If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The resurrection of the single focal length lens point & shoot
"RichA" wrote in message ... I never thought I'd see a day when the single-focal length lens P&S would be brought forward, but now we have Sigma's 3 models, Nikon's new Coolpix A, Ricoh's GR, and Sony's RX-1. I'm sure there are more. So how many people buy them because they are disciplined photogs who can deal with a single focal length properly and how many buy it because they are too lazy to change lenses? These are not cheap cameras, they range from $900 to $3000 each. OK, so these cams are "single focal length." But, do they incorporate a "digital zoom"? (i.e. on camera cropping to an image size less than max possible) If so, I believe, several years ago, I predicted cam manufacturers would go this route... SZ (in one of his many incarnations) and I, and several others of you, were jabbering on about "zooming with our feet," and I pointed out that eventually, cam manufacturers would produce cams with large enough sensors that they could put a good single focus lens on the body and get the same or better results for average users than using a more expensive lens cheap sensor configuration. I love it when I'm right ... Take Care, Dudley |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The resurrection of the single focal length lens point & shoot
In article , Dudley
Hanks wrote: SZ (in one of his many incarnations) and I, and several others of you, were jabbering on about "zooming with our feet," and I pointed out that eventually, cam manufacturers would produce cams with large enough sensors that they could put a good single focus lens on the body and get the same or better results for average users than using a more expensive lens cheap sensor configuration. except they didn't do that at all. they use the same size sensor and might have digital zoom, which is nothing you couldn't do later (and better) on a computer. more importantly, digital zoom will never be better than optical zoom. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The resurrection of the single focal length lens point & shoot
"nospam" wrote in message ... In article , Dudley Hanks wrote: SZ (in one of his many incarnations) and I, and several others of you, were jabbering on about "zooming with our feet," and I pointed out that eventually, cam manufacturers would produce cams with large enough sensors that they could put a good single focus lens on the body and get the same or better results for average users than using a more expensive lens cheap sensor configuration. except they didn't do that at all. they use the same size sensor and might have digital zoom, which is nothing you couldn't do later (and better) on a computer. more importantly, digital zoom will never be better than optical zoom. Except, I never said it is better. At the time, I just said that manufacturers would eventually adopt a single focal lens / digital zoom configuration because it would be acceptable to most users and would be cheaper to produce... And, yes, sensor size is quite a bit larger now than it was then. At the time, I think the average sensor size on PS cams was around 3 to 5 megs... Take Care, Dudley |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The resurrection of the single focal length lens point & shoot
In article , Dudley
Hanks wrote: SZ (in one of his many incarnations) and I, and several others of you, were jabbering on about "zooming with our feet," and I pointed out that eventually, cam manufacturers would produce cams with large enough sensors that they could put a good single focus lens on the body and get the same or better results for average users than using a more expensive lens cheap sensor configuration. except they didn't do that at all. they use the same size sensor and might have digital zoom, which is nothing you couldn't do later (and better) on a computer. more importantly, digital zoom will never be better than optical zoom. Except, I never said it is better. At the time, I just said that manufacturers would eventually adopt a single focal lens / digital zoom configuration because it would be acceptable to most users and would be cheaper to produce... they aren't cheaper to produce. have you seen the prices of these things? plus, camera makers have been making fixed focal length cameras for years. cellphone cameras have always been fixed focal length using digital zoom and only recently have cellphone cameras become any good. there's no point in these fixed focal length cameras. the idea is to get you to buy multiple cameras for every focal length you want to use. that's really dumb, and expensive. a much, much better idea is make interchangeable lens compact cameras, which lets the user decide whether they want a fixed focal length lens or a zoom lens as needed. there are quite a few of these cameras available. And, yes, sensor size is quite a bit larger now than it was then. At the time, I think the average sensor size on PS cams was around 3 to 5 megs... that's pixels, not size. the size of the sensor is anywhere from about the same size to much larger but as the size goes up, so does the price. in other words, it's not cheaper. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The resurrection of the single focal length lens point & shoot
"nospam" wrote in message ... In article , Dudley Hanks wrote: SZ (in one of his many incarnations) and I, and several others of you, were jabbering on about "zooming with our feet," and I pointed out that eventually, cam manufacturers would produce cams with large enough sensors that they could put a good single focus lens on the body and get the same or better results for average users than using a more expensive lens cheap sensor configuration. except they didn't do that at all. they use the same size sensor and might have digital zoom, which is nothing you couldn't do later (and better) on a computer. more importantly, digital zoom will never be better than optical zoom. Except, I never said it is better. At the time, I just said that manufacturers would eventually adopt a single focal lens / digital zoom configuration because it would be acceptable to most users and would be cheaper to produce... they aren't cheaper to produce. have you seen the prices of these things? plus, camera makers have been making fixed focal length cameras for years. cellphone cameras have always been fixed focal length using digital zoom and only recently have cellphone cameras become any good. there's no point in these fixed focal length cameras. the idea is to get you to buy multiple cameras for every focal length you want to use. that's really dumb, and expensive. a much, much better idea is make interchangeable lens compact cameras, which lets the user decide whether they want a fixed focal length lens or a zoom lens as needed. there are quite a few of these cameras available. And, yes, sensor size is quite a bit larger now than it was then. At the time, I think the average sensor size on PS cams was around 3 to 5 megs... that's pixels, not size. the size of the sensor is anywhere from about the same size to much larger but as the size goes up, so does the price. in other words, it's not cheaper. The way you twist around the minutest details and try to make a correct statement sound incorrect is really quite humourous ... Regardless of physical size, a large pixel count sensor makes possible the ability to use a single focus lens with digital zoom configuration acceptable for many camera enthusiasts... If you are simply down-sizing, what's the issue? If you're just going to produce a jpg and post it on Facebook where it's degraded again, who cares? BTW, I agree with you totally that a good sensor with a good lens (whether or not its a zoom) and optimal placement of the subject is the way to get the best overall pic, especially when coupled with lossless storage and great post processing / printing. As for the cost, these cams are the test balloon. If they pass muster, look for a raft of cheaper models.... Just like I predicted, many, many, years ago ... GBFG .... Take Care, Dudley |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The resurrection of the single focal length lens point & shoot
In article , Dudley
Hanks wrote: And, yes, sensor size is quite a bit larger now than it was then. At the time, I think the average sensor size on PS cams was around 3 to 5 megs... that's pixels, not size. the size of the sensor is anywhere from about the same size to much larger but as the size goes up, so does the price. in other words, it's not cheaper. The way you twist around the minutest details and try to make a correct statement sound incorrect is really quite humourous ... i'm not twisting a thing. you said sensor size, not how many pixels it has. Regardless of physical size, a large pixel count sensor makes possible the ability to use a single focus lens with digital zoom configuration acceptable for many camera enthusiasts... you could always do that. the only advantage of more pixels is more resolution after you crop (which is what digital zoom is). you'd have even more pixels if you didn't crop. however, it is true that a cropped image from a high megapixel sensor today has more pixels than a low megapixel sensor from long ago, but you're comparing two widely different vintage cameras. obviously the newer camera is going to be better, cropped or not. If you are simply down-sizing, what's the issue? If you're just going to produce a jpg and post it on Facebook where it's degraded again, who cares? crop when you upload to facebook. no need for digital zoom on the camera. many smartphones do that now. digital zoom is a gimmick to fool the ignorant. some sleazy companies even go so far to advertise zoom ratios with digital zoom included. BTW, I agree with you totally that a good sensor with a good lens (whether or not its a zoom) and optimal placement of the subject is the way to get the best overall pic, especially when coupled with lossless storage and great post processing / printing. As for the cost, these cams are the test balloon. If they pass muster, look for a raft of cheaper models.... Just like I predicted, many, many, years ago ... GBFG .... the companies are throwing out everything they can think of and hoping something sticks. fixed focal length cameras where the lens can't be removed is a dumb idea. make it interchangeable, and let the user decide what lens to use. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The resurrection of the single focal length lens point & shoot
"nospam" wrote in message ... In article , Dudley Hanks wrote: And, yes, sensor size is quite a bit larger now than it was then. At the time, I think the average sensor size on PS cams was around 3 to 5 megs... that's pixels, not size. the size of the sensor is anywhere from about the same size to much larger but as the size goes up, so does the price. in other words, it's not cheaper. The way you twist around the minutest details and try to make a correct statement sound incorrect is really quite humourous ... i'm not twisting a thing. you said sensor size, not how many pixels it has. Regardless of physical size, a large pixel count sensor makes possible the ability to use a single focus lens with digital zoom configuration acceptable for many camera enthusiasts... you could always do that. the only advantage of more pixels is more resolution after you crop (which is what digital zoom is). you'd have even more pixels if you didn't crop. however, it is true that a cropped image from a high megapixel sensor today has more pixels than a low megapixel sensor from long ago, but you're comparing two widely different vintage cameras. obviously the newer camera is going to be better, cropped or not. If you are simply down-sizing, what's the issue? If you're just going to produce a jpg and post it on Facebook where it's degraded again, who cares? crop when you upload to facebook. no need for digital zoom on the camera. many smartphones do that now. digital zoom is a gimmick to fool the ignorant. some sleazy companies even go so far to advertise zoom ratios with digital zoom included. BTW, I agree with you totally that a good sensor with a good lens (whether or not its a zoom) and optimal placement of the subject is the way to get the best overall pic, especially when coupled with lossless storage and great post processing / printing. As for the cost, these cams are the test balloon. If they pass muster, look for a raft of cheaper models.... Just like I predicted, many, many, years ago ... GBFG .... the companies are throwing out everything they can think of and hoping something sticks. fixed focal length cameras where the lens can't be removed is a dumb idea. make it interchangeable, and let the user decide what lens to use. Basically, we agree on everything, except for the definition of "sensor size." I tend to use the term more loosely, as do the majority of folks out there who buy cameras: an 18meg sensor is not unlike a 1 litre carton of milk, both are sized as per quantity, not physical dimensions. Of course, with sensors there is the extra wrinkle of actual physical size, so a more experienced photog will look at both pixel count and how much space those pixels occupy. Too bad you think so one-dimensionally ... But, given I predicted this development quite some time ago, and most others on the group scoffed, who's the real visionary? Take Care, Dudley |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The resurrection of the single focal length lens point & shoot
In article , Dudley
Hanks wrote: Basically, we agree on everything, except for the definition of "sensor size." I tend to use the term more loosely, as do the majority of folks out there who buy cameras: an 18meg sensor is not unlike a 1 litre carton of milk, both are sized as per quantity, not physical dimensions. then you are using the term incorrectly. when you say 'size', one assumes you mean physical size, not how many pixels it has or any other characteristic about the sensor. Of course, with sensors there is the extra wrinkle of actual physical size, so a more experienced photog will look at both pixel count and how much space those pixels occupy. they do. Too bad you think so one-dimensionally ... i'm not the one who is thinking one dimensionally. you are fixated on number of pixels. that's not the only thing that matters. But, given I predicted this development quite some time ago, and most others on the group scoffed, who's the real visionary? don't pat yourself too hard. whether these cameras succeed in the marketplace is unknown. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The resurrection of the single focal length lens point & shoot
Let's think about this for a moment ...
ziplock bags are sold in sizes like 1 quart, 1 litre, 1 pint, etc ... According to Wikipedia, quarts of various sizes have existed over time ... Peaceful Valley Farm Supplies sells a 1 gallon size black plastic pot ... When we're looking for a new vehicle, we check to see what size gas tank it has, the brochure is going to list that stat in gallons / litres before it talks about the physical dimensions ... When the waitress asks you what size soft drink you want, don't you think she's going to get ****ed if you say you want one in a glass that has a top with a circumference of 10 cm that tapers down to a 6 cm base, and is no more than 12 cm tall? And, if you give that anser to the barmaid when she asks what size draft you want, you'll be cut off before you get your first drink ... Top it all off with what answer most camera sales people get when they ask what size sensor their customers are looking for, and I'll bet 9 out of ten get a mega pixel count as the answer and you start to wonder how much credence we can give to your strict adherence to area when discussing size .... But, anyway, I'm getting bored with this one, so I think I'm going to go find something more interesting to do ... like take some pics for an exhibit I'm working on ... Take Care, Dudley "nospam" wrote in message ... In article , Dudley Hanks wrote: Basically, we agree on everything, except for the definition of "sensor size." I tend to use the term more loosely, as do the majority of folks out there who buy cameras: an 18meg sensor is not unlike a 1 litre carton of milk, both are sized as per quantity, not physical dimensions. then you are using the term incorrectly. when you say 'size', one assumes you mean physical size, not how many pixels it has or any other characteristic about the sensor. Of course, with sensors there is the extra wrinkle of actual physical size, so a more experienced photog will look at both pixel count and how much space those pixels occupy. they do. Too bad you think so one-dimensionally ... i'm not the one who is thinking one dimensionally. you are fixated on number of pixels. that's not the only thing that matters. But, given I predicted this development quite some time ago, and most others on the group scoffed, who's the real visionary? don't pat yourself too hard. whether these cameras succeed in the marketplace is unknown. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The resurrection of the single focal length lens point & shoot
On 12/06/2013 11:46 AM, Dudley Hanks wrote:
Let's think about this for a moment ... ziplock bags are sold in sizes like 1 quart, 1 litre, 1 pint, etc ... According to Wikipedia, quarts of various sizes have existed over time ... Peaceful Valley Farm Supplies sells a 1 gallon size black plastic pot ... When we're looking for a new vehicle, we check to see what size gas tank it has, the brochure is going to list that stat in gallons / litres before it talks about the physical dimensions ... When the waitress asks you what size soft drink you want, don't you think she's going to get ****ed if you say you want one in a glass that has a top with a circumference of 10 cm that tapers down to a 6 cm base, and is no more than 12 cm tall? How does this relate to more tinier sensels crammed onto a smaller sensor, compared to the same number of larger sensels on a larger sensor? And, if you give that anser to the barmaid when she asks what size draft you want, you'll be cut off before you get your first drink ... You are using a broken metaphor: it makes no sense in this context. It has no relevance to sensor resolution Vs sensor size discussion. If you walked into a camera shop and asked for an APS-c (or FourThirds, or APS-h) sensor camera with an interchangeable lens, then the sales dude would show you a shelf-load of cameras and then probably try to sell one to you. No waitress involved. Top it all off with what answer most camera sales people get when they ask what size sensor their customers are looking for, and I'll bet 9 out of ten get a mega pixel count as the answer and you start to wonder how much credence we can give to your strict adherence to area when discussing size ... Your "9 out of ten" people wouldn't even know that the lens-cap needs removing before taking a picture. But, anyway, I'm getting bored with this one, so I think I'm going to go find something more interesting to do ... like take some pics for an exhibit I'm working on ... You must be a "Mr 1 to 9" of your "9 out of ten". Don't forget the lens-cap. Take Care, Dudley |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
best single-focal-length wide Nikkor? | Tully Albrecht | Digital SLR Cameras | 16 | March 23rd 08 07:44 PM |
best single-focal-length wide Nikkor? | Tully Albrecht | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | March 20th 08 11:52 PM |
best single-focal-length wide Nikkor? | Tully Albrecht | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | March 20th 08 10:16 PM |
Is there a formula to convert digital lens focal length to 35mm focal length ? | narke | 35mm Photo Equipment | 5 | March 1st 05 12:31 AM |