Would a Sony RX10 type bridge camera be impractical with a micro 4/3 sensor?
Jul 17, 2021 20:32:03 #
I realize equivalent zoom lenses get bigger and heavier as you increase sensor size, but I was just wondering if a bridge camera with a fixed telephoto lens 24X600 equivalent would be possible with a m4/3 sensor. I guess I am asking practical rather than just possible (which I assume theoretically could be done). In other words, could such a camera be built in manner and price and weight to appeal to a lot of people and be a commercial success? I love my Sony RX10 except in lower light situations. The exposure compensation dial seems rather ineffective. If such a camera existed, I would be tempted to buy it and ditch my current two camera/two lens mirrorless setup.
Jul 17, 2021 21:04:17 #
I had a Sony HX-400V which has a 1/2.3" sensor & a lens that goes from 24mm to 1200mm 35mm equivalent. The biggest problem with a lot of bridge cameras is low light unless you're shooting from a tripod. The sensor is just not designed for low light.
Jul 17, 2021 22:59:31 #
I have a Panasonic M4/3 and a 100-400, which makes it sort of like a 200-800. It is a bit bigger than my wife's RX10 IV with it's 1" sensor. If turned into a bridge, it would be a little large!
Jul 17, 2021 23:09:34 #
That's what I am thinking, that 24X600 equivalent would mean a very heavy, bulky camera with a m4/3 sensor. Are we fighting the laws of physics or just in need of some industrial scientific breakthroughs in lenses and materials?
Jul 17, 2021 23:43:34 #
Jul 18, 2021 01:19:27 #
Jul 18, 2021 05:55:19 #
Dragonophile wrote:
I realize equivalent zoom lenses get bigger and heavier as you increase sensor size, ...
Why not get an Olympus OM-D EM10 iv and a 12-200MM F3.5-6.3 lens for less than the cost of a Sony RX10 iv? You'd be giving up the 600mm length, but you'd be getting an equivalent 24-400, which is pretty good capture, plus the larger sensor.
Jul 18, 2021 06:17:34 #
bsprague wrote:
I have a Panasonic M4/3 and a 100-400, which makes it sort of like a 200-800. It is a bit bigger than my wife's RX10 IV with it's 1" sensor. If turned into a bridge, it would be a little large!
Jul 18, 2021 08:02:07 #
Dragonophile wrote:
That's what I am thinking, that 24X600 equivalent would mean a very heavy, bulky camera with a m4/3 sensor. Are we fighting the laws of physics or just in need of some industrial scientific breakthroughs in lenses and materials?
With conventional optics it's the laws of physics. God knows there may in the future be ways of using flat lenses with nanotechnogy, but that isn't even on the horizon yet.
Jul 18, 2021 08:04:39 #
srodday
Loc: Mass
I have both the Sony RX10m4 and the Olympus e1m3. I wouldn’t buy a bridge when the Olympus is available.
Just for reference - For birding, unless light is bright, I use the Olympus. It wins hands down for responsiveness (especially turning on or “waking”) and for it’s low light ability compared to Sony. And if I use Denoise, for most things, I can’t tell the difference with my canon R6 for the pictures I need.
Sony is great for traveling and still objects in the right light and/or with a tripod. In low light, try Topaz Denoise on your Sony pictures. It can make a huge difference.
Just for reference - For birding, unless light is bright, I use the Olympus. It wins hands down for responsiveness (especially turning on or “waking”) and for it’s low light ability compared to Sony. And if I use Denoise, for most things, I can’t tell the difference with my canon R6 for the pictures I need.
Sony is great for traveling and still objects in the right light and/or with a tripod. In low light, try Topaz Denoise on your Sony pictures. It can make a huge difference.
Jul 18, 2021 08:07:28 #
A 600mm 35mm equivalent on the 4/3 sensor would be 300mm. I am not sure how they can make such a lens very short. It can be small in diameter if the aperture is small.
Jul 18, 2021 08:42:49 #
BebuLamar wrote:
A 600mm 35mm equivalent on the 4/3 sensor would be 300mm. I am not sure how they can make such a lens very short. It can be small in diameter if the aperture is small.
It would maybe have to be done with diffractive optics - currently only prime lenses are using DO - but it is an area to be explored ! This would also make it a bit pricey 8-(
Jul 18, 2021 08:45:28 #
Dragonophile wrote:
I realize equivalent zoom lenses get bigger and he... (show quote)
It’s not just the 24-600mm equivalent focal length, it’s getting that length with a lens that’s f/2.4-4. I can put my 75-300mm on M4/3 and it can get me to the 600mm equivalent and be smaller than my RX10MIV but I’m sacrificing the short end and I’m now at f/4.8-6.7. I can use my 300mm f/4 prime to get there but with no shorter end and much heavier and longer.
Jul 18, 2021 08:47:24 #
BebuLamar wrote:
A 600mm 35mm equivalent on the 4/3 sensor would be 300mm. I am not sure how they can make such a lens very short. It can be small in diameter if the aperture is small.
It could be a 200mm lens and use 1.5X Clear Image Zoom or similar software to get to 300mm .......this is the way I would do it.....
Jul 18, 2021 08:52:39 #
imagemeister wrote:
It could be a 200mm lens and use 1.5X Clear Image Zoom or similar software to get to 300mm .......this is the way I would do it.....
When the OP talked about the Sony RX10 he didn't mean long zoom via software as the RX10 does have the optical lens for its range but uses smaller sensor to avoid long focal length.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.