Check out Astronomical Photography Forum section of our forum.
Would a Sony RX10 type bridge camera be impractical with a micro 4/3 sensor?
Jul 18, 2021 12:39:09 #
imagemeister wrote:
Right now you could use the Sony 24-240 on the A6600 APSC and use 2X CIZ to get you to 480/740mm equivalent albeit at f6.3.
Zeiss needs to make a 24-240 f2.8-4.8 or there-a-bouts for the A6600 ! - for about $1500 .....
Right now the RX10 lens goes to 220mm .....a 25:1 zoom !
.
Zeiss needs to make a 24-240 f2.8-4.8 or there-a-bouts for the A6600 ! - for about $1500 .....
Right now the RX10 lens goes to 220mm .....a 25:1 zoom !
.
The Zeiss M4/3 lens would have to be 12-300mm @2.8-4 in order to compete with the RX10. 300mm @f4 and covering M4/3 would have a front of about 72mm minimum (and probably 77mm) and the current length of APSC 300mm lenses unless it was a DO (diffractive optics) of some kind.
.
Jul 18, 2021 12:41:41 #
bsprague wrote:
"Then you need to add Bill's 100-400mm (200-800 equivalent FOV) to get to a decent tele length. Suddenly, the kit's getting a wee bit hefty."
My wife's RX10 IV weighs two and a half pounds. My GX8 and 100-400 weights three and a quarter pounds. With the dual lens and body stabilization, you can often shoot hand held at 800 equivalent FOV. My Panasonic body is getting a little old. The newer ones are a little better at stabilization, auto focus, etc.
My wife's RX10 IV weighs two and a half pounds. My GX8 and 100-400 weights three and a quarter pounds. With the dual lens and body stabilization, you can often shoot hand held at 800 equivalent FOV. My Panasonic body is getting a little old. The newer ones are a little better at stabilization, auto focus, etc.
Shooting hand held at 800 equiv FoV is a snap with almost ANY camera.
Simply depends on how snappy the snap you use. About 1/1500” would generally be sufficiently snappy !
IOW, numeric info is quite meaningless when it’s incomplete :-(
Jul 18, 2021 13:20:09 #
I primarily take pictures of birds and ships/tugs. Therefore I need both the high telephoto AND the wide-angle mm. I find the RX10 to be great for good light photos but not so great for evening and cloudy days. It is my backup camera that I take mainly when I am out and about and MIGHT see a bird or ship. Ships can be far (telephoto) or near (BIG!) and hence the 24-600mm. But when I am on an expedition to take pictures, I take my Fuji X-T4 with the 100-400 and my X-t3 with the 18-135. I am very happy with this coverage and the quality of the results. But I would give up a little bit of image quality for a single camera like the RX10 if I could get the low light results. Obviously I can do some post-processing improvement but such a camera would be worth my selling my current setup to buy. I am a 73 yr old amateur who values portability, convenience, and lighter weight highly. [I love my Sony RX100 for these reasons and its good image quality. Stuff it in a pocket JUST IN CASE...]
Check out Panorama section of our forum.
Jul 18, 2021 13:35:12 #
User ID wrote:
Shooting hand held at 800 equiv FoV is a snap with almost ANY camera.
Simply depends on how snappy the snap you use. About 1/1500” would generally be sufficiently snappy !
IOW, numeric info is quite meaningless when it’s incomplete :-(
Simply depends on how snappy the snap you use. About 1/1500” would generally be sufficiently snappy !
IOW, numeric info is quite meaningless when it’s incomplete :-(
"is a snap with almost ANY camera."
I disagree. Until this camera with dual IS, it was not sufficiently snappy!
In my experience, starting with a 500 mm Nikor mirror lens on a Nikon film camera, dual lens stabilization makes a significant difference. The other variable is age related steadiness of me and my body parts.
Jul 18, 2021 14:06:57 #
bsprague wrote:
"and a G9 on a tripod for its 80MP stills..."
I keep lusting after that G9 too. Now with the GH6 on the horizon, I'm not sure what to wish for! I keep wondering if there will be a G10 or GX10.
I keep lusting after that G9 too. Now with the GH6 on the horizon, I'm not sure what to wish for! I keep wondering if there will be a G10 or GX10.
I had a G9, actually still have it for sale. There was a lot to love about that camera except for one thing, focus speed and tracking. It was originally bought as a kayak camera but it just wasn’t great at BIF, even on dry land, much less from a kayak. I switched to the RX10MIV a year ago and my keeper rate increased exponentially. I still think the G9 is a great camera as long as you don’t shoot BIF.
Jul 18, 2021 14:41:25 #
bsprague wrote:
"is a snap with almost ANY camera."
I disagree. Until this camera with dual IS, it was not sufficiently snappy!
In my experience, starting with a 500 mm Nikor mirror lens on a Nikon film camera, dual lens stabilization makes a significant difference. The other variable is age related steadiness of me and my body parts.
I disagree. Until this camera with dual IS, it was not sufficiently snappy!
In my experience, starting with a 500 mm Nikor mirror lens on a Nikon film camera, dual lens stabilization makes a significant difference. The other variable is age related steadiness of me and my body parts.
You are saying that you can’t handhold 800mm at 1/1500” without IS. Is that really what you mean ?
Jul 18, 2021 17:22:35 #
bsprague wrote:
"Then you need to add Bill's 100-400mm (200-800 equivalent FOV) to get to a decent tele length. Suddenly, the kit's getting a wee bit hefty."
My wife's RX10 IV weighs two and a half pounds. My GX8 and 100-400 weights three and a quarter pounds. With the dual lens and body stabilization, you can often shoot hand held at 800 equivalent FOV. My Panasonic body is getting a little old. The newer ones are a little better at stabilization, auto focus, etc.
My wife's RX10 IV weighs two and a half pounds. My GX8 and 100-400 weights three and a quarter pounds. With the dual lens and body stabilization, you can often shoot hand held at 800 equivalent FOV. My Panasonic body is getting a little old. The newer ones are a little better at stabilization, auto focus, etc.
Beautifully done
Jul 18, 2021 18:32:40 #
User ID wrote:
You are saying that you can’t handhold 800mm at 1/1500” without IS. Is that really what you mean ?
Haha! I think I can but not very good as I can handhold a 50mm at 1/125 but not very good either.
Jul 18, 2021 20:20:02 #
BebuLamar wrote:
Haha! I think I can but not very good as I can handhold a 50mm at 1/125 but not very good either.
Must take into account that the particular “800mm” in question only weighs 400mm cuz 800 is only the format equivalency ... he’s using a 400 on m43.
Jul 19, 2021 00:09:10 #
User ID wrote:
You are saying that you can’t handhold 800mm at 1/1500” without IS. Is that really what you mean ?
Can't? Depends. Improved odds? Yes. Is there always enough light for "1/1500"? Maybe. Maybe not.
Perhaps you are missing my point. I have a small, light weight rig that shoots acceptable (to me) images at high telephoto settings. Camera and lens weighs about 5 pounds. The lens was $1800. A NIKKOR 800mm f/5.6 lens alone weighs over 10 pounds and is $16,000. Add a few more pounds and dollars for a body.
I can afford full frame Nikon or Canon gear. I choose to buy more compact, lighter and more portable gear.
Jul 19, 2021 01:59:40 #
Dragonophile wrote:
If I was micro managing, I would point out it's you're rather than your :-)
say what?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Professional and Advanced Portraiture section of our forum.