bruce_rubenstein

<blockquote> <p>...it doesn't seem like a very good use of $2800 worth of camera.</p> </blockquote> <p>Because we all know the camera is more important than the picture.</p>

<p>A 9 year old P&S camera is probably not a very useful frame of reference for the performance of digital cameras. If the reviews of the RX100 don't answer your questions, then I would suggest going to flicker and doing a search on Sony RX100 and the ISO of interest. You can review 100's, if not 1000's, of actual images taken with the camera.</p>

<p>Motor sports is primarily deterministic motion and not that difficult for AF. (Provided I picked the right angles, I didn't have any trouble shooting at Limerock with a E-M5 & 75/1.8.) Non-deterministic motion like birds in flight, or any flavor of football, is much more difficult. It also shows up refresh rate issues with EVF's. Every tool has its strengths and weaknesses.</p>

<blockquote> <p>You'll occasionally find situations where the optical viewfinder is a better tool.</p> </blockquote> <p>This is a belief, not a truth. P.net is a <em>Big Iron</em> and film site (classic film cameras and medium format forums have more activity than mirrorless cameras). For every person here that actually uses the high end mirrorless there's 20 people who will jump in and tell you to keep the blunderbuss handy, just in case. </p>

<p>There's a good review here: <a href="http://www.lenstip.com/403.1-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_150-600_mm_f_5-6.3_Di_VC_USD_Introduction.html">Lens Tip</a></p>

<p>The type of lens (prime/zoom) effects how likely a lens may need service and its out of box, new performance. Performance variability and reliability are significantly better for prime lenses. (Roger Cicala's lensrentals.com site is probably the only place on the net to get non-anecdotal, statistically significant data on lenses, since they have 100's of the same lenses and test them when they return from rentals.)</p> <p><em>Out of Box</em> performance is critical regardless of what type of lens you buy. It's easy enough to try the lens out and see if it performs well in the store before buying it, or to bring it back in a couple of days, if needed, before leaving the country. Make sure you can bring the lens back for an exchange or refund.</p>

<p>Ah, the good old days: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Shell">Bob Shell</a></p>

<p>What the world needs is the Ralph Oshiro/ Stepehen Conkie <em>Welcome to my Photo Gear Toy Box Forum.</em></p>

<p>Have the couple give you a print to work from. Return the print and sell them your picture. It's technically no different them having a mug made with their picture on it. Now, if you make pictures based on photo and sell them in a gallery, or you artwork is used for advertizing, that is commercial usage and a violation of the photographer's copyright, because you created a derivative work.</p>

<p>After starting the <em>ISO still the weakess of MFT Format</em> thread one would assume that you are in fact the leading authority on µ4/3.</p>

<p>No. DSLRs need a circular polarizer because the mirror reflects polarized light that may effect metering.</p>

<p>Barry seems to be the only one that understands that the objective here is to unobtrusively take pictures during a piano recital, and not an opportunity to conduct a science fair experiment. It also underscores that this is<em> primarily a boyze with toys</em> photographic equipment site. Not to mention that in initial post the OP states that a blimp is not an option.</p> <p>There are a number of cameras with silent/quiet shutters and no flapping mirrors that probably have more than good enough IQ for how the images will be used. </p>

<p>Price and value are two different things. The difference is that price is intrinsic to the object being bought, and value is based on perception that is intrinsic to the buyer.</p> <p>Camera buyers who base their purchasing decisions strictly on a numeric price/performance ratio buy entry level DLSR's and either kit lenses or cheap normal prime lenses.</p>

<p>The FM2n went to aluminum shutter blades in 1989 (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonfeseries/fefmshared/honeycomb/index.htm). My recollection is that it used the blades from the N8008's shutter. The problem with the titanium shutter is that the pattern was "chemically" machined with with a hazardous chemical, that Nikon was no longer able to use. </p>