View Single Post
      07-02-2019, 10:25 PM   #10
thatBimmerBloke
Captain
thatBimmerBloke's Avatar
United_States
579
Rep
808
Posts

Drives: 2016 435i xDrive M Sport Coupe
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin

iTrader: (5)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcstep View Post
If you want small size, then DON'T buy a full-frame camera. The one-inch sensor and AF system in the RX-100 will serve most people.

Buying a professional full-frame body and then limiting yourself to a relic from the 1960's, a 50mm f/1.8, just seems crazy to me. I was there in the 1960s, when zooms sucked and most of us had a 50mm, a 35mm and a 135mm or 200mm. Today, the image quality of my FE 12-24mm f/4 G, FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS, FE 100-400mm is a COMPLETE solution for 99% of us. I also own the FE 400/2.8 and FE 85/1.4 for birds, wildlife and portraits, in the the case of the 85. I could do without the 85mm, but not the 400mm, but they are both special purpose.

I understand the need for some to keep weight down. One of my students is a 110-lb, 64-year old woman that could carry part of my rig for even a few minutes. For budget reasons, she's still with a Rebel DSLR, with one good lens, the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS. She's got an EF-S zoom for everything else and can manage the weight easily. If she can afford it in the future, I'll probably recommend a Sony RX-10, because she shoots wildlife and really needs the focal length.

Would I recommend a 50/1.8? What for???? It doesn't do anything particularly well. It's too short for most portraits and it's too long for most landscapes. I don't think it's a good street focal length.

I looked through an Album of 60+ "street" and "candid" shots and only a hand full were shot within 10mm of 50mm. I see no reason to tie one arm behind your back, particularly now that the image quality of the better zooms is excellent and you can apply digital lens optimization in RAW conversion.
It's a mirrorless full frame, much smaller than the conventional full frame DSLRs. One of the main advantages is its size. If there is a smaller size lens available with exceptional quality then why not pair it?

50mm f1.8? A relic from 1960? Where did I mention 50mm 1.8? You might want to read my post again. I mentioned Sony 55mm f1.8, again, Sony 55mm f1.8. Not to be confused with Sony 50mm f1.8 which is a totally different lens. Maybe look it up first before jumping to conclusions. It's one of the best full frame lenses available for Sony mirrorless lineup right now, pretty modern in tech, not a relic.

It is short for landscapes but if it's challenging to use it for portraits or street photography then that's just limited/bad composition.

Again, I merely suggested to try the field of view at 55mm and see if it works for the OP, if so then using a smaller prime lens with great picture quality, a smaller f stop and a shallower depth of field as compared to f4 would be a better option in a lot of scenarios.
dcstep1220.00