There was nothing young nor cynical in what I just postedSo young, and yet so cynical
What were you discussing then?I have to say, I wasn't really discussing the lens on the RX100, ...
With "the best compact camera ever made" marketing they are obviously aiming at very discerning users, aren't they? Then it shouldn't be surprise they will get discerning users.but even if I had been, I guess that they are aiming this camera at slightly more discerning users.
So you are saying $700 is small peas and not to expect anything for that measly pocket change? Good to know that even in this economy some people are so rich that they don't care what they get for $700. Me, I am having higher expectations.there's nothing terribly clinical about this lens (how could there be at this size, this price and this zoom range).
(yeah, I agree I would have preferred better and faster lens even if it means less zoom but nobody was holding gun to their head, they had their own choice and made their own bed)
It doesn't exclude it? We are not talking you here, we are talking typical consumers. And thus line of distinguishment is very simple to draw. If typical consumer sees his shots are not having "glow" while ones from his old XZ1 are not they will not say "Ahhh, that's OK because jonoslack's summicron does same" they will say "What the ...! What is this?! Shots from my XZ1 are not having this weird glow, if Olympus can do it for half of the money that my RX100 cost why Sony can't?" And more typical consumers returns RX100 because of color shifts, spherical abberations, lens misalignments, harder it will be for RX200 to come out. And we don't want that to happen, do we? Do you?On the other hand I don't think your 'clinical' necessarily excludes a 'glow' - I'd put up my lovely 75 mm APO summicron as an example of a lens which can provide both. Trouble of course is putting down a decent definition of 'clinical' and 'glow'