|
I use this: http://optechusa.com/straps/slr-wrist-strap.html It's great because the buckle is the same kind as the sling strap I have so if I want a sling strap, all I have to do is unclick the wrist strap and clip on the sling. Mind you, it has been ages since I've used the sling as I'm finding the wrist strap more convenient for most uses. The downside of it is that it gets kind of sweaty underneath the strap after a while.
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2012 04:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
I (almost assuredly made a mistake and) picked up the Sony DSC-RX100, then had tacos! Reasonably impressed with things so far. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2012 22:51
|
|
|
I got one too, and I'm in love. I think it may be time to change the title of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2012 03:33
|
|
|
For me a slight downer with the RX100 is the lack of a viewfinder, but like with the price, I think the good bits outweigh those points. A question for those who already have them, does the screen display give you a good idea how the depth of field effect is going to look on the final shot, or do you really need to see the resulting image to know if you got what you were after?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2012 19:14
|
|
|
Azzip posted:For me a slight downer with the RX100 is the lack of a viewfinder, but like with the price, I think the good bits outweigh those points. It gives you a pretty drat good indication, especially if you turn on focus peaking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2012 20:37
|
|
|
Azzip posted:For me a slight downer with the RX100 is the lack of a viewfinder, but like with the price, I think the good bits outweigh those points.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2012 21:39
|
|
|
Azzip posted:For me a slight downer with the RX100 is the lack of a viewfinder, but like with the price, I think the good bits outweigh those points. Why would you use even a viewfinder for a point and shoot? Everyone uses the LCD screen for the last few generations, the viewfinders in most point and shoots are optical and don't even provide useful information aside from framing anyways.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:Why would you use even a viewfinder for a point and shoot? Everyone uses the LCD screen for the last few generations, the viewfinders in most point and shoots are optical and don't even provide useful information aside from framing anyways.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
Cool, good to hear regarding the focus thing, sounds like this might really be a good choice for me. Let's hope it won't meet a similar fate to my last two point and shoots (lost, flooded). Also hoping underwater housings not overly assrape expensive. Yeah the viewfinder thing is just habit really, and one I don't mind breaking. Not even close to a dealbreaker on something that looks like it might suit my needs as well as this one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2012 22:30
|
|
|
Azzip posted:Also hoping underwater housings not overly assrape expensive. If you mean the clear plastic cases, they all are. What are you looking to do?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2012 00:28
|
|
|
I'm already starting to regret returning the RX100. I should have just sucked it up and zoomed with my feet. It's really fantastic to have that feature set in something the size of a smartphone with a bulky case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
DJExile posted:If you mean the clear plastic cases, they all are. What are you looking to do? I mean above the standard expensive  I'll want the camera to come scuba diving with me, so the housing needs to be rated to at least 40 metres (though all the decent photo opportunities are in the 8-30M range, it'd be nice if it didn't implode should I end up deeper). But I don't need to buy it for a few months yet, so a good chance for the accessories scene to settle and find out if a specific or generic housing will be the better bet. Bob Socko posted:I'm already starting to regret returning the RX100. I should have just sucked it up and zoomed with my feet. It's really fantastic to have that feature set in something the size of a smartphone with a bulky case. Welp, returners remorse? Maybe you should just test a few others and then buy it again (though possibly from somewhere else otherwise you might end up looking a bit silly)...
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2012 10:49
|
|
|
Azzip posted:I mean above the standard expensive I keep an eye on them for shits and giggles and honestly I don't think they've ever really dropped. I suppose it really depends on the depths like you're saying though. Obviously too you want to pay drat close attention to the quality of the seals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2012 14:42
|
|
|
Yeah they're a niche product so probably not going to see much change in prices. Main thing is it would be good to know which generic housings turn out to work well with it, though if the price difference is negligible then I'd probably go with an official one anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2012 10:25
|
|
|
Azzip posted:Yeah they're a niche product so probably not going to see much change in prices. Main thing is it would be good to know which generic housings turn out to work well with it, though if the price difference is negligible then I'd probably go with an official one anyway. With rare-ish stuff like this, I find it useful to set up an RSS feed reader with several craigslist search result feeds. Allows you to watch patiently over weeks, and jump on any deals quick.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2012 17:10
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Thread title should be updated to RX100 now. You bourgeoisie you. The RX100 looks really good though. Is the S100 a better but than the S95? The price difference between them is substantial. cash fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Aug 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
The S100's lens goes wider and longer than the S95's; it has a brand new, in-house designed sensor; and the image processor is supposedly muuuch faster. On amazon it looks like the S95 is only $30 cheaper than the S100, are you seeing different prices somewhere else? Cause I'd go for the S100 if that's it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2012 15:46
|
|
|
powderific posted:The S100's lens goes wider and longer than the S95's; it has a brand new, in-house designed sensor; and the image processor is supposedly muuuch faster. On amazon it looks like the S95 is only $30 cheaper than the S100, are you seeing different prices somewhere else? Cause I'd go for the S100 if that's it. Pssst pssst I've got an S95 in the Centralized Camera thread for $200
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2012 21:13
|
|
|
cash posted:Is the S100 a better but than the S95? The price difference between them is substantial. Dog Case posted:Pssst pssst I've got an S95 in the Centralized Camera thread for $200 For $200 the S95 is an awesome deal. Sure, the S100 might be better (and I recently learned it has 240fps video), but I've been treating the S95 like a daily driver. It's always in my pocket, it gets banged around, and there's a lint problem I need to resolve, but it continues to produce great shots when I don't have a nicer camera on me (or don't want to risk breaking one). Hell, for $200 I'm tempted to buy that one as a backup for when I kill mine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2012 22:57
|
|
|
I'm not sure where I should ask this but this seems as good a place to start. I work in the real estate business and I need to get a replacement camera because the last one broke. However I need to be able to take 640x480 photos because that is what the banks require us to take. I have no idea where to begin looking for cameras at this resolution because everything seems to be in megapixels as opposed to the resolution like it was when I bought the camera about 7 years ago. If anyone could help me out or point me in the right direction I'd really appreciate it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
Ramadu posted:I'm not sure where I should ask this but this seems as good a place to start. Pretty much any camera can output JPGs at that size.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
Ramadu posted:I'm not sure where I should ask this but this seems as good a place to start.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2012 23:14
|
|
|
Dog Case posted:Pssst pssst I've got an S95 in the Centralized Camera thread for $200 Sorry, would love to.. But am located in Malaysia.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2012 16:07
|
|
|
Got an RX100 too, and am very very happy with it. It's replaced my E-PL2 as my always-on-me camera. It's good enough outdoors despite only going to f/11. Some kind of clip-on neutral density filter would be cool though. I mostly bought it as something I can bring in with me to concerts, so I can't wait for my first opportunity to do that. Adobe released their RAW support last night for this camera so I've finally been messing around with that. The in-camera jpegs don't look bad at all. The oddest difference I've noticed though, RAWs in Lightroom have less barrel distortion than the jpegs. edit: only goes to f/11. Just noticed my mistake in the quote. teethgrinder fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Aug 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 03:25
|
|
|
teethgrinder posted:Got an RX100 too, and am very very happy with it. It's replaced my E-PL2 as my always-on-me camera. It's good enough outdoors despite only going to f/22. Some kind of clip-on neutral density filter would be cool though. gently caress yes, finally.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 23:54
|
|
|
I still like my X10   
Man_of_Teflon fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Aug 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 21:38
|
|
|
Repost from the Cannon thread: S100 question: Does anyone know what the Macro setting does when using the "flexizone" AF mode in manual? My understanding is that it makes the camera prefer to focus on something very close, but I've been taking clear, focused shots of small objects (like insects) very close to the camera while forgetting to use Macro mode. Most of what I've found online points to it setting appropriate aperture/shutter speed/focal distances, but it's an option in manual, and it seems to focus correctly without macro mode.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 01:19
|
|
|
Man_of_Teflon posted:I still like my X10 I was at the electronics store at the Naval Base and I was really surprised that they had both the X100 and X10 on display. I picked up and played around with the X10 and was doubly surprised just how nice and solid it felt in the hands, especially since I thought that the zoom was going to be flimsy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 05:25
|
|
|
Dominoes posted:Repost from the Cannon thread: Why do you want to know?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 08:03
|
|
|
Mathturbator posted:Why do you want to know?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 13:24
|
|
|
I'm getting concerned that following comments in this thread I am wanting an RX100 more and more. Is is possible to shoot raw at less MP on it (perhaps with reduced noise)? or do you have to use the full 20MP. I'm only really asking due to 20MP being a bit much for my usages and it'd be nice to reduce it slightly but still get RAW. I currently use an S90 but it doesn't really seem to cut it for noise, or often sharpness, if the lighting is at all tricky. It is competing with my SLR and M4/3 cameras which is a bit unfair but I'd like to be able to get as close as I can to their quality and usability, but in a pocketable alternative for certain situations. When I tried the RX100 today it felt a bit like the natural evolution from the S90. The S100 did seem quite nice, and I love the inclusion of an ND filter, but it still had some of the things I disliked about the S90. Are most of you switching if you can?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 13:25
|
|
|
Raw, by its very nature, has to be the full 20 MB, unfortunately. It's an unprocessed dump of all the sensor data. The low light quality seems better than my m4/3 E-PL2, however it seems harder to get as-sharp focus. I haven't spent enough time with it though, and it's almost certainly because I turn the focus beam off most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 15:25
|
|
|
Took my RX100 to Halifax for a couple of days. These have a very little processing, but that's about it. I didn't even sharpen most of them. You can totally notice the green tint on the windmill pic, in the lower left hand corner. Click through for a bit bigger.     
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 20:46
|
|
|
I really, really wish they would have added a drat ND filter to the RX100.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
Dumb question, but in a p&s are ND filters digital and could that be addressed with firmware in the future?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Dumb question, but in a p&s are ND filters digital and could that be addressed with firmware in the future? I believe so. The Canon G12 has it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 23:54
|
|
|
DJExile posted:I believe so. The Canon G12 has it. No, I don't think so - this is actually a hardware feature. If you put your ear to the G12 you'll actually hear the ND filter click into place. It is that way with my friends G12 and with my old-rear end G9.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 01:57
|
|
|
I believe they're almost all physical filters. I suppose some could be digital, but unless they're doing something really odd with the sensor, it would probably just be expanded ISO, and I don't know why any company wouldn't just offer that as ISO value instead of a ND filter menu option.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 02:16
|
|
|
Right. ISO 50 on DSLR's is basically an electronic ND filter. But if a camera claims to have a ND filter, it's most likely a physical device.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:No, I don't think so - this is actually a hardware feature. ....well holy poo poo. I have learned something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 06:36
|
|