curious80 wrote:
Once you have a camera this deep, I don't think saving a bit of width and height helps much. My phone is much easier to carry than say the RX1RII that I used to own even though its width and height are more than the RX1R II. The depth is what makes the camera harder to carry. If it was possible for RX1R II/III to be less deep but slightly wider / taller, I would take that tradeoff any day.
A phone is the worst photographic device to hold and operate. As with the RX1. whatever makes a camera smaller and lighter is helpful. The RX1MkIII dangles from my neck, while I would have the RX2 with the 90mm ready in a small bag. It is what I currently do with the a7cR or a6500.
Nielk Mike wrote:
A phone is the worst photographic device to hold and operate. As with the RX1. whatever makes a camera smaller and lighter is helpful. The RX1MkIII dangles from my neck, while I would have the RX2 with the 90mm ready in a small bag. It is what I currently do with the a7cR or a6500. whatever works for you
Steve Spencer wrote:
You do realize that when you use a 3X crop that turns your 36 X 24 mm sensor into a 12 X 8 mm sensor. You go from an area with 864mm squared to 96mm squared. An iPhone sensor is 9.6 X 7.2 mm with 69mm squared. If you crop to 3X you have almost turned your FF sensor into an iPhone sensor. If you are ok with that keep in mind that modern cell phones typically have 3 lenses and add zero size and weight to what people typically carry. That might be enough for you.
A lot of people don't realize this. Cropping can be useful if you really need a tighter composition (and can't get closer) or want to share an image quickly without post-processing, but as Stephen pointed out, you're effectively reducing your sensor size dramatically. This impacts everything (resolution, dynamic range, SNR, and overall image quality) sometimes down to the level of a common smartphone, depending on how much you crop. Depth of field equivalence also changes: for example, cropping a 35mm f/2 image to match a 90mm field of view gives a DOF equivalent of about 90mm f/5. (2.7x crop)
Fred Miranda wrote:
A lot of people don't realize this. Cropping can be useful if you really need a tighter composition (and can't get closer) or want to share an image quickly without post-processing, but as Stephen pointed out, you're effectively reducing your sensor size dramatically. This impacts everything (resolution, dynamic range, SNR, and overall image quality) sometimes down to the level of a common smartphone, depending on how much you crop. Depth of field equivalence also changes: for example, cropping a 35mm f/2 image to match a 90mm field of view gives a DOF equivalent of about 90mm f/5. (2.7x crop)
No doubt, cropping more than 2x is not a good option if high quality, large output is the goal. But I have 3x crops from the RX1R Mk III that look perfectly fine as A3 prints, on my TVs and PC screens, and of course on my phone. Will be in Berlin from Sunday and will see how well 2x and 3x crop work on those streets :-) (and I will carry an a6500 with the Sigma 90mm - just in case :-) )
whatever works for you