Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
I give in...
#11
Ooh, I had forgotten about the G3X. The last time I looked at it, I dismissed it on account of its size as a possible replacement for my compact. But under this different criteria it is much more interesting. I assume it will be a tradeoff between the G3X's bigger sensor, and the bigger zoom range of the SX60. Let's see, the G3X is 2.8x CF, compared to 5.6x (ish) of the SX60 so quite a difference. Actually, there's the possible deal breaker. I have a Sony HX9V already and the SX60 is the same sensor size. The 25x zoom of the G3X is likely sufficient (long end roughly equiv. to 400mm on APS-C I'd use) and being realistic the 65x on the SX60 may be a step too far. (Just NO to the P900!)

 

So on this paper spec comparison I think I will give the G3X some serious consideration, although the RX100 IV is still in with a shout too. It is priced high enough (~£560 grey import, it is too much through official channels) I will need to think about it as opposed to impulse buy, even if in DSLR lens terms it isn't really significant.

 

The Oly bundle I'm sure would be great but I'm not looking at that price level right now.

<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#12
Can someone take the best bits of the G3X and RX100IV and put them together... this isn't easy...

 

Edit: it may be the RX10 II... still researching.

Edit 2: HOW MUCH??? ok, maybe not the RX10 II...

<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#13
"HOW MUCH?"  :blink:

 

Bloody hell...

 

Well the lens with constant f/2.8 24-200 equiv. might be contributing, but then - at DPReview I've seen some sample shots at ISO 6400. At first I thought U-hummm? but with that sensor - worth the price, but not to me.

 

P900? If you had a dozen of them you could finance your camera with the sales. It's hard to get. Had one to play around while waiting on the fat ass Sigma 150-600. Not too unpleasant, but it had a surprising weight. Surprising because the body didn't feel too solid  :wacko:

 

I think the G3X is definitely worth a very close look.

#14
I'm going to step back a bit for now.

 

At the less insane price range I still think the RX100 IV would be better overall than the G3X. The problem I have is that I can't imagine using longer focal lengths without EVF, and I don't want an external one on the G3X.

 

Also some may recall in the past I looked at replacing my Sony HX9V travelzoom compact. I bought a Canon SX240 and after using both for a while, the Sony was superior overall. In the end I kept using the HX9V and sold on the SX240. My fear is that in the compact category, Canon are simply not as good as Sony overall. And these cameras, even with their higher costs and features, I think are more compact-like than interchangeable lens like.

 

I think my next area to look at might be older versions of these models. Are they still good enough at a much lower cost?

<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#15
Quote: 

 

 

 

Thanks for the UX-explanation. Yes, that's a very subjective thing. I did like the Fuji stuff and found the Olympus too small, but I have no first hand experience with any of them. And the colords of the Fuji, even if lots of green, are great in my eyes. So, maayyyybeee, with AiryDiscus' UX flaws the problem is behind the camera?  Tongue

 

:lol:
The problems with Fuji's green is real and documented and has been commented on in detailed reviews. Showing images of green foliage at relatively close distances as per the image posted here may seem to refute that claim as they look fine, however images of distant trees and foliage show far more easily the lack of micro detail available from the sensor in the green band. This contrasts with many dslrs which often suffer from the problem in the red band. (NIKON/PENTAX etc.)

  Those not seeing Fuji's green band problem should immediately book an eye test at "Spec Savers"   Rolleyes  :wacko:

#16
Quote:Deleted.
#17
Quote:Those not seeing Fuji's green band problem should immediately book an eye test at "Spec Savers"   Rolleyes  :wacko:
 

You're not expecting me to ran into a couple of hours Fuji test research? So far I'm not aware of the "well documented Fuji green band problem" as well as I'm not seeing loads of red band problems for Nikon or Pentax. My last eye test was a couple of weeks ago. Yours?  Rolleyes

 

So those not seeing the problem might be not seeking specific problems. And those seeing it shouldn't just only talk about but post a link to problem pictures or some samples itself. Should be easy if it's that obvious...

 

Edit: Doing a Google search for "Fuji green problem" tells me lots about tea. "Fuji green band" leads to a couple of music videos. "nikon sensor problem" gives me immediately insight in all dusty oily unwanted additional features. So, "well documented" is a little bit a mouthful...  Wink

 

Besides, buying a Fuji mirrorless to document the foliage of distant green leaves is not my top priority. Getting excellent skin tones may be a couple of topics higher in my list.

 

Edit2: Just didn't see one DPReview thread amongst the tea stuff. So, I saw something (and of course don't know if that's what you mean, but the picture is all green and all foliage and lawn and leaves).

 

So, it's about out of camera JPGs lacking on detail? If I'm into this mirrorless system, I can promise, it's not for JPG-output. I'm also not thinking to get the best amount of details from an APS-C sensor. For landscape I'm already happy with the output of Sigma Merrill of Nikon FF.

 

It looks like the "problem" is more if someone uses RAW and knows how to handle the conversion. If anything, Baobob's version of the picture looks a bit too detailed to me but as long as I can't compare the print I have to suspect that might be the way to go. Or not.

 

So, I'm sorry, dave's clichés and AiryDiscus, I'm out of that "green band discussion", it just doesn't bother me enough and I see loads of great Fujifilm X-... pictures.

#18
Quote:I feel I might be reaching a changing point in that I'm about to pass a significant decade and the weight is starting to get to me a bit.

 

Any thoughts?
 

I have been shooting events with a D800+70-200mm plus D600+16-35mm for a number of years and I too am sick of the weight.

 

So, I've decided that for a lot of stuff I will cut down on the size and weight.

 

I will now use a V1 with a 70-300mm CX (190-810mm equiv) and J5 with 6.7-13mm (18-35mm equiv).

 

For wide angles, compositions is not that important so the LiveView-only option on the J5 is OK, and the V1 is better for the longer focal lengths as it has a view finder.

 

The quality is suprisingly good.

 

You can see some samples here:

 

And I can carry everything in one very compact bag. I use a Think Tank Turnstyle 10 which can also hold my phone, wallet, two polarizers in their cases, and I can even throw in an iPad.

#19
 Well JoJu if your happy,  I'm happy after all it's that that counts the most!

 

  As someone who shoots a lot at 600mm it's pretty pointless me worrying about a lightweight system, I used to swear never to have a heavy camera but here I am weighting/waiting for the delivery of my D750.

 

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/124690178@N08/

 

P.S. Pentax has a bigger problem than Nikon with reds, when saturated they turn slightly to magenta, Nikon just saturates and loses detail, to be quite honest I've never really shot with Canon, but I think sensors have less dynamic range in the red band, I can't say I've ever seen the green or blue band saturate, but the 255 max. is often seen with reds.  

#20
For my wildlife uses, I actually did wonder how the CX70-300 would do, but it would have the "backward zoom" problem for me. Then again, if it was really that good (along with some V series body) it might even be enough for me to ditch Canon totally and start again with system(s) with opposite zoom ring operation. I don't mind which way it goes, but I will only own at any one time systems which turn the same way. I've already made the switch once when going Sony SLR > Oly 4/3 + Canon.

 

For the Fuji "green" issue, is this something to do with the X-trans or whatever they call it sensor? I would have thought, given its increased proportion dedicated to green detection, it should be even better than typical bayer? Or could it be a software issue of optimisation in RAW converters?

<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)