Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sony RX10 & Pana FZ1000
#11
Quote:So, what about A6000 + 16-70 f/4 + LA-EA4 (160g) + Minolta 100-200 f/4.5 (375g) ?  The former two are "given", aren't they Smile? The latter two weight 535g, less than RX10. Everything is top quality, and you are still far away from 20kg bag.

 

I'm trying to reiterate that _you_ will not be satisfied by small-sensor cameras, even if the sharpness is excellent. When you look at a representative number of pictures from small sensor camera, even if they look technically perfect, there's a feel of something wrong with them. It's hard to explain. The best known to me attempt to do so was by David Kilpatrick; he wrote that if you shoot doll house with small sensor camera, it appears realistic, and dolls look like humans.
 

 

Sorry but I am already perfectly fine with MFT quality. I have a GH3 which produces great results.

I am a non-believer in ancient lenses so something like the Minolta 100-200mm will not happen on my side.

Technically the Canon EF-S 55-250mm STM IS could be interesting (using the Canon AF adapter).
#12
When I say "small sensor" I don't mean APS-C; this is what I use, and I like the perspective it produces. I don't care with comparing it to full frame. I do claim 2/3 inch (KM A2) is "small", and I guess 1 inch would be felt as "small" too. Cannot comment on MFT.

Another claim: there are compact-enough kits based on APS-C sensor, thus I would not look at smaller sensor sizes at all.

#13
AF will be sloooow on the Sony formerly known as Nex (TSFKAN). If you can't live with the slow focus, a Canon EOS M2 with adapter will perform much better. But that camera has no EVF. Best would be the EOS 100D/SL1, but with each EOS "solution" the Sonyzeiss 16-70mm f4 will be useless.
#14
Which is why I will take the Sony 70-300G.  ^_^ But it'll stay mostly in the car

  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)