« Scut Work (The Beat Goes On) | Main | Feedback »

Friday, 26 July 2019

Comments

So, what magazines? I pored endlessly over Road & Track, Sports Cars Illustrated, and Hot Rod.

[Mostly Road & Track and Car & Driver, which were competitors back then. (Now they have the same ownership.) I eventually got to meet David E. Davis, the legendary editor of Car & Driver. I actually visited him at his home in Ann Arbor to see an old Mexican view camera he had! --Mike]

According to Wikipedia, Lincoln went up to VIII.

This camera was at it's best with the 24-70 (Eq.) f/1.8-2.8
And I think the sensor is the same.

Well there’s this
https://camerapedia.fandom.com/wiki/Flexaret_VII
This camera looks pretty great for shooting videos of bands playing in clubs a specialized niche for sure but I can’t think what else I would use it for.
It seems more targeted at video. Otherwise birds maybe?
On the other hand I just bought a Sony 7ii for over $300 less a few weeks ago.

The cartoon was probably Stan Mott.

I bought my wife an RX100 Mk 1 last year, new, when she admired my little Canon S95 that I use all the time and said she wanted one. I think the RX100 series is sort of the successor to the old Canon S series. My S95 is still pretty darned good despite its age. It didn't make sense to me to spend a grand on the latest iteration of the RX100 when the Mk 1 is still a hell of a camera for a lot, lot, lot less.

One extension- fine, anymore... embarrassing.

I have a Sony RX100 Mark I. I bought it used for $300 from B&H a couple of years back (and through your site, I might add) but I thought it was time to upgrade. All the versions are still available on Amazon. So I started reading reviews and tried to figure out what the differences were. After much research, I realized that in terms of image quality, there really isn't much difference between the Mark I and the Mark VI except a lot of features that weren't important to me. The camera is very convenient in its carrying case, takes wonderful, sharp pictures with its little Zeiss zoom. I have full-frame cameras, but I am always pleased with the results I get from the little Sony.

I've tried, several times, to like the 1 inch sensor cameras (both Panasonic and Sony), but they just fall down in dark conditions still. So I'm sticking to my succession of Nikon A, X70, and whatever comes after that for a pocketable 'good' complement to my phone.

I am still using the original RX100, and only recently has it started to develop glitches. I agree that shorter and faster is better on these small cameras, though on bigger stuff I spend a lot of time beyond 100mm-e.

Don't feel old, Mike. Sony years are like dog years.

I bought a Sony RX100 M2 after reading Michael Reichmann's review of the first iteration of that camera. It was the perfect complement to my 5DIII, (my iPhone 4 was not up to the task).

Unfortunately, I left the Sony outside in a Cat 1 hurricane for 3 days and, while it still works, it requires special knowledge to turn it on and off. So, if I had the dosh (Australian for moolah) I would happily upgrade to the RX100 M7. In fact, my dream, dosh-no-object combination would be the RX100 M7 and a Fujifilm GFX100 with a wide zoom. (Yes, I prefer the zooms to the primes and digital to film - maybe it's a southern hemisphere thing. I'll just get back to enjoying my midwinter weekend.)

Not that many people who use Roman Numerals in their daily life. The next iPhone is being refereed to as iPhone 11, not iPhone XI. Sounds like smart marketing to me.

I have been an enthusiastic owner of a Sony RX100 since its first version and have had the "RX100 VI" for a year or more. Honestly, I might never have made perhaps 20%-25% of my favorite images over the past seven or so years if not for having an RX100 at the ready. Those who dis it are, frankly, foolish. It is one camera worth getting to know and taking along, even if you also have a more olde-timey camera with you. You say you're old, arthritic and can't carry your enormous Nikon or Canon rigs any more? You say you can't focus your 50 year-old Leica M with failing vision? Get over it and get an RX100 and just start making great memorable images again, man!

That said, I don't feel any need to update to the new "VII" which matches the VI almost feature-for-feature. (I don't make home movies or vlog so I don't care about any of the video features, nor the higher burst frame rate.) But this should depress the prices on existing new VI stocks for anyone waiting to jump in!

'But we have to admit that this new Sony will pretty much do it all, for any sane definition of "all." '

Popular definitions of sanity are vastly over-rated.

This camera doesn't even come close to my personal definition of "all", a definition grounded in my photographic practice.

Leaving aside any factors from difference in sensor size, and based on focal length alone, a quick check shows that less than 60% of the photos in my galleries over the last year from Bhutan, So. Utah and Ireland could have been made with this camera.

Circumstances vary, of course. In the countryside outside of Duvall, WA, 26%; in Dublin, 90%. Although I'd have missed a handful of shots I like, I could have done Dublin with the RX100 VII with only moderate frustration. (But why?)

I prefer the cigarette-pack sized Ricoh GR III to this, but am a fan of the Sony RX10 IV superzoom. The RX10 is more robust in build (environmentally sealed), easier to handle than its diminutive sibling, almost duplicates the RX100 at the wide-angle zoom range, and is only slightly more expensive.

The GR III-RX10 IV combo meets my favorite photography interests, landscape and birding. And will easily fit inside my favorite Brady camera bag. After a 2-year break (from shooting) and 5 years since my last camera buy (a GXR second body), I'm in a GAS mood.

For my other interests (portrait and macro), I can still use my aging Ricoh GXR using native and adapted lenses. Will have to sell some of my L/M lenses though to raise money to buy the GR III. As for the RX10, will need to talk to Honey. :-)

I bought the wonderful Panasonic TX1 (ZS100, TZ100 outside Japan) in January in Hiroshima for $419. It has a great 1" Sony 20mp BSI sensor, Leica 25-250mm f2.8-5.9 lens, EVF, is fast to turn on, fast AF, doesn't have an EVF hump, has a built-in flash, and is very satisfying to use. The TX1 is actually a bit lighter and the size is very similar to the Canon G16. The TX1 has lots of configuration choices which I like. Overall I am very pleased with it. I have the rear dial set to do exposure compensation and the front dial around the lens sets the aperture when using A mode and does program shift when using P mode. When I shoot jpegs I set noise reduction to the minimum -5. This has become my current carry-everywhere camera.

I have the TX1 and it is otherwise just about perfect travel camera, except the lens is slow at anything but it's shortest focal length. At 50mm equivalent it is already f/4 and it goes quickly to 5.6 from there. But it happens to use the same battery as some GF models and I have couple of GF3's lying around. So I have some spare batteries and a charger that works with the TX1 battery (TX1 doesn't come with charger, you are supposed to charge in camera from USB, which is handy to have) and I can put a 1.7/20 (or 25 or 45) on the GF3 and get a very small two camera outfit using same battery and charger and covering 25-250 in a zoom and a fast 40 or 50 or 90. That is perfect for travel.
The TX1 has a ridiculous amount of functions including all sorts of cool movie tricks. If one is willing to try and learn.

For me, the demarcation with smartphones is clear on two points :
- An EVF means you can accurately frame even in bright daylight,
- General responsiveness means you don't need to wait a few seconds for the camera app launch when you see something to photograph.
Your mileage may vary, especially as I limit myself to entry-level phones.

And having had a LX100 for work, it wasn't smaller than a GM5 + 12-32 combo... but the lens was 2 stops faster, of course.


At 1200 usd I'd rather have a Fuji xt30 or even xt20 and whatever lens it comes with (23mm f2 or 18-55mm).

I understand the appeal of a compact camera but the price is outrageous for such a toy that will be replaced next year.

I forgot to mention that I also have the Canon S95 and Sony RX100. I bought the RX100 last year new for $380 and it has firmware 2.0. The latest version you can download from Sony is 1.1. The 2.0 is different than the 2.0 for the RX100III, etc. though. This post is from someone who found what is different in the menus and speculates that the current RX100 has an updated BIONZ processor that uses 2.0, but older RX100s can't use the new firmware because they have an older BIONZ processor.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61429424

Only last month I purchased a RX100 VA which by my calculation would be classed as the 7th iteration of this camera as it was quietly slipped out last July after the VI was launched, this would then make the VII the 8th version of the camera.

It is small, but a SmallRig cage is a great addition and helps the handling.

I carry the camera all the time now and keep the camera and cage, 2 spare bartteries, 2x125GB memory cards, a small note book and pen, an allen key and a couple of other odds and ends in an old lowe pro pouch that I used to keep a small zoom lens in.

The main reason I got the camera was for my daughters wedding.The outright ban on me carrying my big camera was the impetus to spend the money. I had researched the options many times and knew that this was the camera I wanted. The longer reach of the MkVI was tempting but the larger aperture of th VA won out.

I would also add that the images from the camera must be accepted by my picture library, Alamy. Which they are.

My first RX100 was the original. I still have it - but use it only for underwater work with a diving housing.

But I do have the RX100 VA and the VI. They are the perfect travel pair, with the VA for indoor and low-light situations and the VI for most outdoor and telephoto shots. They use the same battery and charger (although the batteries can be charged in camera). And together they take up about the same space as one compact micro four-thirds camera (say, a GX9 or Pen F) with kit zoom lens.

I'm with the contingent who believe those who dismiss the Sony RX100 series are being foolish. It's worth learning how to use them. And if you can't be bothered, then just put them on Intelligent Auto and watch them get the shot right - almost every time. These cameras can easily be handed to non-photographers and still deliver great results.

I'm fine with those who have defaulted to iPhones and Pixels for their compact camera needs (I can't do it yet on a regular basis). But the RX100s complement the full-frame A7 series nicely.

Wait, why isn't the Sony Alpha a7R IV called a 'Mark IV'?

I have an RX100V and it is an amazing camera, but it's not really a pants pocket camera, unless you have cargo pockets. It's more than a 1/4" thicker than the Rx100m1 you looked at, and 1/2" thicker than Canon's G9x (and 3x the price.) Yes, the Rx100V is a much better camera than the G9x, but when I'm headed out the door the G9x often goes and the RX100V stays home. If I'm willing to carry something to get better performance than the G9x, I usually take my m43 camera. For my use case the RX100 is too big for a pants pocket yet has the limitations of a digicam. For others the RX100 series may be an ideal coat pocket/small bag compact camera. It's all about the compromises that best fit ones needs.

Of course, the advent of multiple camera cell phones will likely greatly reduce the market for a truly pocketable digicam like the 28-84mm Canon G9x.

To be honest, realistic and humble, this is probably all the camera I need for business (lots of web and video, some smallish prints) or pleasure. But I can't quite make the leap.

And you are so right about those diminishing-telescoping zooms. If a manufacturer designed one with the fat piece -- fitted with a largish filter -- at at the end, some of us old guys would probably feel better about it, if only at a marketing-to-the-subconscious level!


John Igel: "Wait, why isn't the Sony Alpha a7R IV called a 'Mark IV'?"

The A7R line is designed by a guy named Frank.

Nothing wrong with 1" sensors for most people. The Nikon V2 was a terrific sports camera. If they had a weather-protected model with more lens choice, I don't see why pro sports shooters couldn't use them. How many sports photographers make 3 foot wide prints? The current mirrorless cameras are only now approaching the AF and frame rate performance of the V2.

A complete side note I admit, but reading this from Bruce Hedge ticked a box !
"Oh, and incidentally, you're back to your best—the break did you good, and the posts during your recuperation were wonderful!"

Indeed! incredibly fun and educative to read as it's been 99% of the time, mind you.

Can't imagine when that second eye gets done !

Greetings,
S.

One-inch (1") sensor. Danger, danger Will Robinson. The "experts" and "photographers" on Dpreview can prove with a million obtuse arguments that no professional work is possible with any sensor smaller than their "full-frame." They know everything, don't they?

Here I just thought it was interesting that Moose and Ken were saying such opposite things.

Without context, it's hard to tell if we are really far apart.

When I'm traveling and taking pictures, I'm carrying two cameras around my neck and one clipped to my belt. Those, and a fisheye in a pocket or vest, give me a focal length range of 14-800 mm -e, plus the ~150º AoV of the fisheye. Yup, use it all.

In those circumstances, an RX or LX model is less capable in both sensor and lens.

In the case of someone using an ILC with primes or a fast, short FL range zoom, and where light is decent, I can easily imagine how one of these compacts would add significantly to the photographic possibilities.

When compared to no camera, or a 'phone camera, one of these would be marvelously better, esp. for those for whom the FLs of 'phone cameras are insufficient (as for me.)

My light/non-serious kit is a GM5 with 14-140/2.5-5.6. Again, one of these super compacts would fall short for all but widest angle. Pano stitching takes care of 24 mm -e and much wider. With a real lens, with front filter threads, I can, and do, also use an achromatic close-up lens to get far closer.

Remember, I am not trying to sell, or un-sell, anything, only responding to the idea that '. . . this new Sony will pretty much do it all, for any sane definition of "all."', when that's not true for me.

As I am addicted to long FLs, I also have a Panny ZS50, 2/3" sensor, 24-720 mm -e. Remarkably capable in daylight. That comes closer for me to the role of pocketable camera I can always have with me.

I have a Mk 2 (I think). What sold me was that the battery and the clip on EVF was the same as for my Rx1 making a terrific and tiny travel set. I find the 1 inch 20 mp sensor won't res-up to A2 prints - but for anything less it was a pocket powerhouse. I haven't tried a more recent model but perhaps its time.

Leica M7 is en earlier VII ;)

I had a MK2 and then a MK3, both were capable cameras, neither saw the level of action they should have because they aren't really "pocketable" and as such they were with me less often than they should have been. I've severely cut my camera collection down to:
"gasp" an iPhone XS, and a Sony A6400.

The XS truly is with me always and is generally "good enough" particularly when you extract RAW from it.

The 6400 is more than good enough, generally showing my limitations not the camera's. I pair it with the only barely good enough kit lens zooms: The unfairly maligned PZ 16-50mm and the more fairly maligned 18-135mm 3.5-5.6 which hits my sweet spot for size when I'm traveling. I have a host of other "prime lenses" may of which are adapted to the 6400 for special purpose uses, but the above fit my every day use, and ride in my backpack.

One of my favorite photographers that I follow Matt Black a Magnum photog uses these Sony’ s if you get a chance check out his Geography of Poverty b/w series, it’s eyeopening. I bought into Ricoh GR 11 to go with my Leica x’s, Sony menu not my cup of tea.

I am a HUGE fan of the RX10 iv and this camera shows us how small the lens can be if you only need a more typical focal length range of 24-200. Knowing the image quality of the RX 10, this camera is very appealing to me. I was thinking today about another twist of this 1 inch sensor Sony lineup. Could they make a camera the same exact size as the RX10 iv but instead of the 24-600 F2.8-4 equiv lens, how about a fast 24-200? Some of the technical folks may have an idea how fast the lens could be to make a similar size camera/lens. Could it be an F2 lens? 1.8?

The comments to this entry are closed.