The 'bodsor-concept'

Tom Caldwell said:

Gloat away. We can all get lucky.

My gloat was that I bid on quite a few lenses recently - mainly from Europe as our dollar is very strong against the Euro right at the moment. In Normal times the prices asked make my eyes water. In any case on my merry old way, the Euro prices have been almost reasonable until about a week or so ago I suddenly won a whole lot of lenses at "very good" prices. I asked one vendor (a bit surprised at how "lucky" I had been) he advised it was the annual summer holidays and that soon enough the prices would come back up again (they did). Now there is a tip. I guess I will have to wait another 12 months and have another lunge.

Click to expand...

You might just find that some of those eye-watering prices are going to shrink in your favor as people in some economically distressed places begin to part with collections and other old equipment, to raise cash from things no longer needed or of interest.

I have collected a bunch of transistor radios - good, beautiful, unusual and interesting ones - over the past dozen years. What I see on Ebay now tells me that if I need to raise money, this would be a terrible time to sell any of my collection. Too many other people trying to turn collections to cash, and not enough people with cash to support decent prices. I have one of these (below), a Crown 875 which is about 50 years old, and in good economic times it would be worth at least a few hundred dollars. I wouldn't even consider selling it now though.



You may find the same situation with those lenses you crave. If you can take advantage, good on you.

I agree, sometimes a "grim" sort of written humour misses the tongue planted in the cheek.

Keep posting, I can take my bubbles being pricked.

In another place I mentioned my camera bodies.

I forgot my two Russian fakes.

A "Siberia" which is all dolled up in FED livery and engravings, but based on a early 1950's Zorki body complete with a Zorki serial number (if a trifle odd one).

The Siberia was a WWII almost mythical camera made capable of being used in arctic conditions with gloves on. Some apparently were made but are harder to find than the proverbial hen's teeth. There was a rash of "Paulus" clones with all sorts of fancy engraving, but this one looks fairly "normal". When I questioned the vendor about it's provenance I did not expect it to be anything but a less-loud Paulus. But I got the answer that it had apparently come from a museum (out the side door). I can be just as incredulous as anyone but it is possible that the odd serial number is because a batch of these Sibera examples was specially made up as look-alikes to be displayed in museums. The serial number says it was "between models" and these cameras "just could" have been made up from the end of model run parts bin. In any case it is well made and thoroughly cloned, somone would have put a lot of effort into it and for a fake it looks unused.

The other one is a first-Zorki model by it's supposed serial number. But is chromed (hey they never made a production chromed Zorki!). The early Zorki's and FED's were very roughly made indeed and worth heaps even when decrepit, the later production were reasonably well made in their millions and worth nothing, even in perfect condition. My early Zorki is just another early fifities model but lovingly restored wih new re-engraved and chromed top plate. Nice collector's item, the clones have become collectors items in themself, but two examples are more than enough for me. I have fitted a more up-market lens to this camera to add to the illusion.

The Siberia has a full complement of modifications for glove-use including the lens that is fitted. In fact it could almost be considered a prototype extreme-cold weather camera except that it is undoubtedly a Zorki body that has been translated into a supposed FED.

Fake or replica? I surely don't know but it is worth owning.

--
Tom Caldwell

Very interesting stuff there. You might have a real oddity. Once in a while someone turns up a really rare camera like a prototype. I get into just wondering where (say) a camera has been, who had it and where, years before I was even born.

Believe it or not I too have a Russian camera, a Kiev 4a. I'll just put up a 'from the Internet' photo of one like it. Mine is in very nice condition and seems fully functional, including the light meter:



It's a rather exact copy of the Contax IIIa though not "quite" as nicely made. My best friend inherited the real thing from his dad long ago. We looked at the photos his dad took with it - the most boring photos of family members standing in this arrangement and that arrangement, but no photos of any creativity or real interest.

I don't actually care about how much you spent, if you made a profit or not, if you brag about being so smart or lucky. Nobody else does either. You clearly don't have a life and think this is your personal playground and use it as such.

Midwest said:

spacelounge said:

no, you spent money. you didnt make a profit in any sense of the word.

Click to expand...

I already explained how I spend $999, get $999 or a few dollars more back and still have the new camera body in place of my old one. If you can't understand that, there's not much else I can do to explain it.

Midwest said:

this is why you're such a loser. you buy things and then go on the internet to brag about it instead of creating anything of your own.

Click to expand...

A loser goes out on the Internet and is deliberately nasty to people without a good reason. I've had many a give-and-take with people on this forum but prior to your arrival, everyone acted like adults.

Midwest said:

have you ever taken a decent photo?

Click to expand...

If your gallery is filled with 'decent' photos, then I guess not.

Midwest said:

Midwest said:

spacelounge said:

so you spent a grand on stuff you dont need. good on you.

Click to expand...

No, I effectively upgrade my camera three models and three years virtually free if not for a small profit. Yes, good on me.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I didn't even post anything to you in the first place, and you took it upon yourself to attack me and call me a loser. Look who's talking. Now go away.

spacelounge said:

I don't actually care about how much you spent, if you made a profit or not, if you brag about being so smart or lucky. Nobody else does either. You clearly don't have a life and think this is your personal playground and use it as such.

Midwest said:

spacelounge said:

no, you spent money. you didnt make a profit in any sense of the word.

Click to expand...

I already explained how I spend $999, get $999 or a few dollars more back and still have the new camera body in place of my old one. If you can't understand that, there's not much else I can do to explain it.

spacelounge said:

this is why you're such a loser. you buy things and then go on the internet to brag about it instead of creating anything of your own.

Click to expand...

A loser goes out on the Internet and is deliberately nasty to people without a good reason. I've had many a give-and-take with people on this forum but prior to your arrival, everyone acted like adults.

spacelounge said:

have you ever taken a decent photo?

Click to expand...

If your gallery is filled with 'decent' photos, then I guess not.

spacelounge said:

Midwest said:

spacelounge said:

so you spent a grand on stuff you dont need. good on you.

Click to expand...

No, I effectively upgrade my camera three models and three years virtually free if not for a small profit. Yes, good on me.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
'Bass-ackward' does not equate to 'superior'.

Midwest said:

Very interesting stuff there. You might have a real oddity. Once in a while someone turns up a really rare camera like a prototype. I get into just wondering where (say) a camera has been, who had it and where, years before I was even born.

Believe it or not I too have a Russian camera, a Kiev 4a. I'll just put up a 'from the Internet' photo of one like it. Mine is in very nice condition and seems fully functional, including the light meter:

Click to expand...

I have a "secret weapon" - Princelle's book. The camera you are showing seems to be a Kiev-4 (1957-1974) as the 4a had no built in light meter. It seems to have the smaller light meter which distinguishes it from the III and IIIa which both had light meters. The self timer lever on the front seems to have gone from all metal to filled in plastic about 1974. There is also a covered bump (protrusion) just above and to tthe right of the self timer which becomes flush about the same time and the covering material changes from genuine to synthetic leather. The shutter speeds went to 1/1000 about 1976 in the Kiev-4m model which also seems too have black inserts in it's top knobs and a fold out fast rewind lever. The strap lugs are also mounted a little lower (under the body covering).

My 4am seems to be a very late model and a special-edition unit in all-black finish. The serial number is 8213275 which probably indicates made in1982. It has the plastic inserts in the self timer, black inserts in the top knobs, all-flush front plate and the lower mounted strap lugs with synthetic leather body cover under them. No light meter and mine is in good overall condition. It has the Helios-103 53mm f1.8 lens serial 8401875 which is "1984" this probably dates the whole unit as the lens was almost certainly the original lens supplied with the camera. The lens has 10 aperture blades and is very compact for a "fast-53". This is one very complex camera and obviously just about the end of the line - final body shape and production seems to have ceased about 1987.

Midwest said:

It's a rather exact copy of the Contax IIIa though not "quite" as nicely made. My best friend inherited the real thing from his dad long ago. We looked at the photos his dad took with it - the most boring photos of family members standing in this arrangement and that arrangement, but no photos of any creativity or real interest.

Click to expand...

Yeh, I used to do that as well, everybody expected it. Just like the modern "party-style" equivalent is blind-drunk, arms over shoulders and "red eye". "Lets take some photographs" and they immediately all cluster together throw their arms about a bit and adopt the uniform inane grin. Occasional "V" fingers to show that they really are happy.

This is what society demands - almost need a "scene mode" to put inane smiles on faces, introduce red eye effect, and put simulated arms over shoulders for the more staid members of the family.



--
Tom Caldwell

I know that you have used another image just for illustration purposes - but for interest's sake:

That Kiev illustrated seems to be a "Kiev-4 type-2" made c1974-1980 and would have part paralleled the differently finished "Kiev-4m" which was produced c1976-1987. The lens has a serial starting with "76" which seems to indicate that the camera was first sold about 1976 or slightly later.

In 1974 Kiev made their 1,000,000 camera of that type.

--
Tom Caldwell

BG_CX3_DPREVIEW said:

Guys,

please stay polite, we usually appreciate all kind off comments by everyone, even if we do not agree.

The concept of the GXR is far better than any DSLR, if only the costs would be on par.

Click to expand...

But it can't be. You have to buy a new sensor with every lens. The cost of the GXR will always be substantially higher than a DSLR. That is the reason why it is a failed concept.

--

DISCLAIMER: The text written herein is meant to provide the opinion/s and/or suggestion/s of the author. No statement herein is meant to be considered law of the land, representative of any party or group, and or a quote from any party or group. Neither is any statement in the contained text meant to be taken as scripture, doctrine, or all encompassing of an entire populous or any groups or individuals therein.

rondom said:

length and height of camera has little to do with sensor size: the rx 1 is heading on cube territory, which is an ergonomics nightmare. compact should not mean shrink on all dimensions just to make small for small's case.

actually i have more respect for traditional leica design. filling up the back of cameras with giant lcd's, and turning the cameras into difficult to hold gadgets?

sony is introducing amazing technology but they also remind me of today's special in the menu...

ricoh really needs to deliver something with this new generation of sensors. they are needed.
sorry for repeated post. i have only myself to react to my boring posts.

rondom said:

so let me eat my words: a much faster lens and an interchangeable system camera for just an extra 1.3 cm with a proper viewfinder and much better ergonomics.

rondom said:

re: bodsor, lensor, bodlensor...

the new rx 1 may be a good case for marriage: maybe they had no other way to make a "full frame" this small without marrying all elements together. chances are the sensor and the back element of the lens are so close that there is no way to make this an interchangeable camera. i also assume that the lens requires bunch of electronic manipulation to deliver results. in other words: if you were able to mount a legacy 35 mm lens to this thing, you wouldn't be happy with the results at all...
(all this guessing of course)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Not boring at all. I think you have a case in point in the first post, more or less what I have tried to say but you stated it more elegantly. The sensor/lens arrangement might be made into a replaceble lens arrangement with some approprite gymnastics on camera via some sort of lens database but it might limit lenses that "work" to oem lenses from Sony.

I agree also that getting smaller just for the sake of being smaller is not always good. But add that this is what seems to drive the market. Obviously "pure" optically correct lenses might eventually have to be sacrificed on the alter of the smallest size possible.

I have postulated another factor which might be the "tipping point" - perhaps eventually optical correction might even give superior peformance to a cheaper-built lens than any "pure" optical lens that will fit in any mount that will carry it. There lenses will only work well when accompanied by their own manufacturer suite of software and sensor-driven "helpers". Some of this in-lens and some in-camera (or in an overall package). When this happens cheaper (also smaller?) lens-camera packaging will be possible and no longer will a lens be interchangeable simply by using a simple mechanical adapter.

Price will drive the market and only old traditional lens makers can survive (for the tradition). However what decision does the camera buyer make when he can buy a cheap, light "electronically enabled" lens that out-performs a traditional expensive, exquisitely made "pure" mechanico-optical alternative? Of course film will never be superseded either, nor will the dslr ...

Cherish you A12 mount modules and your stock of manual lenses for I think that exchangeable lenses might shortly be even more tied to the lens system you have adopted. This raises even more questions about just how clever and ahead of it's time the Ricoh module system was. However ahead of their times intelligent systems have not always been the one that captured the market as things like betamax have proven.

Until I get the chance to hold a RX1 in my hand I will reserve my own judgement on practical ergonomics but your point is understood.

--
Tom Caldwell

I also think that in the welter of surprise over the RX100 and RX1 we might be missing the not so little advantage that image cropping zoom more or less needs a lens/sensor package. Image cropping zoom has been taken to a fine art in the superzoom bridge cameras and largely undocumented due to the fact that "digital zoom" earned such a bad name. However the superzoom cameras start with a small sensor anyway before it starts it's cropping zoom efforts. What Sony seems to ahve invented is a new class of camera where the image cropping happens on a larger sensor more heavily populated with pixels. Therefore their "clear-view" zoom facility still uses a decent-sized part of the sensor and enough remaining pixels to give an acceptable image.

Are we on the boundary of the situation where with a FF sensor image cropping zoom can give a very effective "zoom capacity" to a prime lens?

Of course we know that something similar can be achieved by simply cropping the image in post procesing if there are enough pixels to crop. However this did not stop quite a number of superzoom cameras being made and sold.

--
Tom Caldwell

Again, very interesting info Tom. I imagine that I very likely did mix up the 4 and 4a designation. I did a Google search for a photo and came up with models with and without the light meter.

My buddy's dad was definitely the kind of guy to sit on the couch, twiddle with his camera and read the camera magazines for some mention of it - but not to actually get out and take any photos. I can't believe the old guy has been dead 33 years. Wow.

Tom Caldwell said:

I know that you have used another image just for illustration purposes - but for interest's sake:

That Kiev illustrated seems to be a "Kiev-4 type-2" made c1974-1980 and would have part paralleled the differently finished "Kiev-4m" which was produced c1976-1987. The lens has a serial starting with "76" which seems to indicate that the camera was first sold about 1976 or slightly later.

In 1974 Kiev made their 1,000,000 camera of that type.

Click to expand...

Thanks Tom. Those cameras seem to be very easily found and not all that expensive to purchase. They make an interesting piece in the display case, at least that is what I use mine for.

Mine has the Jupiter lens f2 5cm (50mm of course) s/n 6115938, if that means anything.

Tom Caldwell said:

Are we on the boundary of the situation where with a FF sensor image cropping zoom can give a very effective "zoom capacity" to a prime lens?

Click to expand...

I think that might work well enough, but I wonder if it's worth giving up the super IQ of a FF sensor to use a prime lens instead of a zoom...? Maybe it would be a good option for some users. I'd prefer to do my zooming optically though. I find that even with optical zoom I still sometimes have to resort to cropping and I hate losing pixels unless there's no other way.

Tom Caldwell said:

Of course we know that something similar can be achieved by simply cropping the image in post procesing if there are enough pixels to crop. However this did not stop quite a number of superzoom cameras being made and sold.

Click to expand...

When I had a superzoom I limited my zooming to the optical zoom; the internal crop zoom was something I never touched.

No reason not to include it as an option though; as you say, it would still likely provide satisfactory IQ given the FF sensor and all those quality megapixels.

--

• Franka -

Tom, yesterday I waisted a full hour with a friend who is thinking of buying a camera...he was going back and forth between an entry level Dslr and x 30 super zoom...I tried to explain to him the sensor size difference. But he was still talking about 600 mm zoom and 24 mp etc. So there you go...people just want to press shutter and then attach the camera to their tv.

This trend has alarming consequences: filling the cameras with useless gimmicks, and turning them into feature-packed but completely useless toys. I am afraid that even something like rx1 will have some silly stuff for the consumer type....

Tom Caldwell said:

I also think that in the welter of surprise over the RX100 and RX1 we might be missing the not so little advantage that image cropping zoom more or less needs a lens/sensor package. Image cropping zoom has been taken to a fine art in the superzoom bridge cameras and largely undocumented due to the fact that "digital zoom" earned such a bad name. However the superzoom cameras start with a small sensor anyway before it starts it's cropping zoom efforts. What Sony seems to ahve invented is a new class of camera where the image cropping happens on a larger sensor more heavily populated with pixels. Therefore their "clear-view" zoom facility still uses a decent-sized part of the sensor and enough remaining pixels to give an acceptable image.

Are we on the boundary of the situation where with a FF sensor image cropping zoom can give a very effective "zoom capacity" to a prime lens?

Of course we know that something similar can be achieved by simply cropping the image in post procesing if there are enough pixels to crop. However this did not stop quite a number of superzoom cameras being made and sold.

--
Tom Caldwell

Click to expand...

rondom said:

Tom, yesterday I waisted a full hour with a friend who is thinking of buying a camera...he was going back and forth between an entry level Dslr and x 30 super zoom...I tried to explain to him the sensor size difference. But he was still talking about 600 mm zoom and 24 mp etc. So there you go...people just want to press shutter and then attach the camera to their tv.

This trend has alarming consequences: filling the cameras with useless gimmicks, and turning them into feature-packed but completely useless toys. I am afraid that even something like rx1 will have some silly stuff for the consumer type....

Click to expand...

All those big zoom numbers and megapixel numbers make great stickers to put on the display model at Wal Mart, very impressive to the general public. I suppose that is why most camera companies have engaged in this with their 'superzoom' type cameras. It's not all their fault though; they know that 12 good MP doesn't 'sticker' as well as 24 MEGAPIXELS!!!

Sounds to me like rondom's friend ought to listen to him more than the stickers.

Midwest said:

rondom said:

Tom, yesterday I waisted a full hour with a friend who is thinking of buying a camera...he was going back and forth between an entry level Dslr and x 30 super zoom...I tried to explain to him the sensor size difference. But he was still talking about 600 mm zoom and 24 mp etc. So there you go...people just want to press shutter and then attach the camera to their tv.

This trend has alarming consequences: filling the cameras with useless gimmicks, and turning them into feature-packed but completely useless toys. I am afraid that even something like rx1 will have some silly stuff for the consumer type....

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I have given up trying to recommend cameras to those who ask me. None of them would be freaky enough to buy a Ricoh for a start (grin). Of the cameras regularly available in shops I suggested a Canon to a neighbour years ago but they had all sorts of trouble with it. I always thought it mostly self-inflicted but still felt I had the recommendation on my conscience.

My own side trip into a Canon super-zoom lasted a very short while. For several reasons: The superzoom isn't all that useful; it had that great big red video button right where my thumb wanted to be (obvious what the true purpose of the "camera" was); and the superzoom x megapixels was a downright lie. The stickers on the front trumpeted (so many) megapixels (I forget) and 24x (maybe) zoom. But you did not all those megapixels at the end of the zoom range. The size of the files created gave away what was going on even if the camera manual was very coy about it. No direct words about image cropping, loss of pixels, etc. Just a few mumbles that perhaps the images in the "yellow" sector might not be as good - whic was about 1/3 of the effective zoom range. In any case the file size when zoomed out was much smaller than those at wide. So the camera may have had a mighty megapixel tiny sensor and be capable of the effective zoom length by image cropping but not all those megapixels were there at high zoom levels. So they should have shown a capability of (say) 16-8mp just as much as they noted their lens capability as f3.5-5.6. So there is marketing hype and downright lies. But most of the punters just know that more megapixels is good! No further knowledge is necessary.

I took the opportunity to re-read the Ricoh manual at the time. They still refer to it as "digital zoom" but difference it as "auto resize" type. It clearly explained auto resize digital zoom and the number of pixels used at various image cropped zoom lengths. Nor did they have a sticker out front trumpeting their zoom capability. In fact there is a significant image cropping zoom capacity in there but the camera arrives with it switched off. It cannot be used with the A12 mount as far as I know (might have been handy at times). Hence my thoughts that the sensor needs to be packaged with the lens to make this work - but I could be very wrong here.

Ricoh at least has obviously a much more correct and honest approach and much less hysterical which can only show what happens to a useful (emergency) feature when marketing decide that it is a great method to sell cameras to the unknowing.

Midwest said:

All those big zoom numbers and megapixel numbers make great stickers to put on the display model at Wal Mart, very impressive to the general public. I suppose that is why most camera companies have engaged in this with their 'superzoom' type cameras. It's not all their fault though; they know that 12 good MP doesn't 'sticker' as well as 24 MEGAPIXELS!!!

Sounds to me like rondom's friend ought to listen to him more than the stickers.

Click to expand...

I think I covered this pretty well in my reply to Rondom, you are very correct.

As far as image cropping zoom is concerned I agree that optical zoom must always be better, you get to use all the pixels on the sensor. As noted you can get much the same effect anyway by cropping the image in post processing afterwards. However sometimes a bit more apparent zoom at the time of capture is useful. We have all enlarged an image on lcd/evf to get more precise focus. The larger the sensor and the more populated with pixels then the better this can be. No real reason why a similar enlargement could not be used as a short-cut to save cropping later.

A side issue is on whether the lcd/evf is simply enlarged or there is a feed from a smaller area on the sensor itself.

Too date (as far as I am presently aware) most of these image cropping facilities have been used on small sensors. Small sensors already have a small surface area but have become highly populated with pixels - hence it is possible. Larger sensors on the other hand whilst having a larger surface area to crop have mostly had a relatively low population of larger pixels. Come higher density large sensors an image cropped FF sensor could quite possibly have as much surface area and pixel count in use as (say) a M4/3 sensor. In this possible case we have to agree that an image cropped zoom would probably be more than just acceptable.

Of course an image cropped 1" sensor is something less, but still more than the regular (not cropped) sensor size in a super-zoom bridge camera. My guess is that Sony's clear view image cropped performance should be something that sends a few (huge-sized) superzooms back to the drawing board.

Of course a big (lookalike dslr) bridge camera with a 600mm effective zoom might be merely a demonstration of manhood and of course no one is ever going to bother pulling the twine to find out for sure. (grin) We had megapixel wars then superzoom wars, what next ....?

--
Tom Caldwell

Tom Caldwell said:

I have given up trying to recommend cameras to those who ask me. None of them would be freaky enough to buy a Ricoh for a start (grin). Of the cameras regularly available in shops I suggested a Canon to a neighbour years ago but they had all sorts of trouble with it. I always thought it mostly self-inflicted but still felt I had the recommendation on my conscience.

Click to expand...

Frankly I won't recommend anything that I can think of offhand - not a camera or a car or anything. (Okay, one exception - the iPhone.) When someone is making a significant outlay based on your specific recommendation, you live with the consequences. If they are good, okay. If they are bad, the person has spent hundreds or thousands based on your say-so and now they're unhappy. I don't want that on my conscience no matter how good my recommendation is.

I will explain what brands / types / whatever are available, how they differ and why I like or don't like what I myself have, but I will never tell someone to 'buy this one'.

I will possibly tell them why I think they shouldn't buy something. If they go ahead and buy it and are happy, well good on them, no loss to me. If they buy it and it's lousy then I can just say 'oh, well, that's too bad' and they wish they'd listened.

Tom Caldwell said:

My own side trip into a Canon super-zoom lasted a very short while. For several reasons: The superzoom isn't all that useful; it had that great big red video button right where my thumb wanted to be (obvious what the true purpose of the "camera" was); and the superzoom x megapixels was a downright lie. The stickers on the front trumpeted (so many) megapixels (I forget) and 24x (maybe) zoom. But you did not all those megapixels at the end of the zoom range.

Click to expand...

All those super zooms, I think, suffer from that 'sticker-engineering'. Many people likely bought and were pleased with that same camera you didn't like. You never know whether someone will see it as you do, so again, I won't tell them what I think they should buy.

Tom Caldwell said:

I took the opportunity to re-read the Ricoh manual at the time. They still refer to it as "digital zoom" but difference it as "auto resize" type. It clearly explained auto resize digital zoom and the number of pixels used at various image cropped zoom lengths.

Click to expand...

You took the time to read and learn and understand. 98% of buyers read only the stickers and seem very happy even if close examination shows that the zoom or megapixels are not all that hot.

Tom Caldwell said:

Ricoh at least has obviously a much more correct and honest approach and much less hysterical which can only show what happens to a useful (emergency) feature when marketing decide that it is a great method to sell cameras to the unknowing.

Click to expand...

They are certainly much less out there fighting for everyone's attention. A different approach but not unexpected from a smaller camera with some different products than the mainstream.
this pretty well in my reply to Rondom, you are very correct.

Tom Caldwell said:

As far as image cropping zoom is concerned I agree that optical zoom must always be better, you get to use all the pixels on the sensor. As noted you can get much the same effect anyway by cropping the image in post processing afterwards.

Click to expand...

Yes, and while I avoid cropping any more than I have to, sometimes it's necessary to get the optimal composition. (I'm looking forward to 50% more MP to hopefully help me maintain more IQ when I have to do that cropping.)

Tom Caldwell said:

However sometimes a bit more apparent zoom at the time of capture is useful. We have all enlarged an image on lcd/evf to get more precise focus. The larger the sensor and the more populated with pixels then the better this can be. No real reason why a similar enlargement could not be used as a short-cut to save cropping later.

Click to expand...

I've heard of doing that but even when my camera had an EVF I guess I didn't use manual focus enough to really try it out.

Tom Caldwell said:

Come higher density large sensors an image cropped FF sensor could quite possibly have as much surface area and pixel count in use as (say) a M4/3 sensor. In this possible case we have to agree that an image cropped zoom would probably be more than just acceptable.

Click to expand...

No argument, but having seen how amazingly crisp a FF sensor image can be I'd still hate to crop any more or more often than absolutely necessary.

Tom Caldwell said:

Of course a big (lookalike dslr) bridge camera with a 600mm effective zoom might be merely a demonstration of manhood and of course no one is ever going to bother pulling the twine to find out for sure. (grin) We had megapixel wars then superzoom wars, what next ....?

Click to expand...

Based on what I see lately, it might be FF sensor in a small camera wars. Or maybe it will be the Fuji inspired 'classic rangefinder styling' wars. I see their latest costs $3000 with a couple lenses, and to adjust the diopter you have to swap in a different one $19 USD apiece. I would probably need three of them and then to not lose them. I'm a bit bemused that $3000 worth of camera can't adjust the diopter without swapping parts!

i remember someone in this forum cropping the a12 50 to match gxr p and the difference was minimal. optical zoom is better if the sensor sizes are the same. but with a minuscule sensor they won't mean much...
go and try to explain this to someone who mindlessly compares feature sets....

the trend is to turn the cameras to computers: it all started with silly sunset and smile detection on point and shoots, and now you have oil painting effects on DSLRs.

And the more people can cook their photos in their cameras, the more they feel they are getting a better product. the longer the list of feature set the better the camera.
and this sells much more cameras than you would think.

the other thing i noticed is: the perception of a proper camera is still the DSLR.

In case of my friend, he was torn between an entry level DSLR and the so called bridge type with the feaux DSLR look (with 1/5th sensor size of a DSLR). when I mentioned him few mirrorless options, he didn't consider them worthy enough: simply because they "looked" like his current point and shoot...

the excitement over smaller cameras with bigger sensors effects a smaller community than we would think.

I am really excited about the very new offerings by Sony and Fuji, but I have feeling that with same technology ricoh will deliver better photographer's tool.

regarding recommendations: i must say, until few years ago, when someone asked me for an advice, and they seemed discerning enough, i would suggest them Ricoh. These days, I won't...because i really don't see anything (the GRD 4 has a four year old sensor-is that what four stands for?) and the a12 modules, exceptionally capable as they are, belong to an older generation with a premium price....the m mount is the most special ricoh product - but needs no sale pitch, as legacy lens owners are knowledgeable enough to begin with...but for the average consumer type who wants to take his photography to a new level, Ricoh has very little to offer....

then again, I am expecting Ricoh to come up with something special soon (even if not during photokina)

Ricoh makes camera that still behave like cameras. They do provide some Scene modes but they are nicely tucked away. Nevertheless they are not much trouble to access and use. However they seem more practical-based than "strictly for fun".

Of course if you need "portrait" or "sports" modes then you simply roll your own and attach them to a scene mode.

In other words Ricoh makes cameras for more serious and dedicated users where thinking is as much an interest as just clicking.

I also say that although the existing Ricoh models are getting old they still work as well as they ever did and despite some obvious stand-outs that we all have noticed the pace of change is slower.

I cannot say that the A12 captures bad images and it was not that so very long ago when "everyone" was ecstatic about the A12 aps-c sensor and could not wait to get their hands on it. Hardly might we be settled into our A16's when nothing but an A20 would do and we would be so sad that we only had our inadequate A16 sensors.

Up until fairly recently I was using a 6mp aps-c dslr with quite acceptable results.

So many feel jilted if Ricoh does not keep up with the new releases. However Ricoh does make cameras for the thinking photographer (they are not alone here) and they seem to last and last. Therefore I might wonder why anyone might want to upgrade a perfectly good GRD or GXR or any part of them when they still have many years of useful life in them.

Hang on a few more years and fit them up with A24 sensors or FF or whatever is the then flavour of the month.

Of course it is only a few more sleeps to Photokina for those that really need an upgrade fix.

--
Tom Caldwell