the camera do the focusing, which can do a better job and faster.

In article , Neil Ellwood
wrote:

I took the plunge about 2 months ago and bought An EOS 60d (my 350d is
rather old and the batteries are on the blink.

Because the 60d has interchangeable focusing screen I also invested in a
Katzeye rangefinder screen. Even at my age (80) it was easy to change and
went in centrally first time.

I have an old 500mm mirror lens and could even focus that using the main
body of the focusing screen.

why not use the camera's focus confirmation?

In article ,
RichA wrote:

Whatever anyone says, an LCD in anything brighter than cloudy
conditions is just plain HORRIBLE to use. And since LCD's can't be
diopter corrected like EVF's and DSLR optical viewfinders, 50% of the
population have to wear glasses if they intend to do any manual
focusing.

An LCD viewfinder, like the one that comes standard with the Olympus OM-D
and can be bought as an accessory for other Olympus u4/3 cameras, has an
eyecup you can mash against your face to solve this problem, just like a
DSLR. There is also has a little knurled wheel for diopter correction.
I'll conceed the manual focusing woes, but there are workarounds, such
as magnifying a portion of the image while focusing.

I wonder why, though, since the image is provided via wire rather than
optical path, they don't make the detatchable viewfinder a separate thing
like a jeweler's loupe so you don't need to mash the body of the camera
against your face.

--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."

On Thu, 16 May 2013 04:34:48 -0500, Neil Ellwood
wrote:

On Thu, 16 May 2013 21:08:33 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

On

Whatever anyone says, an LCD in anything brighter than cloudy conditions
is just plain HORRIBLE to use. And since LCD's can't be diopter
corrected like EVF's and DSLR optical viewfinders, 50% of the population
have to wear glasses if they intend to do any manual focusing.

And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass view
finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR offer the
same certainty.

I took the plunge about 2 months ago and bought An EOS 60d (my 350d is
rather old and the batteries are on the blink.

Because the 60d has interchangeable focusing screen I also invested in a
Katzeye rangefinder screen. Even at my age (80) it was easy to change and
went in centrally first time.

I regret not doing that when I bought a D300.

I have an old 500mm mirror lens and could even focus that using the main
body of the focusing screen.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:52:04 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Neil Ellwood
wrote:

I took the plunge about 2 months ago and bought An EOS 60d (my 350d is
rather old and the batteries are on the blink.

Because the 60d has interchangeable focusing screen I also invested in a
Katzeye rangefinder screen. Even at my age (80) it was easy to change and
went in centrally first time.

I have an old 500mm mirror lens and could even focus that using the main
body of the focusing screen.

why not use the camera's focus confirmation?

Don't trust it.

Don't know what it thinks it's confirming focus on.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens