From the Sublime to the Ridiculous - the missing camera

[jonoslack]

Hi There
This really bugs me!
We all have our 'perfect' camera, (be it a Nikon D3s or a P65+). However, most of us would like a small, decent quality point and shoot with decent image quality.
Some of us have gravitated to M4/3 - or the Sony Nex etc. this is a splendid new format, but it isn't really very small when you put on anything but a pancake lens.

Alternatively one can use something like a Canon G11 or a Panasonic LX3 or a Ricoh GRD. This inevitably has an impact on image quality because the sensor is so small.

There is a huge gulf in sensor sizes - they are either quite big (which includes APS-C and micro 4/3, or else they're tiny . . . why can't we have something in between.

dPreview have an interesting 'pixel density' figure which gives one a really good idea of the sort of results you could expect from a 'state of the art' sensor - here are a few figures which illustrate my point:

n.b. I've rounded figures so as not to muddle things with decimals.

Lots of people like the G11 and the Ricohs - quite right too, but the area of their sensor is about 1/6th of micro 4/3.

There is such a huge mulitplicity of cameras out there - seems to me that an interchangeable lens setup based on a sensor which was something like 12 x 8 would allow really acceptable 'second camera' quality in a very small package.

Whichever way you look at it, that gulf in size between the m4/3 sensor and the G11 sensor must leave scope for something pretty good somewhere in between.

all the best

 

[RomanJohnston]

This is why my D70 never went away. I know it isnt "small" But with the 18 - 70 lens and a backpack ment for cameras on the bottom 1/2, it works well as a carry everywhere camera for me.

I just have a problem going back to a P&S...just cant do it.

Roman

 

[Jack]

Well whatever, nothing's ever perfect. But for now, I LOVE my combo of GF1's and P65+

,

 

[jonoslack]

This is why my D70 never went away. I know it isnt "small" But with the 18 - 70 lens and a backpack ment for cameras on the bottom 1/2, it works well as a carry everywhere camera for me.

I just have a problem going back to a P&S...just cant do it.

Roman

HI Roman
I wasn't suggesting a point and shoot, but something very small, which would, with the recent sensor developments, have better IQ than your D70 in a much smaller package.

Jack
Well - I like my EP2 as well - but the minute you want to put anything longer than 100mm equivalent it does start to get quite big.

To be honest, it wasn't particularly for my benefit, what I was trying to point out is that whilst there are hundreds of cameras in the larger and smaller camps, there must surely be scope for some innovation somewhere in between.

 

[LJL]

Jono,
I agree with you on this, and it is still the main reason I have not settled on something other than my DSLRs. The present digicams (P&S), just seem to give up too much image quality, while the 4/3rd cameras are not all that much smaller than some DSLRs in many cases, and definitely not once you start putting different glass on some. Why no digicam size camera, but with a bigger/better sensor, plus RAW file capabilities and a decent, fast lens, all to really fit neatly in a pocket and truly be able to take everywhere all the time? Still waiting....

LJ

 

[Godfrey]

Personally, I can't see the point of proliferating more and more sensor sizes. Each format brings with it another coupling of Field of View vs Depth of Field ... constantly changing that basic relationship with more intermediary steps leads to confusion IMO.

When my primary tool was 35mm film, my three rock-solid cameras were a Rollei 35S, a Leica M and a Nikon F3/T. Same format sensor and FOV-DOF relationships ... a small fixed lens camera for when I wanted to carry very little, a larger RF camera with interchangeable lenses for when I wanted the versatility, an even larger SLR camera for when I needed even more versatility. This setup worked beautifully for 35 years. When I wanted to change the FOV-DOF relationship, I moved to larger negatives (645, 6x6 cm, etc) or smaller negatives (Minox 8x11mm) which were larger or smaller than 35mm by about the same differences we see between the point and shoot digitals, the FourThirds/APS-C DSLRs, and the so-called "full frame" DSLRs.

With the compact mFT bodies (GF1/E-PL1), 'standard' mFT bodies (G1/GH1/G2) and FourThirds SLRs (E-1, E-3, E-30), I have my "three-sizes of camera, one format" concept back except that even the small ones are interchangeable lens cameras. Eventually I'll acquire a Nikon D700 or equivalent "full-frame" ... the 'new medium format digital standard' as it were ... or larger. Until the technology allows the truly small format sensors to have enough sensitivity to satisfy me, I'll stick with Minox 8x11 for my teensy little camera minimum (I've got enough film in the freezer to last me for some years, so there's time for the small sensor digitals to catch up...).

 

[Maggie O]

Leica X1, anyone?

 

[tokengirl]

Leica X1, anyone?

That's what I was thinking.

 

[raywest]

I'm not sure how much smaller than 4/3 you can go, if you want interchangeable lenses, with AF and all the trimmings. Tolerances get finer, etc. Plus dust gets proportionally bigger, too . I think there is a limit to how small you can make stuff, at least in the real consumer world - it gets too fragile, special materials required, price goes up, no-one buys. To set up a production line for the electronics alone is not cheap. It was much easier to make different sized analogue cameras, but did masses of folk buy the smaller stuff back then?

To make it small, probably would require a touch screen lcd, to get all the controls you want into a small area, then wait for the complaints to occur

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Vivek]

Sublime: G1

Ridiculous: NX10 (plus a host of m4/3rds cams)

~Same pixel density.

 

[jonoslack]

Hi There
Well, a couple of points:
1. Leica X1 - has a sensor principally the same size as the Canon 7d or the Sony Nex, which is fine if you just want a 35mm lens (equivalent), but as soon as you want anything approaching telephoto the lenses are big (look at the zoom lens on the Sony Nex).

Ray - I'm not suggesting miniaturisation - but something with maybe 3 or 4 times the area of the G11 sensor! This is not about camera body size (surely the body of the Nex or the Leica are quite small enough) it's about the lens size.

Godfrey - I wasn't suggesting that it was everyone's panacea - what I was suggesting was that there seem to be some very crowded market places (i.e. small sensor compacts, and now large sensor compacts), but there was a big gap in the middle which could produce something small and versatile, but with much better image quality.

LJ - thank you - there are so many possibilities - something the size of an LX3 or GRD3 with really good image quality - interchangeable lenses in a camera the size of the pentax 110 kit. Of course it's not the final answer to life the universe and everything, but I'm just confused as to why NOBODY is taking advantage of what seems to be an obvious opportunity.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Jono,
I mostly use the GH1 with OM Zuiko lenses which are made for a larger format and a longer flange to sensor distance. Still, they are mostly smaller than the equivalent focal lengths for either 4/3 or m4/3. The 100mm f/2.8 is around the same size as the 50mm macro for 4/3. Pentax, on the other hand, has no problems making pancake lenses for their DSLRs. The 15, 21, 35, 40, 43 and 70 are all tiny, and they are all AF lenses.

So, it's possible to make small lenses, but only Pentax does it, with the exception of the odd pancake from some other manufacturers. And if we add manual focus lenses, Leica lenses are rather compact as well.

Decisions about sensors and sensor sizes are made in big corporations by bean counters that probably haven't used a camera ever. If it can't be made in huge quantities; forget it. Lenses on the other hand, are sometimes made by stubborn enthusiasts at smaller companies like Leica, Pentax and Cosina. That may be one of the reasons why they make some of the best lenses available today, in small to moderate sizes. If one of those three could start making lenses tailor made for m4/3, I think we would see some amazing stuff.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Does the worldwide business model of today not support niche products more than in the past where product recognition would only be as a result of a multinational dealer network and extensive international advertising?

 

[jonoslack]

Jono,
I mostly use the GH1 with OM Zuiko lenses which are made for a larger format and a longer flange to sensor distance. Still, they are mostly smaller than the equivalent focal lengths for either 4/3 or m4/3. The 100mm f/2.8 is around the same size as the 50mm macro for 4/3. Pentax, on the other hand, has no problems making pancake lenses for their DSLRs. The 15, 21, 35, 40, 43 and 70 are all tiny, and they are all AF lenses.

So, it's possible to make small lenses, but only Pentax does it, with the exception of the odd pancake from some other manufacturers. And if we add manual focus lenses, Leica lenses are rather compact as well.

HI Jorgen
But I'm not really talking about another camera which uses nice small prime lenses and certainly not a niche camera - we already have that in m4/3 (and excellent it is too).

But if you want a wide ranging zoom on m4/3, then you're going to get a big lens (aps-c more so), and if you have a wide ranging zoom on a tiny sensor - then you're going to get poorer image quality. At the moment the only options are tiny sensors or large lenses. Clearly it's relevant, people still speak longingly of:


Olympus E10
Leica digilux 2

These were both reasonably compact cameras with 2/3 sensors - not much larger than those found in the G11, but larger nonetheless, and reaching into the territory of my gap (first post). Clearly it would be possible to make the body itself much smaller these days (see the Sony Nex) - but with small zoom lenses as well (of course, it it had interchangeable lenses they could be smaller again).

I just don't see why nobody is taking over that middle ground to produce something which will easily do a good 17" print, and which you really can put in your coat pocket - clearly it's possible.

Interestingly, if you go to dpreview and do a search on cameras with a pixel density between 10 and 20 mp/cm2, then you do get a few cameras, either fuji cameras (s100fs for example) with 2/3" sensors, or else older 6mp cameras with smaller sensors none is more recent than January 2008. They don't even have an option for cameras with a pixel density between 5 and 10!

cameras with pixel density < 5mp cm2 = more than 80
cameras with pixel density 5-10 = none (actually there are now a couple, like the Canon 7D and EOS 55D at around 5.4)
cameras with pixel density 10 - 20 = 10 (but all low MP small sensor and are more than 2.1/2 years old)
cameras with a pixel density of 20 - 30 = more than 80 again
cameras with a pixel density of 30+ = more than 80 again.

effectively, there is a big gap between a pixel density of 5 and of around 25 why?

 

[LJL]

1. Leica X1 - has a sensor principally the same size as the Canon 7d or the Sony Nex, which is fine if you just want a 35mm lens (equivalent), but as soon as you want anything approaching telephoto the lenses are big (look at the zoom lens on the Sony Nex).

This is the baffling part. Leica X1 would be a nice solution if all you wanted was a 42mm (35mm FF equiv.) lens, and since that lens is NOT interchangeable, you are sort of "stuck" with a rather pricey, but otherwise capable snapshot camera. If Leica could offer that same camera, but maybe with something like a 14-60mm f2.8 AF zoom, instead of only the 28mm f2.8 lens, it may have a lot more attractiveness, I think. It is a good small size, has features that make it both pocketable for quick snaps, but is locked into a single focal length, and at a Leica price point. I looked long and hard at it when introduced, and thought it could be that carry-everywhere camera, but I decided that the fixed length lens issue made it no better than just toting my M8 or something, only lacking some of the useful things like AF and maybe a bit more latitude in the CMOS sensor. In my thinking, take the X1, put a decent fast, small zoom on it, maybe drop the price $500-700 or so and you have something that would hit a lot of marks for image quality, carry-ability, useful features (including its AF), etc. I think this is doable....maybe not by Leica, but they have shown a possible solution that could be trim and produce very nice images to complement gear many photogs now use or would like to carry. Just my thoughts.

LJ

 

[jonoslack]

This is the baffling part. Leica X1 would be a nice solution if all you wanted was a 42mm (35mm FF equiv.) lens, and since that lens is NOT interchangeable, you are sort of "stuck" with a rather pricey, but otherwise capable snapshot camera. If Leica could offer that same camera, but maybe with something like a 14-60mm f2.8 AF zoom, instead of only the 28mm f2.8 lens, it may have a lot more attractiveness, I think. It is a good small size, has features that make it both pocketable for quick snaps, but is locked into a single focal length,

Ah, but this is the crunch - you can't make a 24-60 f2.8 zoom for APS that is anything like small enough - look at the kit lens on the Sony NEx - look at my favorite 4/3 lens, the 12-60 (24-120) f2.8 - f3.5 - both small by Nikon terms, but much much too big for a body like that.

and at a Leica price point. I looked long and hard at it when introduced, and thought it could be that carry-everywhere camera, but I decided that the fixed length lens issue made it no better than just toting my M8 or something, only lacking some of the useful things like AF and maybe a bit more latitude in the CMOS sensor. In my thinking, take the X1, put a decent fast, small zoom on it, maybe drop the price $500-700 or so and you have something that would hit a lot of marks for image quality, carry-ability, useful features (including its AF), etc. I think this is doable....maybe not by Leica, but they have shown a possible solution that could be trim and produce very nice images to complement gear many photogs now use or would like to carry. Just my thoughts.

LJ

You echo my desires exactly - but this is where that 1" sensor comes in - decent quality (much better than a G11) but a reasonable size. I agree about the price point (leica can make one for the price of an X1 - they'd certainly sell it). But it would have to be with a sensor which lives in that gap.

 

[LJL]

Ah, but this is the crunch - you can't make a 24-60 f2.8 zoom for APS that is anything like small enough - look at the kit lens on the Sony NEx - look at my favorite 4/3 lens, the 12-60 (24-120) f2.8 - f3.5 - both small by Nikon terms, but much much too big for a body like that.

You echo my desires exactly - but this is where that 1" sensor comes in - decent quality (much better than a G11) but a reasonable size. I agree about the price point (leica can make one for the price of an X1 - they'd certainly sell it). But it would have to be with a sensor which lives in that gap.

Jono,
Therein lies that challenge....create some sort of quality optics similar to what we now see on wide zoom range digicams, but not just reaching into the full-size lens bins for the glass and parts ;-) I have a now ancient Nikon Coolpix 5700. It has that tiny sensor, but at 5MP or so, and a zoom lens that collapses fairly nicely into the body, though not quite as trim as I hoped. The images that camera produces are really quite good, and that tech has advanced significantly in the 6+ years or so. If one has to have glass that outwardly looks like DSLR lenses, then yes, we are not going to see something trim. However, if there are designs that can produce quality imaging in something more compatible with more compact size, even if not DSLR looking, why are we not seeing them? Why not have a fairly compact and somewhat flat body, but have a better lens that may have to move out into position for shooting, but could slip back to flat for storage? All about design and build tolerances, and at this point, it all seems doable, but nobody seems to want to do it

LJ

 

[tokengirl]

Maybe you should just go lenseless.

 

[Godfrey]

.. I wasn't suggesting that it was everyone's panacea - what I was suggesting was that there seem to be some very crowded market places (i.e. small sensor compacts, and now large sensor compacts), but there was a big gap in the middle which could produce something small and versatile, but with much better image quality. ...

Cameras don't need "much better image quality" to sell ... they need lower prices, as a rule, the quality of current cameras is good enough other than for the camera geeks out there .. and that quality gain likely won't appear with any intermediate step between the current bimodal sensor size distribution anyway.

To get a significantly better quality, smaller camera will take a new sensor technology that is enough more sensitive and cheaper to allow a smaller sensor/lens combination the performance you're after.

Perhaps the upcoming nano-dot imager sensor technology will do it.

BTW, I am a photographer, but I'm proud to be called a camera geek too. So don't anyone go saying I insulted them. ];-)

 

[tom in mpls]

Some of us have gravitated to M4/3 - or the Sony Nex etc. this is a splendid new format, but it isn't really very small when you put on anything but a pancake lens.

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.