Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 14, 2010, 8:50 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
Maybe we should make a further distinction, and call some of them ILPS cameras (for Interchangeable Lens Point&Shoot). They seem more oriented to those who are used to holding their camera at arms length to take a picture.

My biggest disappointment with the EVIL cameras is they have not enclosed the sensor, which could easily be done, since the mirror box has been eliminated. This would eliminate the dust problems, permanently, and allow use of standard lenses without adapters. Should work very well to create an environmentally sealed camera.
With a really good EVF and decent autofocus, it would be something I would seriously consider.

brian
The strength of the concept is what can be done, design wise, with new lenses. The much shorter registration distance allows bright, shorter focal length lenses. I find it unfortunate that many manufacturers are stuck with dim zooms. Here is an example in the form of the Panasonic 20mm f1.7.



Look at Leica M lenses to see what should be possible. Panasonic is off to a nice start with nice lenses, Oly is stck on some rather boreing consumer zooms. Anyway, it takes new lenses to realize the benifits of the format. Adapters just hold down the financial pain by allowing the use of existing lenses.

As to the dust thing, I've run 4/3 stuff for years and have yet to notice any dust. For them, it it ain't broke...
__________________
Greg

https://dogsportphoto.smugmug.com/
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2010, 8:18 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

The whole EVIL market along with the superzoom and high-end P+S markets could be totally upset rather easily is someone offered a fixed lens APS-C imager camera and a low ($300 to $400) price.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2010, 9:54 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtclimber View Post
The whole EVIL market along with the superzoom and high-end P+S markets could be totally upset rather easily is someone offered a fixed lens APS-C imager camera and a low ($300 to $400) price.
A physically larger image sensor requires a physically larger lens. It's early yet, but for instance, Sony's optically stabilized SEL-18200 18-200 (E-Mount, for the NEX line) is 75.5mm x 99mm and 524g, while the Panasonic optically stabilized 14-140 is 70mm x 84mm and 460g. An APS-C camera with a fixed lens would need a good zoom range, which will make it big and heavy, and therefore, less desireable. And either of those lenses cost twice your target price for the whole camera.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Aug 15, 2010 at 3:09 PM.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2010, 2:06 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

panasonic seem to be hedging their bridge camera toward their m4/3 camera. As the new lx5 can use the same evf as the gf1. So it gives their bridge cameras a clear progression path toward the m4/3.

But as tcav pointed out, with a megazoom with and aps-c sensor, you are looking at a camera that is at least 900 dollars, and for that price I rather get a dslr or evil that I can change lenses on for great options and control.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2010, 3:35 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
wave01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North West England
Posts: 1,748
Default

IMHO if I wanted a camera that was smaller than a DSLR I would not go for one that had changeable lenses defeats the object to me of having a smaller camera.
When I got my 550d my biggest worry was carrying it around, had it a few months now and it doesnt bother me the I have got used to it.
I have said earlier that there will be a market for these cameras but at there price point now I have the 550d plus kit lens and I got a deal on canon 50 1.8 plus a 55-250 and I will still be cheaper than lumix gh1.
wave01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2010, 1:11 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
RioRico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In mountainous California or Arizona or Guatemala or somewhere.
Posts: 224
Default

I shall speak of film. In the beginning, there was film 70mm wide. And behold, at the request of Thom. Edison, Eastman Kodak split it in half for cine film, and it was 35mm wide. And behold, frames were 24x18mm in size, with margins for sprockets. And then came Leica, with cameras using film frames 24x36mm in size, and then Kodak with cameras for its 135 cartridges. And all was well in the world. (And don't forget that Olympus re-introduced 18x24mm half- or cine-frame cameras.)

I shall speak of frames. A FF (full-frame) camera has a frame (film or sensor) 24x36mm in size. How small can a FF camera be built? Think of tiny 135 folders or rangefinders (RFs), or the Olympus XA or Rollei 35. A HF (half-frame) or APS-C camera has a frame ~24x18mm in size. How small can such cameras be built? Think of the Olympus Pen-FT SLR system, or little Canon RF's and especially the spring-motorized Dial-35. A 110 or m3/4 camera has a frame ~18x24mm. How small can such be built? Think of Instamatics, or of minimal cams barely larger than a 110 cart, or the Pentax 110 SLR system. (And I'd better not mention 6x9cm folders, with frames 5.5x larger than FF frames, yet that collapse smaller than an OM-1.)

OK, enough of that. Smaller sensors with short-register (working distance) lens designs can exist in small packages. But so can large sensors with similarly-designed optics. Limiting factors aren't so much the optics (unless legacy lenses will be used), as much as the rest of the camera's hardware: viewfinder, motors, batteries, etc. Will an EVIL / MILC / ILPS cam always necessarily be oversized for its sensor? I blame AF zooms.
__________________
Too many film+digi cams+lenses, oh my -- Pentax K20D, ZX-M, M42's, P&S's, more
The opposite of LIBERAL is not CONSERVATIVE, but ENSLAVED.
RioRico is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2010, 1:17 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

sony prove that you can get it into a smaller body, but you give up allot of buttons and control, and forget about a flash or a evf. But the lenses on the e-mounts are still large compare to m4/3 or leica's lenses. It is possible to make the size smaller. But is the market will to play the price for those super compact lenses that leica has. Think pentax will have an edge in the aps-c evil with the da limited lens for compact lenses, but they will need a larger body for the inbody AF motors.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:25 PM.