i use a minolta 7s (fixed lens, manual focus, rangefinder), olympus om-1 (iteration: n, last manual release), and the obvious kiev 88cm for med. format. i would only consider AF on a dslr or micro4/3rd, never on film.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Cameras
Collapse
X
-
it seems like a pretty nice camera, size wise its really near with the micro four thirds cameras (Lumix GF1, Leica X1 etc) but lacks the interchangable lens. what I would consider is whether it has any notable advantage compared to a good pocketable camera. for example the Canon S95 is half the weight, notably smaller and half the price and doesn't really get left behind in specs either."AVANT GUARDE HIGHEST FASHION. NOW NOW this is it people, these are the brands no one fucking knows and people are like WTF. they do everything by hand in their freaking secret basement and shit."
STYLEZEITGEIST MAGAZINE | BLOG
Comment
-
-
yeah that's kind of how I'm reasoning too- Olympus XZ-1 seems to be nice too. saw a comparison video of S95 and XZ-1 and it seems while the XZ-1 is a bit bigger, is a little better. but considering if it's worth another 200 eur for either panasonic GF2 or olympus E-PL2.. the whole buying new lenses deal always gets expensive :|
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by widmerpool View PostIf you think that the S95 and XZ-1 are viable alternatives to an X100, you should probably get the S95 or XZ-1.
Comment
-
-
These days the good compacts will give you something fairly close to a DSLR at base iso, outside, in decent light. At least as far as viewing on screen, if not in prints. They are even not too bad at 400 ISO. If you are comparing to a compact from 4-5 years ago you will probably be quite happy.
If you want indoor low light pictures you will still need a bigger sensor for decent quality. M43 will be better than a compact, the x100 or a Ricoh GXR will be better than M43. There is also NEX and Samsung NX. Compared to an SLR all the mirrorless formats have various drawbacks in terms of usability relating to viewfinders and focusing. If you are going to get a camera that needs a bag I'd still prefer a small SLR over them for speed, ergonomics and image quality.
Comment
-
-
yeah, that's kind of what I've read/heard now... checked out the flickr group for olympus XZ-1 (it's not even released in Sweden. so unfair) and the pictures do seem really good! http://www.flickr.com/groups/xz1/pool/
the ricoh gxr and x100 do seem quite pricy, not sure if it's worth it for me, think I'd be very happy with the XZ-1
I'll just go to my local camera store and ask when they're released, this should be good.
thanks a lot
Comment
-
-
surprised the Pentax K-x didn't get a mention (perhaps it did earlier?) but it's an amazing piece of equipment considering the price-point / performance. Size is comparable to a micro4/3 but is a true dslr and can be purchased for nearly the same as EP-1 or lumix gf-1 or even high end P&S
Comment
-
-
hmm, friend just suggested I should take a look at Sony NEX-5.. I did and it seems great? but also that NEX-7 is coming soon enough- although: http://www.crunchgear.com/2011/03/17...onica-minolta/
if it looks like that I'm afraid it might be a bit too thick for my bag.. being flat is kind of a must for me since my bag isn't very spacious in that area
this is harder than I thought it would be
Comment
-
Comment