Nader was too late to "ruin" the Corvair. He just "killed" it. Did you own a Corvair? How about a Porsche? I did...still got the Porsche(s).
Real TTL OVF...compacts with lots of zoom always have EVF's, probably since its very hard making a OVF that gives somewhat correct framing throughout the zoom.
Actually I always believed that Russian goods are designed by politicians!
Nope, it wouldn't. The reason is that 24 mm requires a pretty complex reverse-telephoto lens design, and a large front element to prevent vignetting, while 35 mm can be done with a much simpler design. So if all else (optical quality, brightness) was equal, the 24-70 would be the bigger lens.
You're clearly right, since you appear not to have understood what I said.
It's not a "factoid," it's sixth-grade geometry.
It's not clear, but I suspect "he" be me. It takes real estate to implement live view. The sensor in the Nikon D2X is incapable of doing it. There are SEPARATE outputs for the live view and the full resolution data. The Sony Engineers shrunk the sensor size to give room for the live view circuitry. Do you understand now?
No, that's the American goods. Politicians = Lawyers! ;-)
Yeah, I thought that might be the case....the sensor ain't made for it.
Example of great design is the Sony F717 Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 38mm - 190mm, f2.0-2.4.
Interesting point I hadn't considered that (and I had my head around compacts). Would this only be true of sensor/film sizes that do not allow for really small focal lengths? As far as compact cameras are concerned it seems they have no issue making smaller lenses with tiny focal lengths? I would guess this is becuase the tiny sesnor and tiny focal length projects fine without fancy engineering, as well as not requiring space for a mirror etc. Is this correct?
Well it helps to explain why and provide context?
I think this is a nasty stab either at me or my countries education system. When I was in sixth grade this certainly wasn't covered in math. We may have covered a little geometry maybee cubes (its been 25 years). Certainly not how cubes apply to the relationship between camera lens size and weight and sesnor/film size?
Nope, it applies to sensor size; the field of view is the determining factor, not the focal length. If one day they'll come up with sensors that can handle off-axis light well, this limitation will be greatly reduced -- you can use symmetrical designs like on rangefinder lenses: improved aberration correction and smaller size at the cost of more vignetting.
Lens designs scale up and down just fine. You can take, say, a 24-70/2.8L (designed for full-frame film), and scale it down by a factor of four, and you'll get a 6-18/2.8 that'll weigh about 30 grams, cost tens of dollars to make, and work on a 2/3" sensor. It's a lot easier and cheaper to make lenses that project smaller image circles.
[Boo]...[Hiss]...
--
It is NOW!
A better descriptive term is "bridge". A "compact" is something you can put in your pocket or purse. ;-)Sure its a compact, as in "not DSLR", but you are right its not
really compact in size
It depends on the sensor size. The Fujifilm FinePix S6500
