From the Sublime to the Ridiculous - the missing camera

[raywest]

My view is if it won't fit easily in a jacket pocket, then I may as well take a dslr. I bought the Sigma dp1s for that, it is about as big as I want as an 'always with me' camera. I would prefer an evf to an lcd screen on any camera, although a hinged lcd screen can be useful in some circumstances. It was my intention to sort of modify the camera to take other lenses, but the shutter is integral with the lens, so that would make it more tricky.

Adding the external optical viewfinder, or the macro attachment is more trouble than it is worth, and requires another pocket. If I need another pocket, I may as well put in a couple of lenses too, so it is quicker to just grab the bag with the dslr and lenses. I guess everybody has a different requirement, but at the moment I think you have to spend a lot more money to get a comparable image quality, at any size of camera. However, there are numerous other downsides to the design of that camera, as far as I'm concerned, and they are not all price related. (Not sure if it is an urban legend, or true, but the inventor of the original Sony walkman sold the idea to the directors by saying it would fit in a jacket pocket - but he had special pockets made)

It is possible to put a larger than 4/3 sensor in a jacket pocket-able camera. The next size down would be something to fit in a shirt pocket. What size pocket would a camera with a 12 by 8 sensor fit? If it requires a jacket pocket, then that can be achieved with a 4/3 or larger size sensor.

Best wishes,
Ray

(The APS-C size seems to be marketing hype - it covers the range, more or less between 4/3 and full frame - not like the APS for film.)

 

[jonoslack]

My view is if it won't fit easily in a jacket pocket, then I may as well take a dslr.

Or an M9 in my case. Quite agree.

However, an Olympus pen with the 14-42 kit lens does, just fit in a jacket pocket . . . so it seems to me reasonable logic to think that something with a sensor size half way between that and a G11 could easily fit in a jacket pocket.

But this is definitely :deadhorse: territory . . . . I've obviously not convinced anyone at all that those middle sensor sizes are worth using (except perhaps Jorgen).

It's going to be the hottest day of the year, so I'm going out to play silly-buggers with a v-lux 20 and a minute sensor :salute:

see you all in another thread.

 

[kevinparis]

jono... maybe this is a possibility

http://43rumors.com/ft5-awesome-new...ns-and-innovative-leica-designed-rangefinder/

K

 

[jonoslack]

jono... maybe this is a possibility

http://43rumors.com/ft5-awesome-new...ns-and-innovative-leica-designed-rangefinder/

K

Sounds fab doesn't it - if it's possible to make it small enough, then I'll be onto it like a wotsit . . . . . not because of the rangefinder - but because of the idea of having something really small with a useable zoom.
We shall see.

 

[kevinparis]

somehow doubt the rangefinder part - more likely a OVF with framelines i would have thought.. but we will see... after all its just a rumor...

K

 

[jonoslack]

somehow doubt the rangefinder part - more likely a OVF with framelines i would have thought.. but we will see... after all its just a rumor...

K

I quite agree - the point of this thread was the desire for a pocketable camera with decent IQ and a zoom - if Panasonic can do it with a 4/3 sensor then so much the better.

 

[tom in mpls]

I quite agree - the point of this thread was the desire for a pocketable camera with decent IQ and a zoom - if Panasonic can do it with a 4/3 sensor then so much the better.

:thumbs:Aha! Jono, I'm writing this while smiling. I think you took my comments to be confrontational which had not been my intent. So I agree that the GF1 meets only the first 2 of the desired criteria, and I agree that it would be great to have the camera that met them all; if 4/3 can't do it, then a "between" sensor certainly should. Someone will make one for us. Some day.

 

[kevinparis]

my ideal would be a digital Oly XA with a 4/3 sensor... a classic design and i would have thought possible with current tech

K

 

[jonoslack]

:thumbs:Aha! Jono, I'm writing this while smiling. I think you took my comments to be confrontational which had not been my intent. So I agree that the GF1 meets only the first 2 of the desired criteria, and I agree that it would be great to have the camera that met them all; if 4/3 can't do it, then a "between" sensor certainly should. Someone will make one for us. Some day.

Hi Tom
I wasn't really thinking you as being confrontational (although some others might have been). Still, reflection suggests to me that this is all at the whim of sensor manufacturers. and if they don't see a market for an in between camera, then nobody is going to be able to build one!

 

[Godfrey]

... Still, reflection suggests to me that this is all at the whim of sensor manufacturers. and if they don't see a market for an in between camera, then nobody is going to be able to build one!

It's not whim: it's money. If a manufacturer don't see the multiple-tens-of-millions-of-dollars expenditure required to design, prototype, and come to production on a new sized sensor is going to return a significant profit, why should they do it? Never mind the multiple-tens-of-millions-of-dollars expenditure that the camera companies will have to spend to develop a new in-between camera model and lens...

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.

 

[jonoslack]

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

 

[Godfrey]

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. ;-)

 

[jonoslack]

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.

 

[Godfrey]

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.

 

[jonoslack]

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

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.

 

[Godfrey]

- 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-4/PoA-lighthouse-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.

 

[jonoslack]

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.

 

[Godfrey]

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!" ];-)

 

[jonoslack]

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!).

 

[tom in mpls]

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