Reading mode: Light Dark

Image quality or zoom?

Go to last post
M

malcolm82

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
360
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
I was wondering which is more important to most people.

It is possible to make a compact camera the size of a canon s100 with a 36x24mm sensor and 35mm f/3.5 lens giving image quality even better than a professional full frame camera with a big expensive zoom lens on it.

The alternative is the compact camera's with zoom lenses with tiny apertures we have now.

Its obvious you have to accept a compromise with a compact camera, to me its an easy choice what to give up here...

I realize asking for a 36x24mm sensor is probably not realistic but an aps-c sensor with f/2.2-2.4 lens would fit in the same thickness body and would be quite good as well though i would much prefer the full frame version.

I base the size estimate on the leica information sheet of the 35mm f/2.5 lens which is 34mm in length from the mount to the front of the lens and the length of the actual optics inside is even shorter, so if you scale this to aps-c or f/3.5 full frame it should fit in about 24mm giving plenty of room for the sensor and oled display to fit in the 28mm thickness of the canon s100.

Is the zoom important enough to most people to accept such a big compromise in quality or is it just a marketability problem (lack of knowledge with consumers) that keeps these companies producing the low quality zoom compacts?
 
Sigma, Canon and Fujifilm have done it with APS-C sensors, and no it didn't fit in a case the size of an S100.

It's all a balancing act of aperture, lens quality and sensor size and quality. Sometimes the bigger sensor isn't the best solution.
 
malcolm82 said:
I was wondering which is more important to most people.

It is possible to make a compact camera the size of a canon s100 with a 36x24mm sensor and 35mm f/3.5 lens giving image quality even better than a professional full frame camera with a big expensive zoom lens on it.
Click to expand...
Sure. Of course, only 7 people would buy one so it would cost $350,000. How many do you want?

--
Leonard Migliore
 
The lenses of the fujifilm and sigma camera's dont retract into the body which is the main reason they are so much bigger and ofcource im sure the depth from the sensor front to the back of the camera is much bigger than the 4mm i stated, they have to actually want to make it a compact design, it wont happen by accident.

Just look at the size of the leica 35mm f/2.5, that's the only proof you need to know what size is possible, this exact lens design could be shrunk to 1/1.6th size for a canon aps-c size sensor and fit in a body only 25mm thick. Ofcource it would extend out of the body while in operation but so do nearly all compact zoom lenses, it does not make sense to not make it retractable.
 
I think your thinking is slightly flawed if you put a FF sensor in a compact with a 35mm lens, your image would be the same as a professional full frame camera with 35mm lens... You would still need big expensive zoom lens on the compact to get the same FOV. The magnification in a compact is due to the sensor being smaller, creating the "crop" factor.
 
I am sorry but i have no idea what you are trying to say.

The difference in size between zoom lenses and fixed focal length lenses is extreme which is why you can get professional quality in a compact by simply giving up the zoom.
 
I think it makes sense to have zoom lenses on dslr camera's because the camera bodies themselves are so large it is not a problem to put a large lens on it. For most people the quality of f/4 zoom lenses is close enough to fixed focal length lenses and the advantage of the zoom is more important than the extra low light capability of f/1.4.

But for small camera's like normal compacts or small interchangeable lens camera's the lens size is very significant in comparison to the body size and as a result there is a much bigger benefit in putting a smaller lens on it.

When you get to lenses that are half the size of dslr camera lenses or even smaller the loss in resolution and low light capability of zoom compared to fixed focal length lenses of similar size gets much more significant. So i would expect fixed focal length lenses to be the logical choice for many more people because of this.
 
malcolm82 said:
It is possible to make a compact camera the size of a canon s100 with a 36x24mm sensor and 35mm f/3.5 lens giving image quality even better than a professional full frame camera with a big expensive zoom lens on it.
Click to expand...
No
malcolm82 said:
I am sorry but i have no idea what you are trying to say.

The difference in size between zoom lenses and fixed focal length lenses is extreme which is why you can get professional quality in a compact by simply giving up the zoom.
Click to expand...
A 36x24mm sensor requires a min size body to hold it. A 36x24mm sensor requires a certain size image circle from a 35mm focal length lens. So, no...it won't happen for the same reason FF DSLR lens are not going to come out in DX lens sizes....I think :)
 
malcolm82 said:
Image quality or zoom? I was wondering which is more important to most people.
Click to expand...
Both. However, knowing you can't have both in a compact camera, for mine I opted for a tradeoff. My little carry-around pocket camera is the much maligned Fuji F550 EXR and since it has RAW output, I can get acceptable image quality if one doesn't pixel peep. It has a zoom range of 24-360mm and I shoot at both ends of that range often enough to know I'd not be happy with less no matter how good the image quality was.

If I want image quality I lug around one or both of the DSLRs. If don't want to be bothered and am not expecting to do any shooting when I go out, I slip the F550 into a pocket, knowing it will cover most photo ops that might happen to present themselves.

Sometimes convenience and versatility is more important than getting the best possible image quality.

--



--
My online photo galleries
http://www.pbase.com/merriwolf/
 
malcolm82 said:
It is possible to make a compact camera the size of a canon s100 with a 36x24mm sensor and 35mm f/3.5 lens giving image quality even better than a professional full frame camera with a big expensive zoom lens on it.
Click to expand...
Really? I am sure pros would like you to think that because this camera will never produce the kind of pictures pros could produce with a FF dslr. They have the option of a 35 1.4 or a 85 1.2 with a DOF that could never been seen by a small camera, let alone a aps-c.

I am not saying a camera like this could produce good images, but it will never produce images that of a FF DSLR. That is why they exist and only the people who have the money and are willing to shell it out will be able get images that stand out against the apc-s and small camera crowd. It has always been that way and though levels of sharpness and color may be similar viewing angles and DOF will not.
 
Mako2011 said:
malcolm82 said:
It is possible to make a compact camera the size of a canon s100 with a 36x24mm sensor and 35mm f/3.5 lens giving image quality even better than a professional full frame camera with a big expensive zoom lens on it.
Click to expand...
No
Click to expand...
actually yes this is not into question
Mako2011 said:
Mako2011 said:
I am sorry but i have no idea what you are trying to say.

The difference in size between zoom lenses and fixed focal length lenses is extreme which is why you can get professional quality in a compact by simply giving up the zoom.
Click to expand...
A 36x24mm sensor requires a min size body to hold it. A 36x24mm sensor requires a certain size image circle from a 35mm focal length lens. So, no...it won't happen for the same reason FF DSLR lens are not going to come out in DX lens sizes....I think :)
Click to expand...
A 36x24mm sensor is actually quite small and it takes only a small percentage of the available space in a compact camera.

And for the lens as i said just look at the size of the leica 35mm f/2.5 and scale that to smaller sensors or to f/3.5 full frame, its very easy to make an estimate of the size...

And for people who dont believe scaling the f/number shrinks the lens in the same way as it does when you shrink the sensor size you just have to look at large format lenses, an f/5.6 lens for 5x4 is about the same size or smaller than an f/1.4 lens for full frame so an f/5.6 on full frame would be tiny. The lens barrel extension mechanism does get bigger relative to the actual optics if you get to higher f/numbers but up to about f/3.5 for a wide angle lens it is very reasonable and actually still much smaller than it is on compact camera zoom lenses.
 
malcolm82 said:
Mako2011 said:
malcolm82 said:
It is possible to make a compact camera the size of a canon s100 with a 36x24mm sensor and 35mm f/3.5 lens giving image quality even better than a professional full frame camera with a big expensive zoom lens on it.
Click to expand...
No
Click to expand...
actually yes this is not into question
Click to expand...
Sure it is...properties of optics have to be considered.
malcolm82 said:
malcolm82 said:
malcolm82 said:
I am sorry but i have no idea what you are trying to say.

The difference in size between zoom lenses and fixed focal length lenses is extreme which is why you can get professional quality in a compact by simply giving up the zoom.
Click to expand...
A 36x24mm sensor requires a min size body to hold it. A 36x24mm sensor requires a certain size image circle from a 35mm focal length lens. So, no...it won't happen for the same reason FF DSLR lens are not going to come out in DX lens sizes....I think :)
Click to expand...
A 36x24mm sensor is actually quite small and it takes only a small percentage of the available space in a compact camera.
Click to expand...
Take the lens off and look into your DSLR....not as small as you might think when you consider the supporting hardware. Must be some reason it hasn't been done well to date.
malcolm82 said:
And for the lens as i said just look at the size of the leica 35mm f/2.5 and scale that to smaller sensors or to f/3.5 full frame, its very easy to make an estimate of the size...
Click to expand...
OVF or EVF....and redesigned lens.
malcolm82 said:
And for people who dont believe scaling the f/number shrinks the lens in the same way as it does when you shrink the sensor size you just have to look at large format lenses, an f/5.6 lens for 5x4 is about the same size or smaller than an f/1.4 lens for full frame so an f/5.6 on full frame would be tiny.
Click to expand...
But they are not tiny....why is that?
malcolm82 said:
The lens barrel extension mechanism does get bigger relative to the actual optics if you get to higher f/numbers but up to about f/3.5 for a wide angle lens it is very reasonable and actually still much smaller than it is on compact camera zoom lenses.
Click to expand...
If you want to limit the type of lens to slow only....I can see some of your point.
 
Richard said:
malcolm82 said:
It is possible to make a compact camera the size of a canon s100 with a 36x24mm sensor and 35mm f/3.5 lens giving image quality even better than a professional full frame camera with a big expensive zoom lens on it.
Click to expand...
Really? I am sure pros would like you to think that because this camera will never produce the kind of pictures pros could produce with a FF dslr. They have the option of a 35 1.4 or a 85 1.2 with a DOF that could never been seen by a small camera, let alone a aps-c.
Click to expand...
I did say full frame camera with a big expensive zoom which are f/2.8 or higher.
Richard said:
I am not saying a camera like this could produce good images, but it will never produce images that of a FF DSLR. That is why they exist and only the people who have the money and are willing to shell it out will be able get images that stand out against the apc-s and small camera crowd. It has always been that way and though levels of sharpness and color may be similar viewing angles and DOF will not.
Click to expand...
I consider blurring a serious problem limiting image resolution of large (and even small) apertures and so i definitely dont consider this a plus for image quality.

For me the reason for full frame is to get higher resolution from the lens which is also why people are still using large format film camera's. They use f/11-f/22 apertures on them which are equivalent to f/2.8-f/5.6 full frame so clearly they dont agree that shallow depth of field is the reason to use a larger format sensor or film.
 
malcolm82 said:
Richard said:
malcolm82 said:
It is possible to make a compact camera the size of a canon s100 with a 36x24mm sensor and 35mm f/3.5 lens giving image quality even better than a professional full frame camera with a big expensive zoom lens on it.
Click to expand...
Really? I am sure pros would like you to think that because this camera will never produce the kind of pictures pros could produce with a FF dslr. They have the option of a 35 1.4 or a 85 1.2 with a DOF that could never been seen by a small camera, let alone a aps-c.
Click to expand...
I did say full frame camera with a big expensive zoom which are f/2.8 or higher.
malcolm82 said:
I am not saying a camera like this could produce good images, but it will never produce images that of a FF DSLR. That is why they exist and only the people who have the money and are willing to shell it out will be able get images that stand out against the apc-s and small camera crowd. It has always been that way and though levels of sharpness and color may be similar viewing angles and DOF will not.
Click to expand...
I consider blurring a serious problem limiting image resolution of large (and even small) apertures and so i definitely dont consider this a plus for image quality.

For me the reason for full frame is to get higher resolution from the lens which is also why people are still using large format film camera's. They use f/11-f/22 apertures on them which are equivalent to f/2.8-f/5.6 full frame so clearly they dont agree that shallow depth of field is the reason to use a larger format sensor or film.
Click to expand...
It seems you're confusing the benefits of increased pixel density and QE with sensor size attributes. Or somebody is :)
 
malcolm82 said:
I was wondering which is more important to most people.

It is possible to make a compact camera the size of a canon s100 with a 36x24mm sensor and 35mm f/3.5 lens giving image quality even better than a professional full frame camera with a big expensive zoom lens on it.
Click to expand...
No, because the S100 is small because it has a small image sensor which can work with very short focal lengths. The S100 is going to use about 7mm focal length for a 35mm FOV, while a 35mm image sensor "compact" would need the full 35mm focal length with a much larger diameter lens to get f/3.5. The f/3.5 is really the focal length divided by 3.5 so the S100 aperture size wold be 2mm while the 35mm image sensor compact aperture opening would be 10mm. So the lens would need to be 5 times bigger.
malcolm82 said:
The alternative is the compact camera's with zoom lenses with tiny apertures we have now.
Click to expand...
I would not call a standard compact with f2.8-f/5.9 to be "tiny" apertures. Tiny would be in the range of f/22 or f/32
 
Mako2011 said:
malcolm82 said:
Mako2011 said:
malcolm82 said:
It is possible to make a compact camera the size of a canon s100 with a 36x24mm sensor and 35mm f/3.5 lens giving image quality even better than a professional full frame camera with a big expensive zoom lens on it.
Click to expand...
No
Click to expand...
actually yes this is not into question
Click to expand...
Sure it is...properties of optics have to be considered.
Click to expand...
Have you looked at the information sheet of the leica 35mm f/2.5 yet? The size information is all in there...
Mako2011 said:
Mako2011 said:
A 36x24mm sensor is actually quite small and it takes only a small percentage of the available space in a compact camera.
Click to expand...
Take the lens off and look into your DSLR....not as small as you might think when you consider the supporting hardware. Must be some reason it hasn't been done well to date.
Click to expand...
Well that is the mirror box in the dslr, i am talking about a compact or small interchangeable lens mirrorless camera. The only thing that needs to be behind the lens is the sensor and the display, i know oled displays that are a fraction of a mm thick already exist but i have no information on the thickness of current sensors though i think its clear that they can be very thin as well, so all you have to do is add up the length of the lens with the thickness of the sensor/case material/display combination and you have the full depth of the camera.
Mako2011 said:
Mako2011 said:
And for the lens as i said just look at the size of the leica 35mm f/2.5 and scale that to smaller sensors or to f/3.5 full frame, its very easy to make an estimate of the size...
Click to expand...
OVF or EVF....and redesigned lens.
Click to expand...
It could have an evf like the nex 7 but could be display only like nex 5n or the s100.
Mako2011 said:
Mako2011 said:
And for people who dont believe scaling the f/number shrinks the lens in the same way as it does when you shrink the sensor size you just have to look at large format lenses, an f/5.6 lens for 5x4 is about the same size or smaller than an f/1.4 lens for full frame so an f/5.6 on full frame would be tiny.
Click to expand...
But they are not tiny....why is that?
Click to expand...
Well i know the 1200mm f/5.6 is quite large but i am specifically referring to something in the neighborhood of a 35mm f/5.6, i dont think it exists :) And besides it would be rather pointless to make such a lens for a big dslr wouldnt it? I would not even go smaller than f/4 for a full frame compact lens though something like a 50mm f/5.6 on a medium format could work though this actually would take a substantial portion of the room available in a compact camera body so i would probably prefer to stick with full frame.
Mako2011 said:
Mako2011 said:
The lens barrel extension mechanism does get bigger relative to the actual optics if you get to higher f/numbers but up to about f/3.5 for a wide angle lens it is very reasonable and actually still much smaller than it is on compact camera zoom lenses.
Click to expand...
If you want to limit the type of lens to slow only....I can see some of your point.
Click to expand...
f/3.5 full frame is equivalent to f/1.75 on micro four thirds since it is the same size so all meaningfull properties like depth of field, diffraction and low light capability are the same so considering they would be about the same size i dont get your argument? The 14-42 f/3.5-f/5.6 lenses are actually f/7-f/11.2 equivalent and even the new panasonic power zoom version is a lot larger than a full frame 35mm f/3.5 prime would be and this is exactly the point i have been trying to make. You get a much faster and better lens in a small package by dropping the zoom.
 
malcolm82 said:
Mako2011 wrote:

Well that is the mirror box in the dslr, i am talking about a compact or small interchangeable lens mirrorless camera. The only thing that needs to be behind the lens is the sensor and the display, i know oled displays that are a fraction of a mm thick already exist but i have no information on the thickness of current sensors though i think its clear that they can be very thin as well, so all you have to do is add up the length of the lens with the thickness of the sensor/case material/display combination and you have the full depth of the camera.
Click to expand...
So how far must the rear of the lens be in front of the larger sensor for the proper image circle to be projected...that may be the real determining factor :)
malcolm82 said:
Well i know the 1200mm f/5.6 is quite large but i am specifically referring to something in the neighborhood of a 35mm f/5.6, i dont think it exists :) And besides it would be rather pointless to make such a lens for a big dslr wouldnt it? I would not even go smaller than f/4 for a full frame compact lens though something like a 50mm f/5.6 on a medium format could work though this actually would take a substantial portion of the room available in a compact camera body so i would probably prefer to stick with full frame.
Click to expand...
No one really wants slow glass on a large sensor.
malcolm82 said:
f/3.5 full frame is equivalent to f/1.75 on micro four thirds since it is the same size so all meaningfull properties like depth of field, diffraction and low light capability are the same so considering they would be about the same size i dont get your argument?
Click to expand...
A limit of f/3.5 on full frame is yuck....and why your FF compact needs to be able to handle f1.4 or many of FF advantage is lost and no need to go beyond an iPhone.
malcolm82 said:
You get a much faster and better lens in a small package by dropping the zoom.
Click to expand...
If you want small no zoom slow camera.....You could be right but I doubt there would be many takers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
Does size matter?
2 3
Replies
48
Views
1K
monte12345
M
P
  • Locked
Should Panasonic produce Rangefinder Style APS-C cameras and AI designed APS-C lenses for L-mount?
Replies
7
Views
6K
Photongraphy
P
C Sean
Super zooms: Are they worth it
5 6 7
Replies
129
Views
2K
jhunna
J
Lalitsood
Nikon Z Series: Great Compact Cameras, But We Need Compact APS-C Lenses!
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
Jerry Fisher
J
B
Thoughts to replace my RP with a R7.
2
Replies
34
Views
10K
MAC
MAC

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