Reading mode: Light Dark

does this make you see why the nx200rs can be attractive?

Go to last post
J

jj74e

Senior Member
Messages
1,633
Reaction score
9
Location
US
 
jj74e said:
i personally think it looks nice. definitely quirkier and a smaller audience who would think so, but it has its flare
Click to expand...
Yes, she's very attractive even with that glued on smile, but seriously, I am constantly on the lookout for a large sensor portable camera. Portable for me is no bigger than the EX1, preferably smaller, and while the NX200 looks similair in size, the thickness is the problem even with pancake lenses.

The new canon G1X doesn't succeed either for me, nor does the NX series. I have been right through the datatbase, adding the thickness of the thinest mirrorless to the thickness of the thinest lenses available, and it is difficult to get thinner than 60mm. The pity about the G1X is that I don't particularly want interchangable lenses, but it has completely missed the boat with its huge size and no 24mm wide angle lens.

The EX1 is 50mm with its auto lens cap, which makes it 60mm in its belt bag, so that would make the mirrorless models about 70mm in their belt carry case. That would end up hitting objects as you walk past etc.

Maybe soon some company will actually produce a small mirrorless model, or at least a small large sensor camera.

Brian
 
brianj said:
jj74e said:
i personally think it looks nice. definitely quirkier and a smaller audience who would think so, but it has its flare
Click to expand...
Yes, she's very attractive even with that glued on smile, but seriously, I am constantly on the lookout for a large sensor portable camera. Portable for me is no bigger than the EX1, preferably smaller, and while the NX200 looks similair in size, the thickness is the problem even with pancake lenses.

The new canon G1X doesn't succeed either for me, nor does the NX series. I have been right through the datatbase, adding the thickness of the thinest mirrorless to the thickness of the thinest lenses available, and it is difficult to get thinner than 60mm. The pity about the G1X is that I don't particularly want interchangable lenses, but it has completely missed the boat with its huge size and no 24mm wide angle lens.

The EX1 is 50mm with its auto lens cap, which makes it 60mm in its belt bag, so that would make the mirrorless models about 70mm in their belt carry case. That would end up hitting objects as you walk past etc.

Maybe soon some company will actually produce a small mirrorless model, or at least a small large sensor camera.

Brian
Click to expand...
The Sigma DP2X is around 60mm thick...

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sigma_dp2x_review/specifications/

Dennis
 
The pentax q would seem to be a small mirrorless model. Looking at the forum it seems to have an enthusiastic band of users. DxoMark figures for the camera are suprisingly good. The small sensor would cause a certain amount of hysteria with DPR shallow DOF fans.

The small large sensor camera you want would seem to require a change in the laws of optics.
brianj said:
Maybe soon some company will actually produce a small mirrorless model, or at least a small large sensor camera.

Brian
Click to expand...
 
Greynerd said:
The pentax q would seem to be a small mirrorless model. Looking at the forum it seems to have an enthusiastic band of users. DxoMark figures for the camera are suprisingly good. The small sensor would cause a certain amount of hysteria with DPR shallow DOF fans.
Click to expand...
It has a smaller sensor than the EX1, that would be going backwards especially as I don't have any need for expensive interchangable lenses.
Member said:
The small large sensor camera you want would seem to require a change in the laws of optics.
Click to expand...
I am patient!

Brian
 
brianj said:
yooperguy said:
The Sigma DP2X is around 60mm thick...
Click to expand...
Too thick and fixed lens I believe.

Brian
Click to expand...
Those are some seriously inflated demands, Brian! Something thinner than the DP2X (which is 50mm I think) and with interchangeable lenses (one of which is attached), with an APS-C sensor, would be exceedingly difficult to create. Any successful attempt at doing it would probably require so many optical compromises that it'd hardly be worth having the large sensor at all.
 
cptrios said:
Those are some seriously inflated demands, Brian! Something thinner than the DP2X (which is 50mm I think) and with interchangeable lenses (one of which is attached), with an APS-C sensor, would be exceedingly difficult to create. Any successful attempt at doing it would probably require so many optical compromises that it'd hardly be worth having the large sensor at all.
Click to expand...
I could probably compromise back to a sensor of 4:3 or 1.5 as in G1X, but even those have not delivered the truly small size that I want, the G1X is a bloated 65mm even with a collapsable lens, so they haven't really tried to get it small. The original dream was for a small P&S style camera with a large sensor, and it still hasn't been achieved.

I will have to stick with the EX1 for the forseeable future.

Brian
 
cptrios said:
brianj said:
yooperguy said:
The Sigma DP2X is around 60mm thick...
Click to expand...
Too thick and fixed lens I believe.

Brian
Click to expand...
Those are some seriously inflated demands, Brian! Something thinner than the DP2X (which is 50mm I think) and with interchangeable lenses (one of which is attached), with an APS-C sensor, would be exceedingly difficult to create. Any successful attempt at doing it would probably require so many optical compromises that it'd hardly be worth having the large sensor at all.
Click to expand...
I don't believe it is possible at all. and the only thing I can think of is a in-body retractable zoom lens P&S camera. because this is the only possible available option there is that is smaller than any existing mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. and of course it comes with the price of optical quality and sensor size compromises. the closest one would be the GF3, which again, have issue with extending lenses despite being pancakes and also it's micro 4/3 sensor.
 
Ariston said:
brianj said:
The original dream was for a small P&S style camera with a large sensor, and it still hasn't been achieved.
Click to expand...
Ariston said:
Brian
Click to expand...
it's just not possible with your camera size criterium. it would lose a lot of essentials. it doesn't gain anything or impractical as well.
Click to expand...
The makers are going to have to do something special instead of just copying each other to produce the same thing, to get my money.

Back when it was said to be impossible to fit a long zoom into a small thin P&S, ricoh produced the R3, with 7x zoom starting at 28mm, using swapping internal lenses, this was revolutionary when all the big companies had shelves full of 3x zoom cameras starting at 35mm. Things that were said to be impossible yesterday are already happening today, its just a matter of time.

Brian
 
brianj said:
Ariston said:
brianj said:
The original dream was for a small P&S style camera with a large sensor, and it still hasn't been achieved.
Click to expand...
brianj said:
Brian
Click to expand...
it's just not possible with your camera size criterium. it would lose a lot of essentials. it doesn't gain anything or impractical as well.
Click to expand...
The makers are going to have to do something special instead of just copying each other to produce the same thing, to get my money.

Back when it was said to be impossible to fit a long zoom into a small thin P&S, ricoh produced the R3, with 7x zoom starting at 28mm, using swapping internal lenses, this was revolutionary when all the big companies had shelves full of 3x zoom cameras starting at 35mm. Things that were said to be impossible yesterday are already happening today, its just a matter of time.

Brian
Click to expand...
P&S zooms are still not considered long zooms. the retractable optical zooms are still limited by optical construct and size limitations especially considering the size that you want in such a camera. anything beyond 100mm are only enhanced by what is called as digital zooms which further degrades the image quality. the limitations are obvious such as aperture speed which could really be slow at f4, lens size (which means average performance), and lens range. remember, making the camera compact would also mean making the lens smaller in size, slower in aperture and shorter in range and possibly optical image quality if the range is further extended. there is no work around the physics in this and has beenfor the longest time of existing compact P&S fixed and zoom cameras.

if ever a certain manufacturer could work around those limitations aside from what possibly an already cramped up camera with less functionalities like the absence of EVF, controls, and worse U/I due to the space taken by the sensor and built-in lens., the biggest challenge would be what particular lens would be possibly can be made with such a small camera. the possibility of creating a great do it all optics in a camera as small or smaller than the GF3 is next to non-existance.
 
Ariston said:
P&S zooms are still not considered long zooms. the retractable optical zooms are still limited by optical construct and size limitations especially considering the size that you want in such a camera. anything beyond 100mm are only enhanced by what is called as digital zooms which further degrades the image quality. the limitations are obvious such as aperture speed which could really be slow at f4, lens size (which means average performance), and lens range. remember, making the camera compact would also mean making the lens smaller in size, slower in aperture and shorter in range and possibly optical image quality if the range is further extended. there is no work around the physics in this and has beenfor the longest time of existing compact P&S fixed and zoom cameras.
Click to expand...
The camera I gave as an example was 28-200mm optical zoom, there was 4x digital in addition. Of course every manufacturer now has this or more including samsung, on models such as WB750. This was just an example of how breakthroughs can occur to achieve something which was formerly thought to be impossible, it happens all the time. I agree that sometimes such lenses do have average performance, so its all about compromises, but those that want small cameras with big performance do have to accept the compromises.
Ariston said:
if ever a certain manufacturer could work around those limitations aside from what possibly an already cramped up camera with less functionalities like the absence of EVF, controls, and worse U/I due to the space taken by the sensor and built-in lens., the biggest challenge would be what particular lens would be possibly can be made with such a small camera. the possibility of creating a great do it all optics in a camera as small or smaller than the GF3 is next to non-existance.
Click to expand...
Canon have pushed the envelope with the G1X, but it falls a bit short this time around for me as it is too big, maybe in the next model they can reduce the size. To me the G1X is the only camera in this years announcments that breaks any barriers, the rest are just revamps of the same thing that was around last year.

Brian
 
Thats an aweful lot of negativity. Probably not possible now does not mean impossible. You could theoretically design an camera along a tube (like the lytro). A F2.8 lens 50mm for APS could be made as thin as 30mm if you wanted (they make them wider to accomidate the mount but if you look at the cross section the lens elements are pretty narrow). The problems are R&D cost and market opportunity (is there a market for it) as I'm pretty sure it could be done. The largest obtacle would be peoples preconceptions about what a camera should look like but I think a telescope like camera would be quit cool.
 
Zdman said:
Thats an aweful lot of negativity. Probably not possible now does not mean impossible. You could theoretically design an camera along a tube (like the lytro). A F2.8 lens 50mm for APS could be made as thin as 30mm if you wanted (they make them wider to accomidate the mount but if you look at the cross section the lens elements are pretty narrow). The problems are R&D cost and market opportunity (is there a market for it) as I'm pretty sure it could be done. The largest obtacle would be peoples preconceptions about what a camera should look like but I think a telescope like camera would be quit cool.
Click to expand...
There is a lot to say on this subject, but I have already messed up this thread so I won't say any more here.

To answer the OP question, yes the NX200 does look ok to me and if I could carry it as an unobtrusive carry all the time camera then I would buy it, but its overall size stops me.

Brian
 
You need to look at the pics, not sensor size. I bashed the Q, but I can't deny the quality of pictures coming out of it.
brianj said:
Greynerd said:
The pentax q would seem to be a small mirrorless model. Looking at the forum it seems to have an enthusiastic band of users. DxoMark figures for the camera are suprisingly good. The small sensor would cause a certain amount of hysteria with DPR shallow DOF fans.
Click to expand...
It has a smaller sensor than the EX1, that would be going backwards especially as I don't have any need for expensive interchangable lenses.
brianj said:
The small large sensor camera you want would seem to require a change in the laws of optics.
Click to expand...
I am patient!

Brian
Click to expand...
 
snake_b said:
You need to look at the pics, not sensor size. I bashed the Q, but I can't deny the quality of pictures coming out of it.
Click to expand...
Images look ok to me also, but the camera is 31mm thick and the thinest prime which only provides 50mm is 23mm thick, for a grand total of 54mm without lenscap. There is no gain from the EX1, and without zoom.

Brian
 
That's besides the point. You mentioned the step back due to the sensor size and I countered, offering the more rational argument of "look at the images".
brianj said:
snake_b said:
You need to look at the pics, not sensor size. I bashed the Q, but I can't deny the quality of pictures coming out of it.
Click to expand...
Images look ok to me also, but the camera is 31mm thick and the thinest prime which only provides 50mm is 23mm thick, for a grand total of 54mm without lenscap. There is no gain from the EX1, and without zoom.

Brian
Click to expand...
 
snake_b said:
That's besides the point. You mentioned the step back due to the sensor size and I countered, offering the more rational argument of "look at the images".
Click to expand...
I did look at them and said they were good, ok so one of my criteria could be met without going to a larger sensor, but its still too thick. Besides, i don't know whether it would produce images any better than the EX1 so why outlay money for it.

My quest is to find a camera significantly better than the EX1 and no bigger, preferably smaller in thickness. If the EX1 lens collapsed all the way inside then that would be perfection.

Brian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

orchidblooms
what ball head is this?? (holding a d800)
Replies
5
Views
6
Bill Fagan
B
B
best flash accessory for night run?
Replies
15
Views
16
xuser
xuser
H
lx5 case for lx7?
Replies
5
Views
6
captura
C
C
Post processing infrared photography
Replies
3
Views
4
chem-guy
C
J
dumb/newbie things you thought when you were first getting into photography?
Replies
11
Views
12
JulesJ
JulesJ

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