Re: Very Compact camera with a fast lens?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mark Weaver, Jul 24, 2003.

  1. Mark Weaver

    Mark Weaver Guest

    "Roland Karlsson" <> wrote in message
    >
    > Sensors with good ISO 400 (or even 800) are not small.
    >
    > Cameras with larger sensors cannot have compact lenses.
    >


    Why not? After all, there are plenty of compact cameras with compact lenses
    and full-frame 'sensors' (they're called compact 35mm cameras).

    Mark
     
    Mark Weaver, Jul 24, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mark Weaver

    Paul Jeffree Guest

    Mark Weaver wrote:
    > "Roland Karlsson" <> wrote in message
    >>
    >> Sensors with good ISO 400 (or even 800) are not small.
    >>
    >> Cameras with larger sensors cannot have compact lenses.
    >>

    >
    > Why not? After all, there are plenty of compact cameras with compact
    > lenses and full-frame 'sensors' (they're called compact 35mm cameras).
    >
    > Mark


    But not with f2.8 telephoto, surely? My nicely compact 35 is f8 max at
    120mm :-(

    --
    Paul J.
    -------
     
    Paul Jeffree, Jul 24, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Paul Jeffree" <> wrote in news:bfoqr4$hf01m$1@ID-
    168336.news.uni-berlin.de:

    > But not with f2.8 telephoto, surely? My nicely compact 35 is f8 max at
    > 120mm :-(
    >


    Yepp - a f2.8 140 mm lens needs a 50 mm aperture, which with
    a 12 elements zoom lens will mean lots of glass.


    Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Jul 24, 2003
    #3
  4. JK <> wrote in news::

    > I don't need great telephoto, just something with a 50mm or 60mm
    > equivalent lens.
    > I don't even need a zoom. I do want a digital camera that performs well
    > in low light that is small.
    >


    Hmm .. then only the good ISO 400 (pref. ISO 800)
    is the only thing left that rules out small cameras.



    Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Jul 24, 2003
    #4
  5. "Mark Weaver" <> writes:

    >Why not? After all, there are plenty of compact cameras with compact lenses
    >and full-frame 'sensors' (they're called compact 35mm cameras).


    Two problems. First, all digital cameras with large sensors are SLRs,
    which are physically large. Someone *could* build a large-sensor camera
    with a fixed lens, like a 35 P&S, but they have not.

    Second, you'll find that the 35 P&S that are most compact have fixed
    focal length lenses - some of them are indeed f/2.8. But if you want a
    zoom lens, either you get a max telephoto max aperture a lot smaller
    than f/2.8, or you get a physically large lens that makes the camera
    large.

    What he seems to want probably doesn't exist in 35, let alone digital.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Jul 24, 2003
    #5
  6. If your main concern is compactness and f/2.8 speed in the 40-50mm
    focal length range, plus good low light capability, the Sony DSC-V1 is
    probably something you should look at. It's also one of the fastest
    handling compact-size digital cameras on the market.

    From pictures I've seen with the V1, ISO 200 is pretty clean, ISO 400
    is still usable. It also supports ISO 800 but that's getting pretty
    noisy.

    Godfrey


    > JK <> wrote in news::
    >
    > > I don't need great telephoto, just something with a 50mm or 60mm
    > > equivalent lens.
    > > I don't even need a zoom. I do want a digital camera that performs well
    > > in low light that is small.
    > >
     
    Godfrey DiGiorgi, Jul 24, 2003
    #6
  7. Mark Weaver

    JK Guest

    It is not very compact though. I am talking about shirt pocket sized. I
    like the size of the Sony U20, but they don't even tell you what ISOs
    the camera operates at. The f2.8 lens is interesting, but wider angle
    than I want.

    Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:

    > If your main concern is compactness and f/2.8 speed in the 40-50mm
    > focal length range, plus good low light capability, the Sony DSC-V1 is
    > probably something you should look at. It's also one of the fastest
    > handling compact-size digital cameras on the market.
    >
    > From pictures I've seen with the V1, ISO 200 is pretty clean, ISO 400
    > is still usable. It also supports ISO 800 but that's getting pretty
    > noisy.
    >
    > Godfrey
    >
    > > JK <> wrote in news::
    > >
    > > > I don't need great telephoto, just something with a 50mm or 60mm
    > > > equivalent lens.
    > > > I don't even need a zoom. I do want a digital camera that performs well
    > > > in low light that is small.
    > > >
     
    JK, Jul 24, 2003
    #7
  8. JK <> wrote in news::

    > It is not very compact though. I am talking about shirt pocket sized. I
    > like the size of the Sony U20, but they don't even tell you what ISOs
    > the camera operates at. The f2.8 lens is interesting, but wider angle
    > than I want.
    >


    This thingie has a 1/2.7 inch sensor.
    It will not be useful att ISO 400.
    My guess is at ISO 50 or lower for this camera.

    Hmmm .. I wonder if you not are searching
    in the wrong end of things. You need something
    that has a normal lens (i.e. 50 eq) and is
    small and can be used in dim lighting. You
    don't need zoom. Is that a correct guess?
    In that case - a fast lens in a small body
    is the best bet.

    Minolta Dimage Xt or X20 maybe?
    Olympus C 4040 or 3040 or 2040 maybe.
    Canon A70 or A60 or A40 or A30 or A20 or A10 or S50 or S45 or S40 or S30?

    Hard to find anything with fast lens without zoom.
    Weird, but that is a fact.


    Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Jul 24, 2003
    #8
  9. Mark Weaver

    JK Guest

    Roland Karlsson wrote:

    > JK <> wrote in news::
    >
    > > It is not very compact though. I am talking about shirt pocket sized. I
    > > like the size of the Sony U20, but they don't even tell you what ISOs
    > > the camera operates at. The f2.8 lens is interesting, but wider angle
    > > than I want.
    > >

    >
    > This thingie has a 1/2.7 inch sensor.
    > It will not be useful att ISO 400.
    > My guess is at ISO 50 or lower for this camera.
    >
    > Hmmm .. I wonder if you not are searching
    > in the wrong end of things. You need something
    > that has a normal lens (i.e. 50 eq) and is
    > small and can be used in dim lighting. You
    > don't need zoom. Is that a correct guess?
    > In that case - a fast lens in a small body
    > is the best bet.
    >
    > Minolta Dimage Xt or X20 maybe?
    > Olympus C 4040 or 3040 or 2040 maybe.


    I am thinking about shirt pocket sized.

    >
    > Canon A70 or A60 or A40 or A30 or A20 or A10 or S50 or S45 or S40 or S30?
    >
    > Hard to find anything with fast lens without zoom.
    > Weird, but that is a fact.


    I know. It is annoying. I guess most people prefer a slow zoom to a fast prime
    lens.
    :-(

    >
    >
    > Roland
     
    JK, Jul 24, 2003
    #9
  10. JK <> wrote in news::

    > I know. It is annoying. I guess most people prefer a slow zoom to a fast
    > prime lens.
    >


    Yepp - I have just posted a new thread about my dream camera.

    A 4/3 or a APS size sensor with a fast and sharp prime lens.
    This camera could be made VERY small and should take pictures
    that are better than almost anything you can make today.



    Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Jul 24, 2003
    #10
  11. I played with a U20 and found it a bit too limiting for my needs. I
    also find the V1 a little larger than I want for a compact, but I'm not
    hooked on shirt pocket size ... Pants pocket size is enough for me. For
    shirt pocket size, nothing beats a Minox EC. ;-)

    I chose the Konica KD500Z. It's lens is effective 39-105mm, f/2.8 at
    the 39mm end where I'll use it most. It's small and light, about the
    same size as a Minox 35 film camera. The ISO sensitivity is relatively
    low, but then again an f/2.8 lens even with ASA 100 film can do some
    good stuff. Everyone I know who has used one has liked it, so I decided
    to go for it.

    It should be arriving today if I'm lucky, so within the next few days
    I'll be posting some pictures. I like doing low-light stuff too, so you
    can judge for yourself whether it is sufficiently flexible for your
    needs.

    Godfrey

    In article <>, JK <>
    wrote:

    > It is not very compact though. I am talking about shirt pocket sized. I
    > like the size of the Sony U20, but they don't even tell you what ISOs
    > the camera operates at. The f2.8 lens is interesting, but wider angle
    > than I want.
    >
    > Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
    >
    > > If your main concern is compactness and f/2.8 speed in the 40-50mm
    > > focal length range, plus good low light capability, the Sony DSC-V1 is
    > > probably something you should look at. It's also one of the fastest
    > > handling compact-size digital cameras on the market.
    > >
    > > From pictures I've seen with the V1, ISO 200 is pretty clean, ISO 400
    > > is still usable. It also supports ISO 800 but that's getting pretty
    > > noisy.
    > >
    > > Godfrey
    > >
    > > > JK <> wrote in news::
    > > >
    > > > > I don't need great telephoto, just something with a 50mm or 60mm
    > > > > equivalent lens.
    > > > > I don't even need a zoom. I do want a digital camera that performs well
    > > > > in low light that is small.
    > > > >

    >
     
    Godfrey DiGiorgi, Jul 24, 2003
    #11
  12. Mark Weaver

    Mark B. Guest

    "Mark Weaver" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Roland Karlsson" <> wrote in message
    > >
    > > Sensors with good ISO 400 (or even 800) are not small.
    > >
    > > Cameras with larger sensors cannot have compact lenses.
    > >

    >
    > Why not? After all, there are plenty of compact cameras with compact

    lenses
    > and full-frame 'sensors' (they're called compact 35mm cameras).
    >
    > Mark
    >
    >


    Big digital sensors cost more money to manufacture than the small sensors in
    compact digicams. Not so with compact film compacts - the film cost is the
    same.

    Mark
     
    Mark B., Jul 25, 2003
    #12
  13. Well, my Konica KD500Z arrived yesterday afternoon so of course I had
    to give it a shot for available light photography yesterday evening.
    It's an ISO 100 camera and has max aperture f/2.8 at wide angle
    setting, 1 second max exposure time (although I didn't know how to get
    anything longer than 1/8 second until after I was out shooting last
    night...)

    Despite all of that, it's a rather nice camera and produced some
    excellent results in poor lighting without flash. Here's one of them...


    <http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/PAW3/26.htm>

    For me, this is sufficient ... The camera is palm-sized, fits in the
    same cell-phone case that the (original) iPod and Minox 35 fit in
    nicely, and is light and handy to use. At tele settings the lens is
    slower but I'll sacrifice that for the compact size.

    I wish it did have ISO 400 but I guess I'd rather have the lower noise
    of ISO 100 and make 1/4 and 1/2 second exposures. A table top tripod
    will extend the quality of what I can get with it by quite a bit, but
    you might find the Canon S400 a better choice.

    I would say from my own experience that a 3:1 zoom and a decent flash
    are generally more useful to more people than a super-fast lens in a
    point and shoot, as long as the flash has enough oomph to do a good
    job. Fast lenses, particularly longer focal length fast lenses, are
    both expensive and bulky.

    Godfrey


    In article <>, JK <>
    wrote:

    > ...I am thinking about shirt pocket sized.
    > ...I know. It is annoying. I guess most people prefer a slow zoom to a fast prime
    > lens.
     
    Godfrey DiGiorgi, Jul 25, 2003
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Thomas Reed

    Quick Book file access very very very slow

    Thomas Reed, Apr 9, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    799
    Palindrome
    Apr 9, 2004
  2. Alan D.

    Compact digital camera with fast startup and A/F?

    Alan D., May 19, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    857
    BigFoot14W
    May 20, 2004
  3. J. Clarke

    Re: Compact camera with fast auto focus

    J. Clarke, Jul 26, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    473
  4. Fred

    Re: Compact camera with fast auto focus

    Fred, Aug 4, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    549
  5. SMS

    Re: Compact camera with fast auto focus

    SMS, Aug 4, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    2,462
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Sep 13, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page