Why no real wide angle P&S cameras?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Siddhartha Jain, May 18, 2005.

  1. Was just browsing for wide-angle (<28mm) P&S cameras and there seem to
    be none!! Why is that? No demand or high-cost of developing one to fit
    a P&S cost profile or both?

    - Siddhartha
    Siddhartha Jain, May 18, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Siddhartha Jain

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "Siddhartha Jain" <> writes:
    > Was just browsing for wide-angle (<28mm) P&S cameras and there seem to
    > be none!! Why is that? No demand or high-cost of developing one to fit
    > a P&S cost profile or both?


    Not much demand, difficulty of making wide-angle lenses for such small
    sensors. You can use a video-type wideangle adapter on some digicams
    if you don't mind a ton of distortion.
    Paul Rubin, May 18, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On 18 May 2005 05:48:47 -0700, "Siddhartha Jain" <>
    wrote:

    >Was just browsing for wide-angle (<28mm) P&S cameras and there seem to
    >be none!! Why is that? No demand or high-cost of developing one to fit
    >a P&S cost profile or both?


    Nikon makes an add on FC-E9 Fisheye Converter Len for it's Coolpix
    line. 183 degree of field.
    ******************************************************************

    "The past is foreign country: they do things differently there."

    _The Go-Between_
    L.P. Hartley
    1895 - 1972
    John A. Stovall, May 18, 2005
    #3
  4. Siddhartha Jain wrote:
    > Was just browsing for wide-angle (<28mm) P&S cameras and there seem to
    > be none!! Why is that? No demand or high-cost of developing one to fit
    > a P&S cost profile or both?


    Nikon 8400
    24mm - 85mm zoom, 8MP, excellent image and optical quality.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, May 18, 2005
    #4
  5. Siddhartha Jain

    dylan Guest

    "Siddhartha Jain" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Was just browsing for wide-angle (<28mm) P&S cameras and there seem to
    > be none!! Why is that? No demand or high-cost of developing one to fit
    > a P&S cost profile or both?
    >
    > - Siddhartha
    >


    Ricoh caplio GX at 28mm
    Olympus C-5060 at 27mm-
    dylan, May 18, 2005
    #5
  6. Siddhartha Jain

    Baron Sloan Guest

    "dylan" <> wrote in message
    news:d6fihl$7o3$...
    >
    > "Siddhartha Jain" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Was just browsing for wide-angle (<28mm) P&S cameras and there

    seem to
    > > be none!! Why is that? No demand or high-cost of developing one to

    fit
    > > a P&S cost profile or both?
    > >

    >
    > Ricoh caplio GX at 28mm
    > Olympus C-5060 at 27mm-
    >

    Canon S60 at 28mm.

    But I think <28 actually meant *less* than 28mm.
    Baron Sloan, May 18, 2005
    #6
  7. Siddhartha Jain

    Roy Guest

    "Baron Sloan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "dylan" <> wrote in message
    > news:d6fihl$7o3$...
    >>
    >> "Siddhartha Jain" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > Was just browsing for wide-angle (<28mm) P&S cameras and there

    > seem to
    >> > be none!! Why is that? No demand or high-cost of developing one to

    > fit
    >> > a P&S cost profile or both?
    >> >

    >>
    >> Ricoh caplio GX at 28mm
    >> Olympus C-5060 at 27mm-
    >>

    > Canon S60 at 28mm.
    >
    > But I think <28 actually meant *less* than 28mm.
    >
    >

    Hi,

    You can't really call 28mm on a P & S Size sensor much of a Wide Angle.
    Even at a 1.5 crop they are only equivalent to 42mm on 35 film format.

    The OP was asking if there were any under 28mm, and if not, why not.

    Roy G
    Roy, May 18, 2005
    #7
  8. Siddhartha Jain

    ASAAR Guest

    On Wed, 18 May 2005 22:00:25 GMT, Roy wrote:

    > You can't really call 28mm on a P & S Size sensor much of a Wide Angle.
    > Even at a 1.5 crop they are only equivalent to 42mm on 35 film format.
    >
    > The OP was asking if there were any under 28mm, and if not, why not.


    You've got it backwards. The 28mm the OP was talking about was
    the 35mm equivalent focal length, which is indeed below the typical
    low end of a P&S zoom lens. The actual length of probably ALL P&S
    zoom lenses is well below 28mm. For instance, my Fuji lens at its
    widest only goes down to 37mm (equiv.), but has a true focal length
    of 5.7mm. None of the camera's wide angle focal lengths mentioned
    by previous posters (24mm, 27mm, 28mm) were referring to their
    actual focal lengths, which were actually much lower than these
    numbers.
    ASAAR, May 19, 2005
    #8
  9. Siddhartha Jain

    Confused Guest

    On Wed, 18 May 2005 19:36:32 -0400
    In message <>
    ASAAR <> wrote:

    > <SNIP>


    The OP clearly implied the question in terms of 35mm equivalence...

    You've been to "L" and back, huh. ;^)

    Jeff
    Confused, May 19, 2005
    #9
  10. Siddhartha Jain

    ASAAR Guest

    On Thu, 19 May 2005 00:11:56 GMT, Confused wrote:

    > The OP clearly implied the question in terms of 35mm equivalence...


    Yes. Exactly what I said.


    > You've been to "L" and back, huh. ;^)


    You noticed! :)
    ASAAR, May 19, 2005
    #10
  11. David J Taylor wrote:
    > Nikon 8400
    > 24mm - 85mm zoom, 8MP, excellent image and optical quality.


    24mm is nice but when I said less than 28mm (35mm equivalent) I meant
    more like 12-18mm.

    Something thats 12-45mm is just what I need but the SLR lenses in that
    range are so damn expensive!! :(

    - Siddhartha
    Siddhartha Jain, May 19, 2005
    #11
  12. Siddhartha Jain

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "Siddhartha Jain" <> writes:
    > > Nikon 8400
    > > 24mm - 85mm zoom, 8MP, excellent image and optical quality.

    >
    > 24mm is nice but when I said less than 28mm (35mm equivalent) I meant
    > more like 12-18mm.


    You know, a big obstacle to SLR zooms of that range is distortion.
    But on a P&S, they could use a lens with as much distortion as they
    want (i.e. semi-fisheye at the wide end) and simply correct for it
    in the digital processing before writing out the JPEG file. I wonder
    whether any cameras do that already. They might not admit it.
    Paul Rubin, May 19, 2005
    #12
  13. Siddhartha Jain <> wrote:
    : Was just browsing for wide-angle (<28mm) P&S cameras and there seem to
    : be none!! Why is that? No demand or high-cost of developing one to fit
    : a P&S cost profile or both?

    One problem that I can see is the placement of the lens on P&S cameras. If
    a true wide angle lens is on a small P&S with the front element of the
    lens being very close to the front plane of the camera case, you may get
    the knuckles of the photographer in the edge of the photo. Some people
    have enough trouble holding the camera without puting fingers infront or
    along the edge of the lens as it is. With a wider angle lens the safe
    finger area around the lens shrinks. This is much less of a problem with
    an SLR as the lens extends much further infront of the camera body, and
    the body itself is bigger so the fingers wrap around the body. On many P&S
    cameras the body is thin enough that the camera is held with finger tips
    and the knuckles extend further to the front of the body.

    I doubt if this is the entire reason why they don't go too wide, but it
    makes some sense to me. It probably is not the only reason, but could be a
    contributing factor. :)

    Randy

    ==========
    Randy Berbaum
    Champaign, IL
    Randy Berbaum, May 19, 2005
    #13
  14. Siddhartha Jain wrote:
    > David J Taylor wrote:
    >> Nikon 8400
    >> 24mm - 85mm zoom, 8MP, excellent image and optical quality.

    >
    > 24mm is nice but when I said less than 28mm (35mm equivalent) I meant
    > more like 12-18mm.
    >
    > Something thats 12-45mm is just what I need but the SLR lenses in that
    > range are so damn expensive!! :(
    >
    > - Siddhartha


    You can add a wide-angle adapter that takes you to 18mm rectilinear or 7mm
    fisheye.

    David
    David J Taylor, May 19, 2005
    #14
  15. Siddhartha Jain

    ASAAR Guest

    On Thu, 19 May 2005 09:21:17 +0000 (UTC), Randy Berbaum wrote:

    > I doubt if this is the entire reason why they don't go too wide, but it
    > makes some sense to me. It probably is not the only reason, but could be a
    > contributing factor. :)


    It makes some sense to me too, but if you rule out using an
    ultra-wide lens on P&S cameras that have optical finders, that
    should eliminate the problem. Fingers in the FOV would be seen on
    LDC displays and EVFs, at least in the ones that don't show less
    than 100% of what the sensor sees.
    ASAAR, May 19, 2005
    #15
  16. David J Taylor wrote:
    > You can add a wide-angle adapter that takes you to 18mm rectilinear

    or 7mm
    > fisheye.


    I thought most wide angle adapters for P&S cameras were fisheye.

    - Siddhartha
    Siddhartha Jain, May 19, 2005
    #16
  17. Siddhartha Jain wrote:
    > David J Taylor wrote:
    >> You can add a wide-angle adapter that takes you to 18mm rectilinear
    >> or 7mm fisheye.

    >
    > I thought most wide angle adapters for P&S cameras were fisheye.
    >
    > - Siddhartha


    Not so for the Nikon Coolpix range - both rectilinear and fisheye adapters
    are available, and I'm sure that applies to some other manufacturers'
    ranges as well. The rectilinear components are often quite "serious"
    pieces of glass!

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, May 19, 2005
    #17
  18. "Siddhartha Jain" <> writes:

    > David J Taylor wrote:
    >> You can add a wide-angle adapter that takes you to 18mm rectilinear

    > or 7mm
    >> fisheye.

    >
    > I thought most wide angle adapters for P&S cameras were fisheye.


    Well, there's the subtle distinction between "fisheye" and "severe barrel
    distortion" to consider :). But seriously, the vast majority I've
    seen listed appear to be claiming to be rectilinear.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
    David Dyer-Bennet, May 20, 2005
    #18
  19. David J Taylor wrote:
    > Not so for the Nikon Coolpix range - both rectilinear and fisheye

    adapters
    > are available, and I'm sure that applies to some other manufacturers'


    > ranges as well. The rectilinear components are often quite "serious"


    > pieces of glass!


    Do rectilinear wide-angle adapters work for SLRs as well? Or is there
    is a substantial difference in the quality wrt to a wide angle lens?

    - Siddhartha
    Siddhartha Jain, May 20, 2005
    #19
  20. Siddhartha Jain wrote:
    []
    > Do rectilinear wide-angle adapters work for SLRs as well? Or is there
    > is a substantial difference in the quality wrt to a wide angle lens?
    >
    > - Siddhartha


    I believe the same principle would work (these adapters generally work in
    afocal space like a telescope or binoculars), but if you have the chance
    of interchangeable lenses I suspect the manuafacturers would find that a
    complete new wide-angle lens would not cost a great deal more to produce
    than just an adapter, so the new lens is preferable as the size and weight
    would be less than the combination and the performance would be better as
    well.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, May 20, 2005
    #20
    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. Tyro

    wide angle lens recommendation for sony cameras?

    Tyro, Dec 22, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    512
    Seymore
    Dec 22, 2003
  2. Mike Garner

    Canon wide-angle lenses - Real life situations please?

    Mike Garner, Feb 6, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    610
    Johnny
    Feb 7, 2004
  3. Replies:
    17
    Views:
    470
    Ray Fischer
    Oct 15, 2005
  4. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    717
    Paul Rubin
    Jan 9, 2006
  5. Dauphin de Viennois

    Re: DSLR lenses not good wide open at wide angle?

    Dauphin de Viennois, Jul 16, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    505
    Roy Smith
    Jul 16, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page