Monday, 28 December 2015

What's the point in high quality rather expensive cameras with permanently mounted prime lens?


Sony RX1R II and Leica Q are two good examples for the current state of technology. Both are packed with a lot of neat features, both have high ISO, impressive stabilization, both are rather compact and both are rather expensive (over three thousand USD at this moment).



What I don't get is why anyone would buy such a camera which has good but permanently mounted prime lens. I've read a lot about how prime lens have superior quality (compared to zoom lens) and how using a single lens for prolonged period of time makes one a better photographer but why limit yourself to just one lens for the whole life of the camera (which is perhaps 5+ years for cameras I listed)?


What's the point in such camera which cannot zoom and cannot have its lens changed at all and are rather expensive?




No comments:

Post a Comment

Why is the front element of a telephoto lens larger than a wide angle lens?

A wide angle lens has a wide angle of view, therefore it would make sense that the front of the lens would also be wide. A telephoto lens ha...