Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've had a few different cameras the last couple years and I'm noticing that there are more bulky looking cameras coming on to the market. What exactly is the advantage of owning something like this.....
The limiting factors in what dimensions a camera end up at include the starting size of the sensor and the way the image from the lens is presented to the user. The largest sensor (so called "full frame") with even an a non-pivoting mirror will still require a pretty substantial package --
Comparing the Sony to other full frame cameras shows that there really is not a whole of difference in the packaging --
I've had a few different cameras the last couple years and I'm noticing that there are more bulky looking cameras coming on to the market. What exactly is the advantage of owning something like this.....
Primarily the lens. You didn't notice that the larger one has a massive 50X optical zoom, while the pocket camera has only a 4X? It even goes wider than the smaller camera. The lens is everything in photography.
Primarily the lens. You didn't notice that the larger one has a massive 50X optical zoom, while the pocket camera has only a 4X? It even goes wider than the smaller camera. The lens is everything in photography.
So it would be worth a little extra money to get the larger camera rather then a basic point and shoot pocket camera?
In the links you gave, the smaller camera is more expensive. It really depends on your needs. Do you want to shoot long telephoto shots? Or is it more important for it to fit in your pocket? After all, the best camera is the one you have with you at the time.
I've had a few different cameras the last couple years and I'm noticing that there are more bulky looking cameras coming on to the market. What exactly is the advantage of owning something like this.....
Just in general terms. Why are there so many more inexpensive bulky cameras in the market these days?
Between the two cameras, one is designed to be a basic 4x zoom and the other is a 50x zoom that likely has more features and form to support it. A major difference also comes from the lens itself. The superzoom in this case has a f/2.8-5.4 aperture over the range, and the small camera likely is more limited. At the higher end of price spectrum, consider these two Sony Cybershot cameras:
Both cameras share the same sensor, the RX100 II (left) has a 28-100mm (equiv) f/1.8-f/4.9 lens. The RX10 (right) has a 24-200mm (equiv) f/2.8 lens. The camera to the left lacks View Finder (optional), has 4x zoom with variable aperture lens (varies from f/1.8 at widest to f/4.9 at the tele end). The RX10 has a 7x zoom that begins wider (24mm) and goes to 200mm and allows constant exposure (f/2.8) through out the zoom range. It also has more external controls, an EVF, and a comprehensive array of connectivity for videography as well. In other words, it is designed to feel like a DSLR camera. This is how they look from the back:
The limiting factors in what dimensions a camera end up at include the starting size of the sensor and the way the image from the lens is presented to the user. The largest sensor (so called "full frame") with even an a non-pivoting mirror will still require a pretty substantial package --
Comparing the Sony to other full frame cameras shows that there really is not a whole of difference in the packaging --
That depends. Between Sony a99 and Nikon/Canon FF cameras, not so much, but a7/7r are a different story. The a7r is a 36MP FF camera body:
This doesn't answer your question, but if you're deciding which camera to buy, the main thing I dislike about ultra compact cameras is that they don't (usually?) have a viewfinder, so you must use the back screen. That works okay indoors, but get out into the sunlight and it can make framing a real nightmare. I bought an ultra compact 18 months ago, thinking it would be good enough for much of my photography and something I could carry in a shirt pocket. (I shoot, on average, about 200 photos per day.) I haven't made a hundred exposures with it!
same here, i retired my canon p&s for that reason.
i much prefer the fuji x100s which has a hybrid optical viewer, an electronic through the lens viewer and live view on the back of the lcd.
3 different ways to view the subject. i use the plain ole range finder optical viewer in normal light, the electronic viewer in dim light.
the lcd live view viewer is handy for street photography when you do not want to lift a camera to your eye.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
