P&S cameras with eye-level finders?

In article , David Taylor wrote:

Sandman:
I never could stomach the drop in quality for that "advantage".
And the lens choices for NEX (E-mount) is far better (IMO) than
for M4/3.

Drop in viewfinder quality or image quality?

Image quality mainly.

If image quality than you will never be satisfied with anything less than
full frame. G

Which is why I only use full frame cameras currently.

For me, the choice in micro-4/3 lenses is quite adequate, but that's
personal. I did want something significantly smaller and lighter
than Nikon DX, which the Panasonic does very well, at very similar
image quality.

APS-C and the lens selection for NEX trumps M4/3 any day if you ask me.


--
Sandman[.net]

On 1/8/2015 11:02 AM, Sandman wrote:

snip


APS-C and the lens selection for NEX trumps M4/3 any day if you ask me.


And if we don't ask you, the M4/3 wins? ;-)

--
PeterN

On 1/7/2015 9:28 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-01-07 16:37:34 +0000, sms said:

On 1/7/2015 1:28 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , David Taylor wrote:

Sandman:
It's a nice camera, but it's more expensive, larger, heavier,
smaller sensor and lower resolution than the A6000. In fact, the
A6000 with a kit lens is cheaper than the GX7 body only.

I think the A6000 performs better in low light, but they're close
enough to match. The A6000 has longer battery life and higher
frame rate (if such things matter) and you can get pancake lenses
for it as well, there is a nice 20mm/f2.8 that fit's nicely. The
A6000 supports all NEX lenses out there, and there are some really
nice ones

For me, the smaller sensor is an advantage, as it allows more
compact and lighter telephoto lenses. In buying to micro-4/3, I
have been able to take advantage of lenses from both Panasonic and
Olympus, rather than being limited to just one manufacturer or
having to turn to third-party lenses.

I never could stomach the drop in quality for that "advantage". And the
lens choices for NEX (E-mount) is far better (IMO) than for M4/3.

Sometimes smaller size is more important than image quality. If I were
to compromise on image quality with a smaller sensor I'd go for
something like the Panasonic FZ1000 or Sony DSC-RX10 and also have a
D-SLR with an APS-C or full frame sensor. 4/3 would not be an
acceptable compromise.

For smaller sensors I'd prefer less Mpixels and larger pixels for less
noise but that rarely happens. Canon did back off on their G series in
one iteration but it's rare.

There is an APS-C mirrorless worth considering, the Fujifilm X-E2.
http://fujifilm-x.com/x-e2/en/

I have a professional photographer friend and he really likes that
camera. He's using it to shoot weddings now. He claims that it's the
first decent compact interchangeable lens camera and it got him away
from his full frame SLRs.

The fact that they got phase detection AF to work on a mirrorless camera
is impressive. The contrast detect AF on most mirrorless cameras is
usually a pain.

On 1/8/2015 4:08 AM, David Taylor wrote:
On 07/01/2015 09:28, Sandman wrote:
[]
I never could stomach the drop in quality for that "advantage". And the
lens choices for NEX (E-mount) is far better (IMO) than for M4/3.
[]

Drop in viewfinder quality or image quality? If image quality than you
will never be satisfied with anything less than full frame. G

For me, the choice in micro-4/3 lenses is quite adequate, but that's
personal.

That's the issue for me. It would only be "adequate."

In article ,
sms wrote:

Sometimes smaller size is more important than image quality. If I were
to compromise on image quality with a smaller sensor I'd go for
something like the Panasonic FZ1000 or Sony DSC-RX10 and also have a
D-SLR with an APS-C or full frame sensor. 4/3 would not be an acceptable
compromise.

4/3 is really "quarterframe" and won't do fullframe lenses any justice
since they only have a 1/4 of the censor area to resolve on.
--
teleportation kills

In article , android
wrote:


4/3 is really "quarterframe" and won't do fullframe lenses any justice
since they only have a 1/4 of the censor area to resolve on.

actually it's well suited to full frame lenses since it will use the
center part of the image, which is where the lens performs the best.

to put it another way, you can get away with cheap full frame lenses
since the corner performance will never become an issue.

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:


4/3 is really "quarterframe" and won't do fullframe lenses any justice
since they only have a 1/4 of the censor area to resolve on.

actually it's well suited to full frame lenses since it will use the
center part of the image, which is where the lens performs the best.

to put it another way, you can get away with cheap full frame lenses
since the corner performance will never become an issue.

liar! that cold be true for "halfframe" (dx) nikons and cheapo legacy
nikkors... "quaterframe" cameras 4/3 are silly, i've had one. putting
full frame quality glass on them is pointless unless you want "lens
baby" effects.
--
teleportation kills

In article , android
wrote:

4/3 is really "quarterframe" and won't do fullframe lenses any justice
since they only have a 1/4 of the censor area to resolve on.

actually it's well suited to full frame lenses since it will use the
center part of the image, which is where the lens performs the best.

to put it another way, you can get away with cheap full frame lenses
since the corner performance will never become an issue.

liar! that cold be true for "halfframe" (dx) nikons and cheapo legacy
nikkors... "quaterframe" cameras 4/3 are silly, i've had one. putting
full frame quality glass on them is pointless unless you want "lens
baby" effects.

nonsense and there are no lens baby effects, even with a ****ty lens.
where the hell did you get that idea??

a full frame lens on 4/3rds uses more of the sweet spot than with a dx
camera, which means it's actually *better* than what you'd get on dx.

On 12/29/2014 1:02 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 12/29/2014 12:56 PM, John Navas wrote:
In Article
on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:53:07 -0500, PeterN wrote:

On 12/29/2014 12:32 PM, John Navas wrote:
In Article
on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:16:33 -0500, PeterN wrote:

I have been married for 55 years. The answer is simple. Just buy it.
That way there is only one discussion. Discussing in advance is lose,
lose if she says no. If you agree, your answer will be someting like,
"how could you even think of that?" And it can be continuous.
OTOH if you just buy it, there is only one discussion. When she asks
when you bought it, the answer is always about six months ago. The
discussion is trhen about how long ago you made the purchase. That's
much easier to deal with. ;-)

My own experience is that dishonesty (even in "small" things) is
likely to lead to disaster, and that a better approach is to buy it,
disclose it, be completely honest, and be prepared to return it if
necessary. Ask yourself which is more important, the toy, or the
relationship and your personal integrity?

John, do you think for one second she doesn't know what I am doing?

I have no idea. I was taking what you wrote at face value.

Also, our next meal will be the same. (We have been known to spend
hundreds of dollars a week just to eat in restaurants. It's really a
game that has been ongoing for well over forty-five years.

Good for you (seriously), but is that a good basis for general advice?


Depends on your relationship. If my wife was really 100% agsinst a
purchase I wouldn't make it. I could not enjoy something if I knew my
enjoymnet was making my wife miserable. As I said earlier it's a game we
play.

I think I would discuss any $1000+ purchase. Below that, in the scheme
of mortgages, college tuition, property taxes, etc. it's not worth
discussing.

Recently I replaced the old netbook my wife was using. If I had asked
her I would have gotten an earful about how many computers there are in
the house already. But a $220 purchase of a touchscreen Asus laptop that
is 4x as fast with 2x the disk space, and that doesn't give constant
warnings about Windows XP was well worth it. Much less support time by me.

On 1/9/2015 7:06 PM, sms wrote:
On 12/29/2014 1:02 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 12/29/2014 12:56 PM, John Navas wrote:
In Article
on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:53:07 -0500, PeterN wrote:

On 12/29/2014 12:32 PM, John Navas wrote:
In Article
on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:16:33 -0500, PeterN wrote:

I have been married for 55 years. The answer is simple. Just buy it.
That way there is only one discussion. Discussing in advance is lose,
lose if she says no. If you agree, your answer will be someting like,
"how could you even think of that?" And it can be continuous.
OTOH if you just buy it, there is only one discussion. When she asks
when you bought it, the answer is always about six months ago. The
discussion is trhen about how long ago you made the purchase. That's
much easier to deal with. ;-)

My own experience is that dishonesty (even in "small" things) is
likely to lead to disaster, and that a better approach is to buy it,
disclose it, be completely honest, and be prepared to return it if
necessary. Ask yourself which is more important, the toy, or the
relationship and your personal integrity?

John, do you think for one second she doesn't know what I am doing?

I have no idea. I was taking what you wrote at face value.

Also, our next meal will be the same. (We have been known to spend
hundreds of dollars a week just to eat in restaurants. It's really a
game that has been ongoing for well over forty-five years.

Good for you (seriously), but is that a good basis for general advice?


Depends on your relationship. If my wife was really 100% agsinst a
purchase I wouldn't make it. I could not enjoy something if I knew my
enjoymnet was making my wife miserable. As I said earlier it's a game we
play.

I think I would discuss any $1000+ purchase. Below that, in the scheme
of mortgages, college tuition, property taxes, etc. it's not worth
discussing.

Recently I replaced the old netbook my wife was using. If I had asked
her I would have gotten an earful about how many computers there are in
the house already. But a $220 purchase of a touchscreen Asus laptop that
is 4x as fast with 2x the disk space, and that doesn't give constant
warnings about Windows XP was well worth it. Much less support time by me.


Every household has different threshholds. No one size fits all. In my
younger days I used to fly to various places with the guys to go scuba
diving. My wife never asked about thre cost, and she was comfortable
that we were really going diving. On one trip she came along with the
kids. One of her friends used to say that she would "never let her
husband do anything like that." That couple separated a few months
later. We have been married for over 54 years, and she has always given
me whatever space I needed. We are fortunate enough that the money was
never an issue. if money was tight, we both recognized it, and cut our
spending accordingly.

--
PeterN