Waiting for G11, thinking about other cameras.

Started Sep 20, 2009 | Discussions thread
mrsfixit Senior Member • Posts: 1,473
Re: 2/3 inch

technic wrote:

mrsfixit wrote:

So, what's to stop Canon from bringing them back? Or creating an entirely new sensor size in between 2/3 and m4/3's?

it's all about economies of scale. A smaller sensor is simply much cheaper and good enough for the average digicam buyer.

True- but ... the "average* digicam buyer does not shell out the big bucks for a G series camera... the G series is an enthusiast camera, and anyone who is willing to buy one is willing to spend a bit more for a bigger sensor.

If the bigger sensor added $100 to the cost of the camera, I think most people would willingly pay it.

Canon is stuck in the past by catering to the lowest common denominator instead of making something really new and improved.

The basic rule of business is you have to spend money to make money.

Granted, this bigger sensored G isn't exactly going to be flying off the shelves, but I think Canon makes enough on all their me too cams to subsidize it.

If Panasonic can create a whole new format and line, why can't Canon?

I think the market is larger than people realize. Why are these new m4/3's cameras so hard to get? It seems there is a sizable demand for them.

hard to get - maybe because manufactures are afraid people won't buy them at these high prices, especially not during a recession - so they make limited production runs? I don't think there is a large market as long as they are more expensive than entry-level DSLRs or small digicams that have far better spec on paper. People who see / understand the value of this system are relatively few.

The Panasonic is overpriced, true. I wouldn't spend that kind of money for one.

But an entry level DSLR is still a DSLR...

I've lost count of times I've read others bemoaning the same thing over and over about them- size and weight. Not to mention that archaic noisy slapping mirror.

The SLR is a dinosaur, long overdue for a redesign.

I personally think APS-C is a bit large for a small camera. I think m4/3, or maybe a bit smaller- is ideal.

I don't think in practice m4/3 will be smaller than a similar APS-C camera, sensor sizes are relatively close. The size will be mostly determined by design compromises like aperture and zoom factor of the lens, type of LCD/viewfinder etc. Much smaller would only be possible with a fixed prime lens (like Sigma SD2), which again makes it more of a niche market.

If the Sigma had a 3x zoom I might have considered it. The Sigma is useless unless you're strictly an architectural or landscape photographer. Sorry, I've seen people shots from the Sigma, and frankly- they stink. A wide angle is not an everyday lens.

I realize there are design constrictions due to size. But I don't expect a camera the size of a pack of cigarettes. And I don't expect it to have bigger than a f/2.8 wide open either. I am realistic.

I do think something the size of the old Pro1 is more than doable, and that would fit in a purse.

I looked at the Panasonic G1, it wasn't bad, but the lens made it much too big. But Panny lost me when they pulled those firmware/battery shenanigans. There was no reason for that.

I agree that there might be a significant market for such compact cameras as soon as the image quality, capabilities and ergonomics get close enough to DSLR-territory. I also would like to have a really small camera that can do 80% or so of my DSLR shots.

Now I'm going to have a look again at the S90, G11 and GF1 sample galleries, to see what the real life compromise looks like

I was actually considering the G11. But the sensor is the same size as the one in my A650, so what's the point?

I really want a decent small camera too. I guess both of us will still have to wait for one...

Candice in PA

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow