Author Topic: How small is too small? (Read 4685 times)

voyager · « **on:** May 30, 2011, 07:15:51 PM »

I've been seeing this discussion on other forums, and considering Panasonic wants to make a GF3 that is even smaller than the GF2, it's a very relevant discussion.

So considering how small the existing cameras are, and how much smaller the G3 is than the G2, etc, how much smaller do you think they can make them before people say that it's too much and stop buying the cameras?

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #1 on:** May 30, 2011, 08:50:33 PM »

For me, the G3 may be too small (Just)... I do like the lager grip on my G1., but, the grip won't stop me at a $600.00 price on the body..
On a GF2, , can't really say, although I may get a EVF less camera to have an option of a more compact camera. But, I like the bit wider cameras.. The E-P3?... We'll see...

adash · « **Reply #2 on:** May 30, 2011, 09:52:20 PM »

The size of Zorki 1/Leica III/E-P1 is just fine. Smaller will be difficult to handle, but still it's just me.

Pat Donnelly · « **Reply #3 on:** May 31, 2011, 03:34:06 AM »

For video and still operation, smaller is better and there is no limit. For human use, we seem to be near the limit if "we is hulking brutes", (WEIHB) like me. Petite ladies though, may enjoy a smaller camera! Small fingers?

Weight wise, the pro versions will be heavier with weather seals etc. but as we all get older, "light weight" becomes less perjorative and more appreciated. So less bulk will offset the pro version weight. We can and do buy complex rigs for video to avoid judder and for "still" to see by starlight! So magnesium rigs or even underwater cases, will make up for size problems for WEIHBs? A veritable industry will arise with "solutions" for all of this.

A lot of Japanese innovation is for young female teens. As it is a marketing feature to distance from CaNikon, this can only continue, especially if Kenko takes off and the rumours of Nikon's smaller sensor format is true.

Did they have such a debate when considering clocks, centuries ago?

cosinaphile · « **Reply #4 on:** May 31, 2011, 05:57:19 AM »

i like a small camera too and would welcome a xz1 sized machine with a 43 sensor as a backup , pocket companion , whai i hate is when these typt machines lose all their buttons and dials, pisses me off!

a bigger sensor tint machine would be welcome look how many truely tiny full frame film cameras like the oly xa minolta tc1 the rolleis and others

but for a system camera i love the size of the e-p1 and gf-1 smaller with the lenses makes no sense

and in the g series from panny i think the g2 rubbeized surface and grip are much better than the g3

popo · « **Reply #5 on:** May 31, 2011, 10:05:35 AM »

I'd say it is too small when I can't fire the shutter any more

Look at the size of an ultra-compact. You can go below that some more. Of course when you have a changeable lens, the mount is one limit. Sensor distance is another.

Buttons are very old school. They make sense to a point, but we're due a new interface I think. Something more than simulating buttons on a touch screen.

Aron · « **Reply #6 on:** May 31, 2011, 10:33:40 AM »

I don't know, just look at how small an Iphone is, I've seen some pretty good pictures come out of a smartphone. I personally prefer a little heft out of a camera, I think my PL-1 is about as small as I'd like out of a camera. I have a P&S and it feels like a toy, I think they could make a very small camera body, but I doubt you could ever make a tiny lens that had any clarity or depth of field to it.

lisandra · « **Reply #7 on:** May 31, 2011, 01:00:55 PM »

I'm a petite lady and the grip.on these small cameras is just annoying to me. You gotta hop them with the tip of your fingers like point and shoots. By th end of the day you have carpal tunnel syndrome. I hate the I phone too, its too small and dinky, that's why I have a chunky EVO 4g, with a better camera too! And besides people seem to forget that the lenses are still the same size so what's the point of smaller and smaller bodies? Unless your happy with just using a pancake, but then why buy interchangeable lens cameras?

voyager · « **Reply #8 on:** May 31, 2011, 02:44:36 PM »

It is interesting to think that there is a limit to how small we can actually make them. I'm sure the designers 8 years ago thought that about the original Canon Digital Rebel.

popo · « **Reply #9 on:** May 31, 2011, 02:54:07 PM »

The iphone is pretty big compared to ultra-compact cameras other than being a little thinner. That's the dimension apple try too hard on and forget everything else. The height will always be limited by the mount. The width can be reduced. The thickness can be reduced to a point. Yes, the lens is the same, but that's why I want a small sensor EVIL, like the rumoured Nikon system. That will allow lenses to get much smaller while retaining the quality interchangeable lenses in a small system.

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #10 on:** June 02, 2011, 03:45:27 PM »

Quote from: lisandra on May 31, 2011, 01:00:55 PM

I'm a petite lady and the grip.on these small cameras is just annoying to me. You gotta hop them with the tip of your fingers like point and shoots. By th end of the day you have carpal tunnel syndrome. I hate the I phone too, its too small and dinky, that's why I have a chunky EVO 4g, with a better camera too! And besides people seem to forget that the lenses are still the same size so what's the point of smaller and smaller bodies? Unless your happy with just using a pancake, but then why buy interchangeable lens cameras?

To a point, the 8-16, and 7-14 are still smaller than the APS-C equals..
But, other than a few pancake primes, the small body no longer has the advantage.
So having a 12/14/17/20 as pancake primes are a blessing... Now just one more pancake, 45mm f/2.8 .... so, a 24-90 FOV range that will fit in very small waist pack..

But, the Pentax 110 was TOO small, with 5 or 6 lenses. The Rollie 35S was small, but the layout was easy to deal with. I may get another one, the 40mm f/2.8 HFT Sonnar is a killer lens,

Aron · « **Reply #11 on:** June 02, 2011, 05:44:22 PM »

I do think small is an advantage when out shooting in the street or crowded areas, people don't seem to notice or care when I take a few with my cell phone or P&S, but they definitely notice more when I pull out my PL-1, I don't think you can be subtle with say, a Nikon D7000. That thing is huge, being discrete goes out the window when you pull something like that out. And there are areas where I wouldn't want to be seen carrying a camera like that around here either....so in that case, small would be preferable.

voyager · « **Reply #12 on:** June 03, 2011, 05:11:38 AM »

How small can we make a lens though? The mount is the real issue if you think about it.

asterinex · « **Reply #13 on:** June 03, 2011, 10:22:57 AM »

the dimensions of an iphone and the quality of the PEN would be cool .

popo · « **Reply #14 on:** June 03, 2011, 10:35:50 AM »

The mount doesn't have to be an issue on mirrorless. Mount radius is roughly determined by sensor size, and related to that the smaller the sensor, the smaller the focal lengths, so you can have smaller physical apertures for the same f/number and FoV, sacrificing shallow DoF. A combination of small sensor and shorter actual focal lengths for a given FoV, with a decently short mount distance from the sensor should lead to much smaller lenses than we currently have. Yes, you will lose the "big sensor" advantage, but sometimes size is more important.

Here's a quick illustration for three of the cameras I use. On the left is the Panasonic FX33, a somewhat old ultra-compact with a bit of zoom and Leica lens. In the middle is the E-P1 with Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 fitted. On the right, is a Canon 600D with 35mm f/2 fitted. Of course the DSLR is far bigger than the other two, but when portability is the main priority, I will reach for the ultra-compact over the E-P1 even with pancake on it. I want a changeable lens camera, excluding lens, the size of that ultra-compact. OR SMALLER. Mirrorless isn't strictly a requirement, even if it is almost certain. The GF3 might be the closest we get to that yet, but the m4/3 mount size pretty much sets a hard limit that can't be improved beyond. The rumoured Nikon mirrorless might be the best option there if it ever happens.

Aron · « **Reply #15 on:** June 03, 2011, 12:16:41 PM »

What if they left out certain features, like the ability to shoot video, would that make for a smaller body? I think it would be cool if they could put a full size sensor in a P&S body with just basic features, all manual, basic aperture and shutter speeds (within reason) and maybe some art settings? I think they could do it.

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #16 on:** June 03, 2011, 12:46:51 PM »

That would require a larger mount, so a form-factor like a m4/3 may not work without looking like a Sony, with an over-sized mount on a small body...just too awkward looking IMO
It could be done, maybe on an Non-EFV body (old Pany L1 body size?)

Aron · « **Reply #17 on:** June 03, 2011, 01:03:59 PM »

I have what could perhaps be kind of a stupid question, but I'll ask it anyway; smart phones such as the Iphone or Android have apps like Hipstamatic and Retrocamera, is it likely that we'll see downloadable apps for digital cameras any time soon? It seems like camera companies would be interested considering the popularity of such apps.

popo · « **Reply #18 on:** June 03, 2011, 02:18:10 PM »

I have been wondering, do we even need a round mount? Why not a rectangular one to match the sensor? That'll help on the height size.

As for apps on a camera, it depends on the application as far as I'm concerned. I rarely have a pressing need to edit and post a photo as soon as I've taken it, which of course is a strength of a cameraphone. Cameras are starting to have some basic editing capability, mainly effects and basic raw conversion, so it is probably only a matter of time before more toys in general appear in them.

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #19 on:** June 03, 2011, 02:22:07 PM »

A square mount is an interesting idea, A lens is round, and wouldn't that add corners, making it larger?

popo · « **Reply #20 on:** June 03, 2011, 02:45:29 PM »

I'm thinking if you look at the sensor inside the mount, there's a lot of space around it. Could the mount frame move closer to the sensor? Would cropping *some* of the lens elements make it smaller? After all, you don't need to make parts of the image circle outside the sensor. I don't know which elements this could apply to, so it may be a real problem of affecting the bokeh.

voyager · « **Reply #21 on:** June 04, 2011, 02:37:20 AM »

Quote from: Aron on June 03, 2011, 01:03:59 PM

I have what could perhaps be kind of a stupid question, but I'll ask it anyway; smart phones such as the Iphone or Android have apps like Hipstamatic and Retrocamera, is it likely that we'll see downloadable apps for digital cameras any time soon? It seems like camera companies would be interested considering the popularity of such apps.

I'm not sure I would like that.

asterinex · « **Reply #22 on:** June 04, 2011, 08:17:51 AM »

Quote from: Aron on June 03, 2011, 01:03:59 PM

I have what could perhaps be kind of a stupid question, but I'll ask it anyway; smart phones such as the Iphone or Android have apps like Hipstamatic and Retrocamera, is it likely that we'll see downloadable apps for digital cameras any time soon? It seems like camera companies would be interested considering the popularity of such apps.

I think this is certainly coming soon. I'm thinking of apps like notepad, gps, art filters, facebook, picase, manuals, ...

rparmar · « **Reply #23 on:** June 04, 2011, 09:18:24 AM »

IMO something like the E-P1 is small enough. Less is not usable. The interface leaves room for improvement to make it better but in the same form factor. Replace buttons with switches where possible (On/Off). Move others further out of the way of where your thumb sits. Inset others so they are not hit accidentally. And add a much larger grip. The lens protrudes more in any case, so that would not add to the bulk, only improve how easy it is to hold.

lisandra · « **Reply #24 on:** June 04, 2011, 08:03:36 PM »

Quote from: popo on June 03, 2011, 02:18:10 PM

I have been wondering, do we even need a round mount? Why not a rectangular one to match the sensor? That'll help on the height size.

I've been thinking about this for YEARS. I fully understand your logic.

Author Topic: How small is too small? (Read 4685 times)

Aron

Aron

Aron

Aron

Related Topics

Recent Topics

Recent Gallery