From the Sublime to the Ridiculous - the missing camera

[Godfrey]

Jono, I think the GF1 with the 20/1.7 pancake is a killer combo. I'd like it a wee bit smaller, but for me it comes darn close to the perfect "in between" camera. I consider it to be my "fixed lens" small camera, and only have the 45-200 for times I really want longer reach that this camera with the 20, nor my M9 will do. For the rare times I need really wide, I have my 21mm for the M9. So, everything is a compromise, but here I have a responsive camera with a small, fast lens, and a moderately sized sensor producing excellent IQ that will fit in a jacket pocket. Better high ISO will be on the next version, then it might well be perfect.

I think the GF1+20/1.7 is a great camera too. I don't see any need whatever for anything smaller: it's as small a camera makes sense for serious use. And its lens interchangeability makes it versatile in ways that ultracompact, fixed lens cameras can never be.

 

[raywest]

I'm not familiar with the physical size of the cameras mentioned above, but the Sigma dp1/2's have a sensor larger than 4/3 and the camera is quite small. Image quality, in many ways, is as good as a canon 5d. Sigma are working on a dp3, afaik, which will have a zoom lens. If only they had an evf, instead of the poor lcd screen, and a better, (more basic?) user interface, plus speed issues, then I think many more folk would use them, but it is, as always, a trade off wrt /development costs/manufacturing costs/marketing costs/selling price/number of sales.

The point I was trying to make, earlier on, is that the lens is not just the glass. The electronics, the casing thickness, etc., will be more or less the same for all lenses - the lens 'size' is not necessarily proportional to the sensor size, in particular if it is an interchangeable system. You can not scale nature .

I think if it is a question of carrying a camera plus additional lenses, then I think the advantage of 'smallness' rapidly disappears- e.g. you need a number of jacket pockets .


Best wishes,

Ray

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Everyone

Well, I agree that the GF1 with the 20 f1.7 is a great combo . (I have the EP2 with that lens and love it). So is the DP1. So is the Leica X1, So is the Sony Nex with a pancake (as far as I'm aware). But what they all have in common (if they are to be small) is a fixed focal length pancake lens.

Like lots of other people, I'd like something small enough to slip into a coat pocket or carry easily with a decent quality zoom lens, This is much less 'niche' than a GF1 with a 20 f1.7, and that just isn't going to happen with a sensor the size or larger than m4/3. Lots of people are still in love with the leica digilux 2. The dlux4 / lx3 /ricoh G200 nearly make it, but they all have the quality associated with the tiny sensors that they have.

So we have a market for a camera (fine if it has interchangeable lenses - even better) - and a perfectly sensible way of making it . . . . . but with two packed markets (small sensor and big sensor) everybody seems to be ignoring the possibilities it offers . . . . .

The point I was trying to make, earlier on, is that the lens is not just the glass. The electronics, the casing thickness, etc., will be more or less the same for all lenses - the lens 'size' is not necessarily proportional to the sensor size, in particular if it is an interchangeable system. You can not scale nature .

Hi Ray - the lens size is very much proportional to the sensor size (I agree it isn't the only factor). You can't make a small zoom lens for a big sensor - you can make a very small zoom lens for a very small sensor.

Godfrey - of course, you may be right that there is not a large market for such a camera (I don't personally agree). However, even if the market is 1/4 of that for a m4/3 / aps-C sized sensor. . . . considering the plethora of these cameras appearing right now I would still see it as worth approaching.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Anybody remember this one?

Imagine that camera with a current technology sensor. Used to be 1/1.8" and 13MP/cm2

 

[jonoslack]

Anybody remember this one?

Imagine that camera with a current technology sensor. Used to be 1/1.8" and 13MP/cm2

Of course - splendid - as was the 8080
Just the sort of thing I'm thinking about
But why a 1/1.8" sensor? (which is about the size of the G11 sensor)

Why not a 1" sensor?

(1.1/8" = 9 x 7mm
(1" = 16 x 12mm)

then one could have really stellar image quality - you might need to lose a stop on the lens, but that should be made up for with better high ISO.

all the best

 

[tokengirl]

Anybody remember this one?

You bet! That was the first digital camera in this household. That was a darn good camera. Almost all of our best fishing pictures were taken with that camera.

 

[raywest]

I think it would help if we actually had a list of the sensor sizes we are talking about - I thought 1/1.8" was 7.18x5.32mm (based on a chart I found on the web) but then Canon and others refer to APS-C size, but their sensors are smaller. Anyway, guessing that the Olympus you have shown has an 8.8 by 6.6mm sensor, (2/3") that's a diagonal of 11mm. Now, a 16 by 12 gives a diagonal of 20mm, more or less twice the size (you'd better check my sums...).

Anyway, if the Camedia fitted in your pocket, then if you want the same relative zoom ratio/ aperture, then I'm pretty certain a larger version won't, the lens would probably need to be twice the size - look at the size of the glass cf the extension tube mechanism in the pictures - and for a larger sensor (bigger glass needed and to get the same apparent view you'd have to shove it out further - either more short tubes, or longer tubes.

Why not draw up a specification of what you want? Then we could interpolate the sizes between what is available, and maybe determine if it is physically possible, at a price that some may be prepared to pay. (i.e. more or less anything is possible, if you can pay for it)

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[jonoslack]

I think it would help if we actually had a list of the sensor sizes we are talking about - I thought 1/1.8" was 7.18x5.32mm (based on a chart I found on the web)

beg pardon - you're quite right - I was muddling up the diagonal.

Why not draw up a specification of what you want? Then we could interpolate the sizes between what is available, and maybe determine if it is physically possible, at a price that some may be prepared to pay. (i.e. more or less anything is possible, if you can pay for it)

Best wishes,

Ray

Hi Ray
I don't want ANYTHING in particular - what I'm saying is that there is a big gap in sensor sizes between about 18x13 and about 8x6, and that there is a big gap in results between the largest cameras with a small sensor (G11) and the smallest cameras with a large sensor (m4/3) and that the sizes inbetween give really good opportunities of larger sensors in smaller cameras. Which are being ignored. I don't really see that it's arguable

If you're having trouble with the sizes:
Dpreview sensor size page
Gives you quite a good idea - I'm basing my thoughts on the tiny body size of the NEX (which has a large APS-c sized sensor) and a zoom lens considerably smaller than the kit zooms on the m4/3 cameras, and I would have thought that something very small with a sensor in between these sizes would be eminently possible, desirable and saleable.

I'm not asking for a competitor for a GF1 with a 20 f1.7 - it's great as it is, and there is, anyway, competition from Samsung, Sony and Leica already.

 

[tom in mpls]

Well, I agree that the GF1 with the 20 f1.7 is a great combo...I'd like something small enough to slip into a coat pocket or carry easily with a decent quality zoom lens...

Aha! Yes, now that you've better defined what your "in-between" must have, I will agree with you. Wouldn't it be great?

I still have one reservation about a sensor smaller than the 4/3. That is the relative increase in the minimum DOF due to the requirement for very short focal length lenses.

 

[Terry]

The funny thing is the missing camera is in some ways sort of already here we just all wrote it off. I know Jono is talking about a bigger sensor than 1/1.8" sensor in a compact body but think about the Ricoh GXR. When you are in good light and can deal with a small sensor, you get a longer zoom on a smaller sensor. As the light drops low and higher ISO capability it a must you change out your lens/sensor unit and you get something optimized for low light. I'm not saying right now the GXR is optimized and that each unit gives good performance but that is one way to keep the size in check and allow you to get optimal results in different conditions.

I loved my Digilux 2 and can certainly deal with the 2/3 sensor. However, much has been written about that camera and how large the lens would need to be to keep it fast and good on a bigger sensor.

I have the NEX5 here now and last night I held up my little Voigtlander 35mm f2.5 lens. It is an absolutely teeny tiny lens and I look forward to seeing how some of these do on the NEX. I fully expect like m4/3 the corners to be dreadful. This just makes me wish someone (Leica are you listening) could take the micro lens technology to the Live View camera experience.

I know this is rambling.....

 

[jonoslack]

HI Terry

The funny thing is the missing camera is in some ways sort of already here we just all wrote it off. I know Jono is talking about a bigger sensor than 1/1.8" sensor in a compact body but think about the Ricoh GXR. When you are in good light and can deal with a small sensor, you get a longer zoom on a smaller sensor. As the light drops low and higher ISO capability it a must you change out your lens/sensor unit and you get something optimized for low light. I'm not saying right now the GXR is optimized and that each unit gives good performance but that is one way to keep the size in check and allow you to get optimal results in different conditions.

Well, I completely agree that Ricoh are in a good position to produce what I would like to see . . . . but they haven't done it yet! the 24-72 has a small sensor, and the 50 has a large one - what we want is something the size of the 50, with a zoom and a sensor that's somewhere inbetween (it really shouldn't be too much of a problem)!

I loved my Digilux 2 and can certainly deal with the 2/3 sensor. However, much has been written about that camera and how large the lens would need to be to keep it fast and good on a bigger sensor.

To be honest, I'd settle for a 2/3 sized sensor with a lens like the digilux2 - they could make it 12 mp, which would have a much better pixel density than the likes of the G11 - bring it on!

The very fact that so many people still love the camera proves it's desirability, how would you like one with a 900,000 pixel fast high quality LCD, video, an evf like the G2 and image quality half way between a G11 and a GF1 - I know I'd like one - but, 2/3 sensors haven't been used in any new camera for over 2 years! Still, one might perhaps a like a sensor a little larger - with a lens either a little larger and or perhaps slightly slower (after all, high ISO is so much better these days).

I have the NEX5 here now and last night I held up my little Voigtlander 35mm f2.5 lens. It is an absolutely teeny tiny lens and I look forward to seeing how some of these do on the NEX. I fully expect like m4/3 the corners to be dreadful. This just makes me wish someone (Leica are you listening) could take the micro lens technology to the Live View camera experience.

I know this is rambling.....

Fine, but surely this is just another competitor for the Gf1 or the Samsung - but to be honest, if I want stellar performance on a small(ish) camera, I'd rather use an M9 with a 35 summarit - it's really pretty small.

 

[jonoslack]

Aha! Yes, now that you've better defined what your "in-between" must have, I will agree with you. Wouldn't it be great?

I still have one reservation about a sensor smaller than the 4/3. That is the relative increase in the minimum DOF due to the requirement for very short focal length lenses.

Hi Tom
but the DOF cuts both ways - I'm not suggesting that this should be a replacement for the M9 (far from it). But smaller sensors are great for close up or macro, and there are times when one doesn't really want a small DOF.

But it isn't so much what I want - the point was that there clearly are opportunities for an 'in-between' sized sensor.

 

[Terry]

Jono,
I've always said with the Digilux 2 , leave the body, leave the lens put current sensor tech, EVF tech, LCD tech and image processing engine and I would be first in line.

 

[Godfrey]

Of course - splendid - as was the 8080
Just the sort of thing I'm thinking about ...

I had an Olympus C8080WZ. It made very nice JPEG files, was atrociously slow on raw capture, had a horrible little viewfinder which was impossible to see well enough with to focus manually, and had control ergonomics that made me so frustrated I sold the darn thing in three months.

But, to the point of this thread, it was larger and heavier than my Pentax *ist DS DSLR. It certainly wasn't small and light, nor would it fit in your pocket unless your pocket was about the size of a camel's feed bag.

Why is that "just the sort of thing I'm thinking about" ???

 

[jonoslack]

I had an Olympus C8080WZ. It made very nice JPEG files, was atrociously slow on raw capture, had a horrible little viewfinder which was impossible to see well enough with to focus manually, and had control ergonomics that made me so frustrated I sold the darn thing in three months.

But, to the point of this thread, it was larger and heavier than my Pentax *ist DS DSLR. It certainly wasn't small and light, nor would it fit in your pocket unless your pocket was about the size of a camel's feed bag.

Why is that "just the sort of thing I'm thinking about" ???

Actually Godfrey, although it was heavier (724gm) than the *ist (650gm) that was with a lens ( which the Pentax didn't have), It was however smaller (4.9"x3.3") as opposed to (5.1"x3.7"). I wouldn't be pedantic, but I know you like to have things right! It had a useful 28-140 f2.8 zoom and you might not have liked the ergonomics, but others would certainly disagree (it was still going for a decent price on ebay long after having been discontinued).

The reason I said that is because it was a compact camera which produced decent results with the sort of pixel density I was reckoning on - I was thinking of it in the context of it's time (6 years ago) - never had one myself, but I do remember the Iraq war photographer who produced wonderful results with 5 of them.

But . . . . I obviously presented my thesis really badly - I wasn't arguing for any specific camera (although I'd like a compact camera with a fairly good IQ and really good zoom lens personally).

The point was that there is a lot which could be done with the gap in sensor size (which is substantial and surprising and has grown) - and, to be honest, I think it's incontrovertible, and certainly nobody has made a cogent argument against the idea.

 

[tom in mpls]

Hi Tom
but the DOF cuts both ways - I'm not suggesting that this should be a replacement for the M9 (far from it). But smaller sensors are great for close up or macro, and there are times when one doesn't really want a small DOF.

But it isn't so much what I want - the point was that there clearly are opportunities for an 'in-between' sized sensor.

Jono, of course this proposed camera or cameras would not replace my M9, I agree.

The point was that there is a lot which could be done with the gap in sensor size (which is substantial and surprising and has grown) - and, to be honest, I think it's incontrovertible, and certainly nobody has made a cogent argument against the idea.

Hmm. You're presenting a bit of a moving target, it seems to me. GF1 is a great camera but you're looking for a zoom. Fair enough, I'd like that, too, and one would suspect a camera with a "between" sensor could be created with a truly compact but high quality zoom. My point is that the small sensor cameras are badly limited at, say, 35 or 55mm equivalent FOV by the deep DOF. If I'm satisfied with that, I might as well stick with a compact small sensor camera. But isn't it your point that you want something better? If the camera makers would stick to 5-6mpx on the tiny sensors, they can produce great photos--but the deep FOV cannot be overcome. I think the benefit of the "between" size sensor is it's ability to add the OPTION of narrower DOF. Talking about macro shooting introduces a "special case"; I want a small camera that does a high quality job for "general" photography. I maintain that the sensor should be large enough to preserve the narrow DOF option, or else why not just stick to small sensor and ask for fewer pixels? 12mp is counterproductive on this type of camera.

I enjoy a good argument. Let me be clear, though, that I do agree wholeheartedly with your basic premise that the sensor size "gap" presents an enormous opportunity that has curiously been ignored by the camera manufacturers.

 

[jonoslack]

Jono, of course this proposed camera or cameras would not replace my M9, I agree.


Hmm. You're presenting a bit of a moving target, it seems to me. GF1 is a great camera but you're looking for a zoom. Fair enough, I'd like that, too, and one would suspect a camera with a "between" sensor could be created with a truly compact but high quality zoom. My point is that the small sensor cameras are badly limited at, say, 35 or 55mm equivalent FOV by the deep DOF. If I'm satisfied with that, I might as well stick with a compact small sensor camera. But isn't it your point that you want something better? If the camera makers would stick to 5-6mpx on the tiny sensors, they can produce great photos--but the deep FOV cannot be overcome. I think the benefit of the "between" size sensor is it's ability to add the OPTION of narrower DOF. Talking about macro shooting introduces a "special case"; I want a small camera that does a high quality job for "general" photography. I maintain that the sensor should be large enough to preserve the narrow DOF option, or else why not just stick to small sensor and ask for fewer pixels? 12mp is counterproductive on this type of camera.

I enjoy a good argument. Let me be clear, though, that I do agree wholeheartedly with your basic premise that the sensor size "gap" presents an enormous opportunity that has curiously been ignored by the camera manufacturers.

Well - I think that the DOF argument is a completely different one - we all understand the implications of smaller sensors and can take it or leave it. We all want 'perfect' but that isn't an option (yet, anyway)!

as for the 'less pixels on smaller sensors' argument - I would have made the same one myself a year or two back. But you are always entitled to downsize your 12mp image to 5 or 6, and it seems to me that will produce a better image than a 'native' 5 or 6 mp camera. More sampling is generally better - even if the individual samples aren't. Looking at a 12mp image at 100% is always going to be worse than a 5mp image from the same size sensor . . . but then one is looking at more of the image!

for instance - 100% viewing of 1600 ISO shots with the M9 and the X1 clearly show that the X1 does a better job . . . . . but if you downsize your M9 shot to 12 mp, and then look again, strangely things have changed!

But perhaps this is rather beside the point!

My target isn't really moving although the discussion may be, and my personal desire from the thesis is a small camera with a decent IQ and a good medium range zoom - but that isn't the thesis - the thesis is simple:

There is a large range of unused sensor sizes which could be usefully employed to produce small cameras with reasonably high IQ

 

[tom in mpls]

There is a large range of unused sensor sizes which could be usefully employed to produce small cameras with reasonably high IQ

+1

 

[Godfrey]

Actually Godfrey, although it was heavier (724gm) than the *ist (650gm) that was with a lens ( which the Pentax didn't have), It was however smaller (4.9"x3.3") as opposed to (5.1"x3.7"). I wouldn't be pedantic, but I know you like to have things right! It had a useful 28-140 f2.8 zoom and you might not have liked the ergonomics, but others would certainly disagree (it was still going for a decent price on ebay long after having been discontinued).

The reason I said that is because it was a compact camera which produced decent results with the sort of pixel density I was reckoning on - I was thinking of it in the context of it's time (6 years ago) - never had one myself, but I do remember the Iraq war photographer who produced wonderful results with 5 of them.

But . . . . I obviously presented my thesis really badly - I wasn't arguing for any specific camera (although I'd like a compact camera with a fairly good IQ and really good zoom lens personally).

The point was that there is a lot which could be done with the gap in sensor size (which is substantial and surprising and has grown) - and, to be honest, I think it's incontrovertible, and certainly nobody has made a cogent argument against the idea.

Comparing C8080WZ against Canon 10D and Panasonic FZ10:

You can quote all the numbers you want. The C8080 was a big fat pig of a point and shoot. It made nice pictures but compared to Pentax *ist DS was a lump. It's almost as big as the Canon 10D, which dwarfs the *ist DS. It was most certainly NOT compact, or light.

Saying "there are a whole lot of unused sensor sizes out there" is kinda like saying, "there are a whole bunch of integers to use." It's not like there's some great conspiracy of chip makers hiding all these wonderful imager chips from the camera makers and keeping us from getting what we want. Format sizings are a dime a dozen ... real silicon takes massive money in development to produce.

It's a silly notion that you're going to get some massive improvement in image quality coupled with a big reduction in lens size by going from a 6x8 mm to a 7x11 mm or 9x12 mm sensor. 13x17.3 is a quadrupling in photosite area of a 2/3" sensor (6.66x8.88 mm) which nets, using the same technology, an effective 2 stop sensitivity boost with the same sensor technology and photosite size.

What's needed to get what you want isn't a bunch on intermediary sensor formats but research to make the 1/1.8" and other small sensors more sensitive. Where would you rather the manufacturers put their money?

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Of course - splendid - as was the 8080
Just the sort of thing I'm thinking about
But why a 1/1.8" sensor? (which is about the size of the G11 sensor)

Why not a 1" sensor?

(1.1/8" = 9 x 7mm
(1" = 16 x 12mm)

then one could have really stellar image quality - you might need to lose a stop on the lens, but that should be made up for with better high ISO.

all the best

The reason why I mentioned the 5050 (could as well have been the 7070, but that model had a slower although wider lens), was its compactness, form factor and the fact that it had an OVF. Importantly, it also had the pixel pitch that you're looking for. For most amateur uses, 5-6 MP is enough, and with current technology, even a sensor of 1/1.8" would manage very good results up to, and probably beyond, ISO1600.

By There's no way around increasing the size of the lens if you increase the size of the sensor, at least if you want a zoom, unless you make it considerably slower. The Sigma DP1/2 and the Leica X1 have proved that beyond reasonable doubt.

There is almost such a camera available today, the G11, and Canon even reduced the number of pixels from the G10. At 1/1.7", the sensor is even slightly larger than on the C5050. A G11 with even less pixels, a slightly larger sensor (which would probably have to come at the cost of a shorter zoom) Fuji sensor technology and a decent OVF, and at least I would look upon it as a very decent proposition.

But if technology continues to evolve, and it usually does, even a G12 with the same number of pixels and the same sensor size will be very nice indeed. Pity about that awful viewfinder

And as for a Fuji sensor in a Canon; I guess we can forget about that :ROTFL: