«

On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 23:14:40 GMT, sw2u <> wrote:

>On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:31:10 -0700, irwell <> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 04:09:34 -0500, Ron Hunter <>
>>wrote:
>>
>(snip)
>>
>> Funny thing is that I felt the Nikon P5000 slipping from my hands
>>more than the Sony W100 (similar size to the SD1000), but I agree
>>about the wrist strap.
>
>
>Haven't we reached a point where mini, small, easily pocketable and
>purse-able cameras are already abundant — and miniaturizing cameras
>further will only lead to making them impractical for increasingly
>large segments of the population?
>
>I looked at a nice ultracompact Sony a couple of days ago. It looked
>more like the creation of a jewelry or women's fancy makeup compact
>designer than something a camera designer came up with.
>
>To the good, it even had an optical viewfinder. To the bad, that
>viewfinder was so small as to be virtually useless for most folks over
>30 and all eyeglass wearers. The camera's controls were also tiny,
>evidently scaled to the finger size and dexterity of Japanese high
>school and college girls.
>
>I was never a big fan of the Argus C3 "brick" and other big, heavy
>cameras. But to my mind, and hands, anything smaller than an Olympus
>Pen S is too small. Glitzy styling and dozens of fancy features matter
>little if a camera is difficult to see, use and hold onto because it's
>unnecessarily small.
>
>Camera designers ought to work closely with the public, not go off in
>their studios and cubicles doing their own thing.


Yet the same criteria seem acceptable by the mobile phone
users?

On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 18:15:24 -0700, irwell <> wrote:

>On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 23:14:40 GMT, sw2u <> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:31:10 -0700, irwell <> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 04:09:34 -0500, Ron Hunter <>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>(snip)
>>>
>>> Funny thing is that I felt the Nikon P5000 slipping from my hands
>>>more than the Sony W100 (similar size to the SD1000), but I agree
>>>about the wrist strap.
>>
>>
>>Haven't we reached a point where mini, small, easily pocketable and
>>purse-able cameras are already abundant — and miniaturizing cameras
>>further will only lead to making them impractical for increasingly
>>large segments of the population?
(snip)
>>
>>I was never a big fan of the Argus C3 "brick" and other big, heavy
>>cameras. But to my mind, and hands, anything smaller than an Olympus
>>Pen S is too small. Glitzy styling and dozens of fancy features matter
>>little if a camera is difficult to see, use and hold onto because it's
>>unnecessarily small.
>>
>>Camera designers ought to work closely with the public, not go off in
>>their studios and cubicles doing their own thing.
>
>
>Yet the same criteria seem acceptable by the mobile phone
>users?

The average age of which is probably well under 30, truth be known.
But even there, I think there's a point at which people will start to
turn away from overly miniaturized cell phones.

I recognize that up to a point there's a certain "gee, that's cool"
factor to ever smaller technology packages, both for producers and
consumers. I've noticed going back years that designers and engineers
will do some questionable things simply because they can do them.

The Minox "spy camera" was considered something of a marvel for
decades. It sold for a premium price and filled a specific need. Did
it ever outsell Nikon, Minolta, Pentax or Olympus cameras? Not that I
ever heard of.

I think there were good, understandable reasons for that.

--
sw2U

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 05:41:58 GMT, sw2u wrote:

> The Minox "spy camera" was considered something of a marvel for
> decades. It sold for a premium price and filled a specific need. Did
> it ever outsell Nikon, Minolta, Pentax or Olympus cameras? Not that I
> ever heard of.
>
> I think there were good, understandable reasons for that.

The small size of their negatives was a big negative!

sw2u wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:31:10 -0700, irwell <> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 04:09:34 -0500, Ron Hunter <>
>> wrote:
>>
> (snip)
>> Funny thing is that I felt the Nikon P5000 slipping from my hands
>> more than the Sony W100 (similar size to the SD1000), but I agree
>> about the wrist strap.
>
>
> Haven't we reached a point where mini, small, easily pocketable and
> purse-able cameras are already abundant — and miniaturizing cameras
> further will only lead to making them impractical for increasingly
> large segments of the population?
>
> I looked at a nice ultracompact Sony a couple of days ago. It looked
> more like the creation of a jewelry or women's fancy makeup compact
> designer than something a camera designer came up with.
>
> To the good, it even had an optical viewfinder. To the bad, that
> viewfinder was so small as to be virtually useless for most folks over
> 30 and all eyeglass wearers. The camera's controls were also tiny,
> evidently scaled to the finger size and dexterity of Japanese high
> school and college girls.
>
> I was never a big fan of the Argus C3 "brick" and other big, heavy
> cameras. But to my mind, and hands, anything smaller than an Olympus
> Pen S is too small. Glitzy styling and dozens of fancy features matter
> little if a camera is difficult to see, use and hold onto because it's
> unnecessarily small.
>
> Camera designers ought to work closely with the public, not go off in
> their studios and cubicles doing their own thing.
>
> --
> sw2U
>

I agree that cameras, and cell phones can get TOO small. I can see the
problems if the current trend continues. "Now here IS that darn
camera?" "Oh, yes, there it is, the postage stamp was covering it up."
Sigh.

I think cell phones have already hit the minimum size, and rebounded a
bit. Small is nice, but there can be too much of a good thing. The
same certainly goes for cameras.

BTW, I don't recall the Argus C3 being heavy, but then I was pretty
young when I used one.

sw2u wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 18:15:24 -0700, irwell <> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 23:14:40 GMT, sw2u <> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:31:10 -0700, irwell <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 04:09:34 -0500, Ron Hunter <>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>> Funny thing is that I felt the Nikon P5000 slipping from my hands
>>>> more than the Sony W100 (similar size to the SD1000), but I agree
>>>> about the wrist strap.
>>>
>>> Haven't we reached a point where mini, small, easily pocketable and
>>> purse-able cameras are already abundant — and miniaturizing cameras
>>> further will only lead to making them impractical for increasingly
>>> large segments of the population?
> (snip)
>>> I was never a big fan of the Argus C3 "brick" and other big, heavy
>>> cameras. But to my mind, and hands, anything smaller than an Olympus
>>> Pen S is too small. Glitzy styling and dozens of fancy features matter
>>> little if a camera is difficult to see, use and hold onto because it's
>>> unnecessarily small.
>>>
>>> Camera designers ought to work closely with the public, not go off in
>>> their studios and cubicles doing their own thing.
>>
>> Yet the same criteria seem acceptable by the mobile phone
>> users?
>
> The average age of which is probably well under 30, truth be known.
> But even there, I think there's a point at which people will start to
> turn away from overly miniaturized cell phones.
>
> I recognize that up to a point there's a certain "gee, that's cool"
> factor to ever smaller technology packages, both for producers and
> consumers. I've noticed going back years that designers and engineers
> will do some questionable things simply because they can do them.
>
> The Minox "spy camera" was considered something of a marvel for
> decades. It sold for a premium price and filled a specific need. Did
> it ever outsell Nikon, Minolta, Pentax or Olympus cameras? Not that I
> ever heard of.
>
> I think there were good, understandable reasons for that.
>
> --
> sw2U

I always felt the Minox B should have been sold at either the jewelry,
or gun counters. The construction reminded me of both those areas. It
had some rather special characteristics, and I had a LOT of fun with mine.
I have always liked to take 'candid' shots, and it allowed me to get
those pictures, often without anyone realizing that I had taken their
pictures. Another type of 'spy' use, I guess.

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 05:41:58 GMT, sw2u wrote:
>
>> The Minox "spy camera" was considered something of a marvel for
>> decades. It sold for a premium price and filled a specific need. Did
>> it ever outsell Nikon, Minolta, Pentax or Olympus cameras? Not that I
>> ever heard of.
>>
>> I think there were good, understandable reasons for that.
>
> The small size of their negatives was a big negative!
>
Yes, for the time, but the format is larger than the average P&S camera
sensor, isn't it?

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 03:19:02 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

>> The small size of their negatives was a big negative!
>>
> Yes, for the time, but the format is larger than the average P&S camera
> sensor, isn't it?

For all times. I'd guess that even "noisy" small sensor P&S
cameras have much better resolution and at ISO 100 and ISO 200
produce higher quality images than you'd get from the Minox. But
even small digicams can't be smuggled into places that the little
Minox suppository-cam could easily get into.

ASAAR wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 03:19:02 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>>> The small size of their negatives was a big negative!
>>>
>> Yes, for the time, but the format is larger than the average P&S camera
>> sensor, isn't it?
>
> For all times. I'd guess that even "noisy" small sensor P&S
> cameras have much better resolution and at ISO 100 and ISO 200
> produce higher quality images than you'd get from the Minox. But
> even small digicams can't be smuggled into places that the little
> Minox suppository-cam could easily get into.
>
Well, they weren't THAT small. Grin.
And with fine-grain ASA 25 film, the pictures at snapshot size were
quite detailed.

SMS wrote:

<edited, for brevity>

> At buydig.com the SD1000 is $209, and the A560 is $169. For $40
> difference the SD1000 is worth it, IMVAIO.


Hello, SMS:

I've often wondered...what does "IMVAIO" stand for, anyway? :-J


Cordially,
John Turco <>

Ron Hunter wrote:
>
> sw2u wrote:

<heavily edited, for brevity>

> > I was never a big fan of the Argus C3 "brick" and other big, heavy
> > cameras. But to my mind, and hands, anything smaller than an Olympus
> > Pen S is too small. Glitzy styling and dozens of fancy features matter
> > little if a camera is difficult to see, use and hold onto because it's
> > unnecessarily small.

<edited>

> BTW, I don't recall the Argus C3 being heavy, but then I was pretty
> young when I used one.


Hello, Ron:

I bought a secondhand C3, in the 1980's; haven't used it, since then,
though. Anyway, "sw2u" is half right...the Argus was fairly weighty,
but, not large.


Cordially,
John Turco <>