Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 61 of 61

Thread: From the Sublime to the Ridiculous - the missing camera

  1. #51
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: From the Sublime to the Ridiculous - the missing camera

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post

    I'm am certain there is little significant benefit to an in-between sized sensor. And a lot of cost between startup and delivery of any such product. I'd rather see the manufacturers put that money into developing new, better sensor technologies than just reinventing yet another sensor format for mediocre gains.
    HI Godfrey
    If what you want is a small camera with a decent quality zoom, then there must be a benefit of an in-between sized sensor, and that is certainly what I'd like to see. So I don't agree that the gains would be mediocre.
    On the other hand the rest of your statement is definitely relevant.

    all the best

    Just this guy you know

  2. #52
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,931
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: From the Sublime to the Ridiculous - the missing camera

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    HI Godfrey
    If what you want is a small camera with a decent quality zoom, then there must be a benefit of an in-between sized sensor, and that is certainly what I'd like to see. So I don't agree that the gains would be mediocre.
    On the other hand the rest of your statement is definitely relevant.

    all the best
    The only potential advantage is a lens which can be slightly smaller, maybe 10-20% if you are content with an f/2.8-f/5.6 zoom lens speed.

    If you want a faster zoom lens, eg a constant f/2.8 4x zoom, there is none. Look at the size of the f/2.8 lens in the Sony F707/717, a 5x f/2.8 constant aperture zoom on a 2/3" sensor. That's a smaller sensor than a proposed "median" format between 1/1.8" and FourThirds ... 2/3" = 5.88 x 8.88, 1/1.8" = 5.3x7.2 mm, FourThirds = 13x17.3 mm; a median format would be 10.1 x 13.4 mm ... the 5x zoom with (35mm equivalent) FoV of 38 to 200 mm field of view was bigger than the Panasonic 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 lens deployed to maximum telephoto.

    Suffice it to say that we will disagree on this. It won't happen, I'm darn sure, so I'm willing to eat my hat if a camera of this sort is ever produced and I happen to be wrong. ;-)

  3. #53
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: From the Sublime to the Ridiculous - the missing camera

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    The only potential advantage is a lens which can be slightly smaller, maybe 10-20% if you are content with an f/2.8-f/5.6 zoom lens speed.

    If you want a faster zoom lens, eg a constant f/2.8 4x zoom, there is none. Look at the size of the f/2.8 lens in the Sony F707/717, a 5x f/2.8 constant aperture zoom on a 2/3" sensor. That's a smaller sensor than a proposed "median" format between 1/1.8" and FourThirds ... 2/3" = 5.88 x 8.88, 1/1.8" = 5.3x7.2 mm, FourThirds = 13x17.3 mm; a median format would be 10.1 x 13.4 mm ... the 5x zoom with (35mm equivalent) FoV of 38 to 200 mm field of view was bigger than the Panasonic 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 lens deployed to maximum telephoto.

    Suffice it to say that we will disagree on this. It won't happen, I'm darn sure, so I'm willing to eat my hat if a camera of this sort is ever produced and I happen to be wrong. ;-)
    Well, okay, in the spirit of adventure I'll be willing to eat my hat if it doesn't happen . . . all we need to decide on is the timescale

    But I never said I wanted a faster zoom - not worried by f3.5-f5.6, just a decent range in a small package, don't need 4x, 3x would be fine.

    Hmm the sensor size on the LX3 is about 7.4 x 5.5 (1/1.63 being larger than the 1/1.8) - that lens is f2/f2.8, and is very small.

    I'm sorry Godfrey, I don't think the argument that the lens on the Sony 707/717 is big means that a lens on a median sized sensor has to be big really holds a great deal of water.

    Just this guy you know

  4. #54
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,931
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: From the Sublime to the Ridiculous - the missing camera

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Well, okay, in the spirit of adventure I'll be willing to eat my hat if it doesn't happen . . . all we need to decide on is the timescale

    But I never said I wanted a faster zoom - not worried by f3.5-f5.6, just a decent range in a small package, don't need 4x, 3x would be fine.

    Hmm the sensor size on the LX3 is about 7.4 x 5.5 (1/1.63 being larger than the 1/1.8) - that lens is f2/f2.8, and is very small.

    I'm sorry Godfrey, I don't think the argument that the lens on the Sony 707/717 is big means that a lens on a median sized sensor has to be big really holds a great deal of water.
    Yer' shifting ground, but it doesn't matter. It's not going to happen.

    I expect what will happen will be a couple more fixed lens camera with FourThirds and "APS-C" sensors, most likely with slow zooms, that you'll be ecstatic over.

    With a bit more development, I'd take an X1. Don't like zooms in the first place.

  5. #55
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: From the Sublime to the Ridiculous - the missing camera

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    Yer' shifting ground, but it doesn't matter. It's not going to happen.
    - but you haven't explained why the sony has a huge lens with a slower lens and a smaller sensor than the LX3
    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    I expect what will happen will be a couple more fixed lens camera with FourThirds and "APS-C" sensors, most likely with slow zooms, that you'll be ecstatic over.

    With a bit more development, I'd take an X1. Don't like zooms in the first place.
    Well - I prefer primes from a technical point of view, and I certainly shoot most of my pictures with a leica prime. . . . . . but I like zooms for catching those one off shots when out with the wife / family / friends.

    I've spent a lot of time with the X1 - lots and lots.

    Just this guy you know

  6. #56
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,931
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: From the Sublime to the Ridiculous - the missing camera

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    - but you haven't explained why the sony has a huge lens with a slower lens and a smaller sensor than the LX3.
    Sheesh, Jono: that's simple.

    - The Panasonic LX3 lens has a 2.5:1 zoom range, and relies upon lens correction processing of the raw captured data to help correct rectlinear distortion and chromatic aberrations, which allows a more compact optical design.

    - The Sony F707/717 lens has a 5:1 zoom range with internal focus and zoom so that it remains a fixed, rigid assembly in use. There is no lens correction processing of the raw captured data. It was an excellent performer.

    When I've owned compacts with a zoom lens, I almost always forget there's a zoom lens fitted because the lenses get so slow at the telephoto setting the camera is useless to me. The Sony was an exception, like the Panasonic FZ series too. Both were a long time ago now.


    Point of Ayre Lighthouse, Isle of Man
    © 2004 by Godfrey DiGiorgi

    Captured with Panasonic FZ10, tripod mounted
    ISO 50 @ f/5.7 @ 1/800sec, f=24.8mm (4.1x, 145mm equiv 135)
    AE-Program: compensation -0.3EV, AF: on
    full resolution image: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/IoM...e-0730usFR.jpg
    (no processing applied)


    Well - I prefer primes from a technical point of view, and I certainly shoot most of my pictures with a leica prime. . . . . . but I like zooms for catching those one off shots when out with the wife / family / friends.

    I've spent a lot of time with the X1 - lots and lots.
    I prefer to make photographs with prime lenses, period. Whether I'm catching an off shot, a family party, or doing "serious work" is irrelevant. Good, fast zoom lenses are bulky, heavy, and expensive. I use them only when they're the best option for a particular task.

    Lucky you for spending time with the X1. I've only gotten to hold one for five minutes at the store before the owner snatched it away.
    Last edited by Godfrey; 30th June 2010 at 14:47.

  7. #57
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: From the Sublime to the Ridiculous - the missing camera

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    Sheesh, Jono: that's simple.

    - The Panasonic LX3 lens has a 2.5:1 zoom range, and relies upon lens correction processing of the raw captured data to help correct rectlinear distortion and chromatic aberrations, which allows a more compact optical design.
    So - let's go with that then.

    Just this guy you know

  8. #58
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,931
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: From the Sublime to the Ridiculous - the missing camera

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    So - let's go with that then.
    LOL ... The most often heard complaint from buyers of the LX3 is "why is the zoom range so small?" ... and from the photo equipment geeks on this and other forums, "oh, it must be a deficient lens because it uses lens correction software processing!" ];-)

  9. #59
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: From the Sublime to the Ridiculous - the missing camera

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    LOL ... The most often heard complaint from buyers of the LX3 is "why is the zoom range so small?" ... and from the photo equipment geeks on this and other forums, "oh, it must be a deficient lens because it uses lens correction software processing!" ];-)
    I've never heard anyone complain about the zoom range (though I'm sure that some have). As for lens correction . . .I thought we'd all got used to that (yourself included) in that it's also done with m4/3, hassleblad, leica, and probably everyone else, certainly will be soon.

    But this is a pointless argument Godfrey - you are a perfectionist, and I'm definitely a kludger - never the twain shall meet (at least in discussion of photo gear!).

    Just this guy you know

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,008
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: From the Sublime to the Ridiculous - the missing camera

    Jono, I've changed my mind. I love the GF1, but I want a camera with a bit smaller body and a good but even smaller lens than the 20/1.7. If that requires a "between" sensor, then that's what should be done. I would settle for a fast prime, but a zoom would be great.

    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
    –Ralph Waldo Emerson

  11. #61
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,931
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: From the Sublime to the Ridiculous - the missing camera

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    I've never heard anyone complain about the zoom range (though I'm sure that some have). As for lens correction . . .I thought we'd all got used to that (yourself included) in that it's also done with m4/3, hassleblad, leica, and probably everyone else, certainly will be soon.
    I've heard lots of people complain about the LX3's short zoom range. "if only it had ... " etc. Seems silly to me.

    I'm perfectly comfortable with lens correction software and image processing. To me it's the boon that has completely revitalized photography in many ways.

    But this is a pointless argument Godfrey - you are a perfectionist, and I'm definitely a kludger - never the twain shall meet (at least in discussion of photo gear!).
    Yes, it's pointless. I'm just passing some spare moments in a 'whiskey and tobacco' kinda conversation with this. ;-)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •