Doug Kerr
Well-known member
I chose this section arbitrarily as there doesn't seem to be one for this topic.
As I have commented before, I rarely use my Canon EOS system (except for making the record pix of Carla's paintings, and maybe an occasional snap-shotty portrait).
That was largely brought on by the intersection of two factors:
• The rigs are too heavy and bulky, a matter that is more telling now that I have come under the spell of what is known in Texan as "a hitch in my gitalong", an orthopedic dysability attributed by the wonks to spinal stenosis.
• Most of my output is destined for delivery in blogs, on social media sites, and in e-mail messages, where the need for high image quality is not really present.
Thus, of late most of my work has been done with two quite nice cameras:
• Canon Powershot G16.
• Panasonic FZ200.
The G16 is nice because I can carry it in my pocket. The FZ200 is nice because of its large focal length range (25-600 mm ff35 equivalent). (For the G16 it is 28-140 mm ff35 equivalent.)
But notwithstanding what I said earlier, we are still aware of the limitations in image quality of both these machines, this largely arising unavoidably out of their really quite small sensors (9.5 mm diagonal for the G16, 7.7 mm diagonal for the FZ200).
So we have looked into the possibility of taking on another machine for cases where we look for a bit better image quality, but still one that is fairly small and light. And we concluded that it should have a substantial focal length range (perhaps 24-400 mm ff35 equivalent). Yes, of course there are considerable optical compromises in such.
We contemplated various sensor size families, including:
• 16.5 mm (the so-called "1 inch" size, under the accursed Vidicon bottle diamater convention)
• 22 mm (the "four thirds" system)
• 27 mm (the so-called "APS-C" size - just as in our EOD 40D)
• 43 mm (the kleinbild, or "full-frame 35 mm" size, or often just "full frame")
• Something bigger ("bigger than full frame")
After our accustomed combination of careful technical analysis and emotional leaning, we decided to think in terms of the smallest of these, the 16.5 mm ("1 inch") size.
The result is that Carla has bought for me as a gift on the occasion of our 16th wedding anniversary (yes, that was in June, but this machine wasn't available then) a Canon Powershot G3 X camera. This has a 16.5 mm sensor (20.2 Mpx) and a focal length range of 24-600 mm ff35 equivalent.
As you know, I am a big fan of electronic viewfinders, so she included a Canon EVF-DC1 in the deal (the G3 X itself has no eyepiece viewfinder of any kind).
The machine is back ordered, so it may be a week of two until we have it. But when it gets here, I'll let you know how it works out.
Best regards,
Doug
As I have commented before, I rarely use my Canon EOS system (except for making the record pix of Carla's paintings, and maybe an occasional snap-shotty portrait).
That was largely brought on by the intersection of two factors:
• The rigs are too heavy and bulky, a matter that is more telling now that I have come under the spell of what is known in Texan as "a hitch in my gitalong", an orthopedic dysability attributed by the wonks to spinal stenosis.
• Most of my output is destined for delivery in blogs, on social media sites, and in e-mail messages, where the need for high image quality is not really present.
Thus, of late most of my work has been done with two quite nice cameras:
• Canon Powershot G16.
• Panasonic FZ200.
The G16 is nice because I can carry it in my pocket. The FZ200 is nice because of its large focal length range (25-600 mm ff35 equivalent). (For the G16 it is 28-140 mm ff35 equivalent.)
But notwithstanding what I said earlier, we are still aware of the limitations in image quality of both these machines, this largely arising unavoidably out of their really quite small sensors (9.5 mm diagonal for the G16, 7.7 mm diagonal for the FZ200).
So we have looked into the possibility of taking on another machine for cases where we look for a bit better image quality, but still one that is fairly small and light. And we concluded that it should have a substantial focal length range (perhaps 24-400 mm ff35 equivalent). Yes, of course there are considerable optical compromises in such.
We contemplated various sensor size families, including:
• 16.5 mm (the so-called "1 inch" size, under the accursed Vidicon bottle diamater convention)
• 22 mm (the "four thirds" system)
• 27 mm (the so-called "APS-C" size - just as in our EOD 40D)
• 43 mm (the kleinbild, or "full-frame 35 mm" size, or often just "full frame")
• Something bigger ("bigger than full frame")
After our accustomed combination of careful technical analysis and emotional leaning, we decided to think in terms of the smallest of these, the 16.5 mm ("1 inch") size.
The result is that Carla has bought for me as a gift on the occasion of our 16th wedding anniversary (yes, that was in June, but this machine wasn't available then) a Canon Powershot G3 X camera. This has a 16.5 mm sensor (20.2 Mpx) and a focal length range of 24-600 mm ff35 equivalent.
As you know, I am a big fan of electronic viewfinders, so she included a Canon EVF-DC1 in the deal (the G3 X itself has no eyepiece viewfinder of any kind).
The machine is back ordered, so it may be a week of two until we have it. But when it gets here, I'll let you know how it works out.
Best regards,
Doug