Reading mode: Light Dark

It's the lens, stupid!!!

Go to last post
ljfinger said:
What can we learn from these images (not necessarily to exact scale) from DPReview and Imaging-Resource? All three of these cameras have a standard range zoom lens shown in the picture. One of them is substantially less compact than the other two. Which one is it and why?
Click to expand...
Firstly, why not say right away in your opening post what you actually want to say: "How can such a big camera be called compact?"?

But, CSC, Compact System Camera, is not mainly about the size of a camera, but it simply describes this new class of cameras : "Relatively" big sensor in a "relatively" small body, no mirror, interchangeable lenses. It doesn ´t actually say very much about the size of the camera; all "CSC" tells me about the size is that a camera in that group is definitely smaller than a big body upper class or pro DSLR. If it´s actually "compact" depends on what you think is compact; your definition of compact might not be my definition of compact. What CSC mainly tells me is that this camera has the bigger sensor of 4/3 or APS-C, compared to the P&S group of cameras with their small sensors, and that it comes without a mirror and an OVF.

CSC is just a name, maybe not the perfect one, but at least better than EVIL or MILC, as it is easily understood in many different languages.

"SLR" was not such a smart name either, "single lens" when it´s actually about "interchangeable lens"! The German name "Spiegel-Reflex" made more sense to me, "mirror reflex".

What I think will be interesting to see is what name will be agreed upon for a "big body" CSC, if we´ll ever see something like that (I really hope so!). Thinking here about a camera with the mirrorless technique of a CSC with an EVF, but a body the size of maybe an E-520 or E-30. "CSC Pro" ? Or just "SC", System Cameras?

Three new groups, maybe, lol, "SPC" for "Shirt Pocket Compact" to get rid of the silly "P&S" name (or MC, Mini Compact), CSC and SC.

Mini Compact, Compact System and System, I could live with that.

René
 
Wow, this is gross!
 
Lee Jay said:
What can we learn from these images (not necessarily to exact scale) from DPReview and Imaging-Resource? All three of these cameras have a standard range zoom lens shown in the picture. One of them is substantially less compact than the other two. Which one is it and why?
Click to expand...
It's really very simple, it's because the sensor has over 4x the area and being an interchangeable lens camera the lens can't retract into the body.

The fact it's got interchangeable lenses means you can put a substantially smaller lens on like the Panasonic 14mm f2.5

If you placed a DSLR to scale in that image then the PEN would be considerably smaller next to it.
 
René Schuster said:
But, CSC, Compact System Camera, is not mainly about the size of a camera, but it simply describes this new class of cameras : "Relatively" big sensor in a "relatively" small body, no mirror, interchangeable lenses. It doesn ´t actually say very much about the size of the camera;
Click to expand...
Then why use such a misleading term? Marketing (lying), I know.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
Andy Crowe said:
If you placed a DSLR to scale in that image then the PEN would be considerably smaller next to it.
Click to expand...
Barely smaller is more like it.



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
Stupid in two cases, because they can't be replaced with something better or more specialized to approach a special task. 7-14, 9-18, 12 F2, 14 F2.5, 14-150 F3.5-5.6, 14-140 F3.5-5.6 video, 17 2.8, 20 1.7, 25 .95, 25 1.4, 45 2.8, 45 1.8, 70-300, 100-300 ... and that's not getting into all the Leica M glass that works fine in MF mode on any M43 body.

That is a prime reason people buy mirrorless/interchangeable instead of fixed lens/compact. So they can change the lens.
 
With the lens retracted it would be a fair bit smaller, with one of the pancake lenses it would fit within the area of the dslr body alone.

The EPL1 isn't even the smallest m4/3, my GF2 with the 14mm f2.5 fitted is only a tiny bit bigger than my old Canon A95
 
Andy Crowe said:
With the lens retracted it would be a fair bit smaller, with one of the pancake lenses it would fit within the area of the dslr body alone.
Click to expand...
Zoom to zoom, or prime to prime. Most people won't carry and own nothing but a pancake prime - too impractical.
Andy Crowe said:
The EPL1 isn't even the smallest m4/3, my GF2 with the 14mm f2.5 fitted is only a tiny bit bigger than my old Canon A95
Click to expand...
Let's see a picture of that. I'd bet it's over twice as think.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
Andy Crowe said:
It's really very simple, it's because the sensor has over 4x the area and being an interchangeable lens camera the lens can't retract into the body.
Click to expand...
Why? Leica says, you can, even with a sensor area 4 times bigger than m4/3 and lenses mostly a fair bit brighter and generally better (and of course 10x more expensive ;) ). It is just that AFAIK, noone from the new kids on the block has tried retracting lenses yet.

Kind regards,
Martin

--
http://www.datzinger.net
 
ljfinger said:
Andy Crowe said:
With the lens retracted it would be a fair bit smaller, with one of the pancake lenses it would fit within the area of the dslr body alone.
Click to expand...
Zoom to zoom, or prime to prime. Most people won't carry and own nothing but a pancake prime - too impractical.
Click to expand...
On the other hand the 20mm prime makes a good all-round lens and is much better in low light than any zoom lens smaller than a pint glass.
Lee Jay said:
Lee Jay said:
The EPL1 isn't even the smallest m4/3, my GF2 with the 14mm f2.5 fitted is only a tiny bit bigger than my old Canon A95
Click to expand...
Let's see a picture of that. I'd bet it's over twice as think.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid you're not even close. The 2 cameras are identical height, the GF2 is around 15mm wider and 5mm deeper (the body of the GF2 is actually slimmer than the A95)

 
Martin Datzinger said:
Martin Datzinger said:
It's really very simple, it's because the sensor has over 4x the area and being an interchangeable lens camera the lens can't retract into the body.
Click to expand...
Why? Leica says, you can, even with a sensor area 4 times bigger than m4/3 and lenses mostly a fair bit brighter and generally better (and of course 10x more expensive ;) ). It is just that AFAIK, noone from the new kids on the block has tried retracting lenses yet.
Click to expand...
I thought you weren't supposed to retract the collapsing lenses on an M8/9 because they damage the shutter and sensor?

At any rate the M bodies are actually quite big, a fair bit bigger than the smallest m4/3 bodies. And of course M lenses can be used on m4/3.
 
You're right:

A95 - 35mm thick

Your system - 33mm+21mm=54mm. Not quite twice. I forgot how thick the A-series was. I should have remembered since that's why I didn't buy one.

My compact is 25mm thick (your system is more than twice that one). Any bigger and it wouldn't be in my pocket all day every day. And I have a 24-105mm range, which is quite useful. I used the whole range just yesterday.

The last time I needed good low-light performance (Thursday, actually), I was shooting at around 100mm equivalent with no way to get closer, so the 14mm would have been useless.

I often shoot with my 35/1.4L but I never leave home with nothing but that lens. Absolute minimum would be to include the 85/1.8.

Bottom line - these systems aren't pocketable, and without pocketability, I'd have to carry a bag or the camera around my neck or over my shoulder. If I'm doing that, its size doesn't make much difference. It's performance does and these things don't hold a candle to even a low-end dSLR.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
Coz if you don't, you won't graduate from school and you'll end up wasting your life by arguing pointlessly on the internet.

Oh, hang on a minute...

--
Rob.

Free advice, freely given. If you don't like it, I'll refund you twice the amount you paid me.
 
Lee Jay said:
A95 - 35mm thick

Your system - 33mm+21mm=54mm. Not quite twice. I forgot how thick the A-series was. I should have remembered since that's why I didn't buy one.
Click to expand...
The A95 is thicker than 35mm including the hand grip and lens surround. It is relatively thick for a compact but it is a compact none the less.
Lee Jay said:
My compact is 25mm thick (your system is more than twice that one). Any bigger and it wouldn't be in my pocket all day every day. And I have a 24-105mm range, which is quite useful. I used the whole range just yesterday.
Click to expand...
Lee Jay said:
The last time I needed good low-light performance (Thursday, actually), I was shooting at around 100mm equivalent with no way to get closer, so the 14mm would have been useless.
Click to expand...
I have an 80mm equiv f1.4 lens that's only 3cm long, carrying multiple lenses isn't for everyone but you get much better images out of primes and I have a 3 prime carry round kit (GF2, 28mm, 40mm, 80mm equiv) that takes up roughly the same size as a DSLR body alone.
Lee Jay said:
Bottom line - these systems aren't pocketable, and without pocketability, I'd have to carry a bag or the camera around my neck or over my shoulder. If I'm doing that, its size doesn't make much difference. It's performance does and these things don't hold a candle to even a low-end dSLR.
Click to expand...
You can't put it in your trouser pocket, but with a small lens it will fit comfortably in a jacket pocket and because it's considerably lighter than an SLR if you already carry a shoulder bag (which I do) or put it round your neck you will notice the difference in weight and bulk very quickly. As for high iso performance the GF2 is only around a stop worse than the best DSLRs and the new Panasonic and Olympus sensors are only half a stop different.
 
ljfinger said:
Barely smaller is more like it.
Click to expand...
You have a problem with adjectives... BTW, the Nikon has an eyecup so you should move the PEN backward and the PEN has a collapsable lens but you took the picture with the lens extended but the first picture, the one with 2 compacts, is done with the compacts having the lens retracted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top