Livin' la Vida Loca
NAwlins Contrarian: The table on the first page comparing the GM1, GM5, and RX100 Mk. III is misleading in an important respect. For some purposes (weight, zoom range) the Panasonic M4/3s are listed with their kit lens, but for other purposes (depth), they're listed without it. As your pictures on page 2 show, put on the kit lens and the package becomes more like 3 inches (75mm) deep. An RX100 Mk. III is pocketable in most reasonable pants pockets; with the Panasonics and their kit lens, forget it unless you have cargo pockets.
Also, since we routinely list lenses with focal lengths as "35mm equivalent", can we please routinely do the same thing with apertures? For some purposes it's convenient to see that the 12-32mm kit lens is an f/7-11 equivalent and the RX100 Mk. III's lens is an f/4.9-7.6 equivalent. IOW, (1) the Sony can achieve shallower depth of field, and (2) in low light, its much brighter lens will tend to more than compensate for its somewhat smaller sensor.
Listing focal lengths as 35mm equivalent is good, but definately NOT for aperture.
The whole aperture equivalence is total BS and serves only to confuse. Not everyone is even interested in DoF across different sensor sizes, and f2.8 is f2.8 regardess of sensor size when it comes to EXPOSURE.
Personally I am sick and tired of the whole aperture equivalence argument as it is so often used by those with an axe to grind to put down cameras with less than FF sensors.
Capture One Pro is far superior to lightroom. Plus you are not forced to 'catalog' everything.
What I would like to have seen would be a comparative review of the Tamron against the Olympus and Panasonic equivalents.
To me, that would have been much more useful.
Marty4650: Superzoom lenses are notorious for their mediocre image quality, and this lens is no exception. Sure, they are convenient, because you "never have to change lenses." But if that was your goal, then why did you buy an interchangeable lens camera?
Two cheap kit lenses do the same job better, and cheaper. I just don't get the point of these lenses.
Anyone who has a lens changing phobia should just buy a Panasonic FZ1000 and call it a day.
I think the main reason for these kind of lenses is to be an all in one travel lens. ie: sheer convenience for the traveller.
That said, I think I agree when you say the FZ1000 would be a better choice.
Astrotripper: Not surprised to see poor performance on wide end. But I am surprised how well it handles harsh backlight and flares. This is where my Olympus kits fall apart completely. And this Tamron seems to correct for chromatic aberrations pretty well, too. I'd say it looks decent for a super zoom, too bad about the wide end.
But at $600? I think I'd rather shell out another $200 and get Panasonic FZ1000.
LOL, but very good point.
wolfie: When will someone have the balls to put something bigger than the tiny 1/2.3 sensor in a rugged compact? Another pathetic rugged clone ...
1" sensor in the Nikon 1 AW1
"extremely useful for Macro Photography and Portrait Shooting "
Portrait shooting? Strange, but I have never had the desire to do 2x marco shots of the people of whom I take portraits.
I knew this thread would become flamebait when I read it. And sure enough, from browsing the posts, it has become a magnet for the trolls, fanboys and equivalence experts.
Just buy what fits your budget and suits your needs. Pretty much every camera made today by the main players exceeds the capabilities of the user, regardless of sensor size.
If you have specific needs, then factor that into your decision making process when making your purchasing decision.
Foxshade: Quoting from your article:The result is that, if you start buying full frame lenses while you're still shooting APS-C, you're either buying a lens that's not very useful now, or you're buying a lens that won't be as useful once you've made the switch.
Now, as a Nikon APS-C user, can you name ONE APSC zoom lens with fix aperture 2.8 besides that 17-55mm. So, don't give this kind of BS of APS-C users buying full frame lens that's NOT VERY USEFUL on APS-C.
FF lens on APS-C would give me a 1.5x zoom factor. So, if I were to use my 70-200 FULL FRAME lens, I'd be like using a 105-300 mm. It's a useful kick if I were going for airshow or birding.
Foxshade: Maybe you should go with a Nikon 1 system and then you get a 2.7x 'kick' from your FF lenses. Extremely useful, I would think, for airshows or birding.
timo: Nothing new in the article but some of the points are worth making. Many people reading the Pentax SLR forum will have tired of the never-ending complaints about the lack of a FF 'upgrade path'. It has become a kind of religious dogma for some, it seems to me. And I think we all spend too much time and money on upgrading, when we should be simply making the best use of what we have.
But I disagree about the 'oddness' of FF lenses on APS-C - many Pentax lenses marketed for APS-C will work on FF; and many legacy FF lenses work superbly on APS-C, albeit with a different FOV. You just adjust your mental interpretation of what focal length works for what circumstances.
Have to agree with you regarding the way some people are whining for a FF option. Believe it or not, there are even MFT owners whining and pining for Olympus/Panasonic to offer a FF sensored camera.
Anyone who seriously wants a FF camera, just go out and buy something that is currently available. Certainly no dearth of options at the moment.
beemerman2k: Great article and very important perspective. Photographers often say, "it's not the tool, it's the photographer", then we turn around and mortgage our future on the latest and the greatest. I see perfectly fine D600's, D610's, 5D Mk II's, and other amazing hardware being sold off as scrap because a later, allegedly greater, tool is on the market. If a D750 or a D810 offers a critical property, then fine. Otherwise, it's a waste of money and time.
I think that for 99% of all pictures taken, a D600--let alone a D610!--is more than up to the job.
If you really like shooting video, then a DSLR is NOT the right tool.
I own both Nikon CX, MFT and FF systems. Each has it's place and it's pluses and minuses. Cameras are nothing but a tool, so choose the tool that best suits your needs.
I plan to look closely at the new Sony. Just waiting for the reviews to come in. The GoPro Hero4 overheats in 4K mode, so it is useless to me.
It seems to me that if extreme ruggedness was your goal, you would use SSDs, not HDs with moving parts.
However, making the rugged case available separately is a good idea. I wonder if it is compatable with 'other' media.
Joe Ogiba: Sony 6.44" Xperia Z Ultra with QX1 APS-C E mount smartphone camera :https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8615/15947075285_4f58229370_b.jpg
20mp original image :https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7533/16112217541_5c7fcd7d4a_o.jpg
I'll take the Panasonic CM1 anyday over that Sony frankencamera, er, phone, er, whatever.
Interesting. The high end ZS50 looks good, the other two not so much. Still way better than what Canon announced though.
Amnon G: More of the same, with the smell of segmentation all over (hey, it's what customers buy so I can't fault them). It's time for new technologies to show up in the rugged world. folded lenses and tiny crappy sensors can only go so far.NFC/Wifi/etc. is nice, but having a rugged camera is still a big compromise in picture quality which is a shame.
Check out the Nikon 1 AW1. Great image quality, beats the other 'rugged' camera by a landslide.
I am looking forward to an updated AW2 (not to mention some additional AW lenses) soon.
And STILL no raw.
Ok, never mind. The Nikon 1 AW1 reigns supreme in this category. And then some. Great image quality, by the way, far far better than any other 'rugged' camera.