A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The resurrection of the single focal length lens point & shoot



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 12th 13, 12:45 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Dudley Hanks[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,282
Default 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  
Old June 12th 13, 12:48 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old June 12th 13, 12:54 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Dudley Hanks[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,282
Default 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  
Old June 12th 13, 01:07 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old June 12th 13, 01:21 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Dudley Hanks[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,282
Default 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  
Old June 12th 13, 01:42 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old June 12th 13, 01:57 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Dudley Hanks[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,282
Default 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  
Old June 12th 13, 02:06 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old June 12th 13, 02:46 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Dudley Hanks[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,282
Default 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  
Old June 13th 13, 12:28 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
dj_nme[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
best single-focal-length wide Nikkor? Tully Albrecht Digital SLR Cameras 16 March 23rd 08 08:44 PM
best single-focal-length wide Nikkor? Tully Albrecht Digital SLR Cameras 1 March 21st 08 12:52 AM
best single-focal-length wide Nikkor? Tully Albrecht Digital SLR Cameras 0 March 20th 08 11:16 PM
Is there a formula to convert digital lens focal length to 35mm focal length ? narke 35mm Photo Equipment 5 March 1st 05 01:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.