Reading mode: Light Dark

Premium Fixed Lens Cameras - A new paradigm?

Go to last post
If you otherwise like the current high quality fixed lens APS-C cameras, it's not much of a crop from an effective 35-50mm, in post. A 16MP sensor could easily handle it.
 
Your second, perhaps less important, point seems to have been largely ignored, but I can see no solution as to what to call the camera types you mention. There aren't enough suitable words.

I own two premium P+S models, that are referred to in that way, though they offer full manual control and RAW files. OTOH I could set my FF DSLR to function in a point and shoot manner! I find this comparison rather amusing even if disconcerting.

Charlie
 
Tom Axford said:
I think you may be right that the trend is towards more premium fixed-lens cameras, although there is still a long way to go.

I can see the time arising when I may carry two or three different cameras instead of carrying one camera and two or three lenses.

Part of the reason for this is that there is no overwhelming reason to stick to one sensor size for all situations. In particular, extreme telephoto is much more practicable (in size, weight and cost) for most people with small sensor superzoom cameras than buying an expensive long lens for a large sensor ILC.

The stumbling block is for those photographers who carry a large number of lenses with them and believe that they really need that number of different lenses. Those people will always stick with ILCs.

But I agree that the trend is towards more premium FLCs for most photographers.
Click to expand...
Yep. I've been carrying two to three fixed lens cameras now instead of one body and multiple lenses for about a year. Even MILC's are a pain in the but.

The dream team may be an RX10, RX100 and RX1 (or Fuji X100S). You don't carry all at once, you just have all nearby.
 
ultimitsu said:
GeraldW said:
First, I'll submit that the premium fixed lens cameras make more sense for most people than do ILC's.
Click to expand...
I agree to some extent. I think a strong reason for the rise of fixed lens cameras is the small package they come in while sporting high performing lenses. X100 had a very small 23m F2. You cannot buy a high performing 23mm F2 of that size from Canon or Nikon. Same thing happened with RX1, the lens on RX1 is significantly better than any 35mm F2 up to day, and a lot smaller than all the 35 F1.4s. I think it was only matched by 35mm F2 IS, which came out quite a bit later. On the other end of the scale we have RX100, at 28mm FOV F1.8, it is half a stop faster than APS-C DSLR with 18-55 F3.5-5.6 kit lens (also longer reach, but much slower at the long end), for the same price and much much smaller package.

Their desirability is not accidental. All system camera makers sell bodies at a fairly low price (the weaker the brand the lower the body prices), and then make huge margins on lenses. fixed lens cameras often offer better value than buying a body + a high end lens.

And lets face it, there exists a group of people who buy SLR + kit lens and never upgrade or buy another lens to play with.
Click to expand...
Let's not forget, that with a fixed lens camera, the senor and lens can be mated perfectly. Like an engine and a transmission in a car. Each designed with the other in mind, where as an IL system has to compromise the sensor/processor to allow various lenses.

I saw the light after I bought a $1400 lens for my 30D and it took horrible shots because the lens "back focused" on the sensor and there was no way to adjust it, like in a D7100. After that, I asked myself how many shots have I taken over the years where the lens was not quite "spot on" with the camera body. Hmm.
 
MoreorLess said:
GeraldW said:
A few years back, the "good" fixed lens camera selection consisted mainly of the Canon G & S series, a Nikon P that didn't measure up, the LX3, and ... Right, I couldn't think of any more, either.

But now, there are more than 20 (counting Leica branded Lumix); and more are popping up almost daily.

Sales must be fairly good, or there would not be so many. I suspect, that many serious amateurs, and a few professionals, are finding these are perfectly acceptable substitutes for DSLR's and ILC's, if only as the back up body. I know it works for me.

I have 2 points to make here. First, I'll submit that the premium fixed lens cameras make more sense for most people than do ILC's.

Second, I think compact, and Point and Shoot are poor names for such cameras. Many are neither compact, nor point and shoot. P&S, to me, implies quick snap shots with little thought, or even expertise. Something like a G1X, 100S, or RX1 are hardly that. Is an RX10 compact? Not really. So what do we call them? I'd suggest FLC for Fixed Lens Camera as an analog to ILC. And if they are upscale, maybe Premium ILC.

OK, that's my two points. What say you?

--
Jerry
Click to expand...
Personally I'v argue that phone camera's taking so much of the market from compacts was partly a result of compacts stalling when it came to development for years.

The basic compact has offered the same 1/2.3' sensor size for years and the "advanced" model has offered 1/1.7' for almost as long, neither really offering much in the way of fast lenses either.

Now ASPC/43 sized sensors with ultra fast lenses are likely more than the average joe who never prints(or never prints large) needs but theres a big gap above these sensors with a slow lens in terms of low light performance that will still show up on a digital display.

Sadly I think camera makers are in a tougher position now, had they acted more years ago I think they would have built in expectations of low light performance into the market that camera phones would struggle to equal. As it is there having to try and convince many people to move back to a compact, people who probably don't read tech websites/magazines that will highlight the performance advantage.
Click to expand...
You may be overlooking the fact that most pics are shared on the Internet anymore and even a basic P&S has greater capability than we actually need for most sharing.

As an example, here's a picture I took with my Canon Powershot ELPH 100HS which I bought for $100:





Pixel peep all you want, it doesn't make a bit of difference as this looks great on Facebook.
 

Attachments

  • 2739348.jpg
    2739348.jpg
    5.7 MB · Views: 0
AlbertInFrance said:
Tom Axford said:
I think you may be right that the trend is towards more premium fixed-lens cameras, although there is still a long way to go.

I can see the time arising when I may carry two or three different cameras instead of carrying one camera and two or three lenses.
Click to expand...
I can't really see why. There is no way I can see that you'd save on bulk or weight. Then there is a small question of cost.
AlbertTheLazy said:
Part of the reason for this is that there is no overwhelming reason to stick to one sensor size for all situations. In particular, extreme telephoto is much more practicable (in size, weight and cost) for most people with small sensor superzoom cameras than buying an expensive long lens for a large sensor ILC.
Click to expand...
Not all of us shoot in good lighting all the time. Much of my work is indoor available light: moving subjects, so no benefit from a tripod, and low profile, so no desire to use flash.

I own and regularly use two digital cameras: a P&S and an APS-C ILC. For family snap-shotting in daylight I'm happy to use either. For 'serious' pictures (club, competition, exhibition), especially in less than ideal lighting, I rely on my APS-C. Under these conditions the difference is obvious even on a postcard size print.

I'd be interested, next time I have some spare cash (!) in getting a larger sensor version of my P&S, but it would still need to be reasonably pocketable. And it would still not measure up to my APS-C for low-light shooting.
AlbertTheLazy said:
The stumbling block is for those photographers who carry a large number of lenses with them and believe that they really need that number of different lenses. Those people will always stick with ILCs.
Click to expand...
I have a long-standing policy of having a small camera bag and NEVER carrying more kit than will fit in it (tripod excepted). I normally carry a maximum of three lenses, one of which might be a zoom, including the one on the camera. I choose the combination of lenses to take out depending on the conditions and subjects I'm expecting. Sometimes I might spend the whole day with my 70-300mm on the camera; other days it could be a mixture of 18 & 35mm fast primes.
AlbertTheLazy said:
But I agree that the trend is towards more premium FLCs for most photographers.
Click to expand...
Depends on how you define 'photographers'.
Click to expand...
 
pavi1 said:
Tom Axford said:
I can see the time arising when I may carry two or three different cameras instead of carrying one camera and two or three lenses.
Click to expand...
I picked up a X100 last week. Now I have a D300S + lenses and the X100 to carry.

The X100 goes in Starbucks while the D300S waits in the car. The X100 waits in the car while the D300S + lenses go fishing in the boat.

One type will not do it all for me.
Click to expand...
 
yardcoyote said:
I love my DSLR (I mean seriously love--I came straight from film and a cheap point and shoot a few months ago, and I'm still in awe of its capabilities and the options it offers) but I am seriously interested in a FLC as a second camera. I know there are a lot of options out there and more coming all the time, but none that are what I am looking for.

Where is the high quality, large sensor compact with an excellent fixed focal length lens in the 50 or 55mm range or its equivalent? The X100 or X100S, the RX1, the Coolpix A, the Ricoh GR--all excellent and interesting cameras, but all with wide angle lenses. Historically, there is a strong thread in street style and general walk around photography that favors a slightly longer lens , and those of us who find their sweet spot there are kind of left out in the flood of 28 and 35mm compacts. Yes, there is the Sigma, but that's kind of a specialized item with its unusual sensor.
Click to expand...
The RX100 has a zoom lens in the 28-100mm equiv focal length range. I think 50-55mm would fall in there somewhere.
 
I try not to care what someone says about my camera. Usually with great success. P&S or POS, who cares?

Some of the best cameras of the 70's had lenses that wouldn't come off. It was all about the result back then and not the sensor or megaP's, 'cause there weren't none, as you may recall.

Anyway, make the best photos you can with whatever you have and be a better man/woman/other for it. That's my perspective.
GeraldW said:
A few years back, the "good" fixed lens camera selection consisted mainly of the Canon G & S series, a Nikon P that didn't measure up, the LX3, and ... Right, I couldn't think of any more, either.

But now, there are more than 20 (counting Leica branded Lumix); and more are popping up almost daily.

Sales must be fairly good, or there would not be so many. I suspect, that many serious amateurs, and a few professionals, are finding these are perfectly acceptable substitutes for DSLR's and ILC's, if only as the back up body. I know it works for me.

I have 2 points to make here. First, I'll submit that the premium fixed lens cameras make more sense for most people than do ILC's.

Second, I think compact, and Point and Shoot are poor names for such cameras. Many are neither compact, nor point and shoot. P&S, to me, implies quick snap shots with little thought, or even expertise. Something like a G1X, 100S, or RX1 are hardly that. Is an RX10 compact? Not really. So what do we call them? I'd suggest FLC for Fixed Lens Camera as an analog to ILC. And if they are upscale, maybe Premium ILC.

OK, that's my two points. What say you?

--
Jerry
Click to expand...
 
Everhandy said:
pavi1 said:
Tom Axford said:
I can see the time arising when I may carry two or three different cameras instead of carrying one camera and two or three lenses.
Click to expand...
I picked up a X100 last week. Now I have a D300S + lenses and the X100 to carry.

The X100 goes in Starbucks while the D300S waits in the car. The X100 waits in the car while the D300S + lenses go fishing in the boat.

One type will not do it all for me.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Everhandy said:
Everhandy said:
You may be overlooking the fact that most pics are shared on the Internet anymore and even a basic P&S has greater capability than we actually need for most sharing.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
While that is true, about once out of every few thousand or so pictures that I take, I get one that I want printed on canvas at 16X20 and sometimes 20X30. I am not an artist so I cannot plan these shots. They just happen. That is why every picture I take is with a good camera and lens combination.
 
Yes, I think it is. The paradigm being that one NEEDED to have many lenses of different focal lengths to get the most out of photography. If one thinks about this carefully, it spells out sheer inconvenience despite having it programmed into our heads that it meant "versatility".

If you don't have to carry dozens of lenses, you wouldn't. These new fixed lens cameras are quickly approaching the quality of a complete lens kit. It's possible that one day photographers will never need to have more than one lens for any of their work. Then the paradigm will have made a complete shift; a transformation, really.
 
Everhandy said:
You may be overlooking the fact that most pics are shared on the Internet anymore and even a basic P&S has greater capability than we actually need for most sharing.

As an example, here's a picture I took with my Canon Powershot ELPH 100HS which I bought for $100:



Pixel peep all you want, it doesn't make a bit of difference as this looks great on Facebook.
Click to expand...


Well, if you only shoot static objects in bright sunlight, cheapest point-and-shoots and smartphones were good enough for years.
 
Everhandy said:
AlbertInFrance said:
Everhandy said:
... But I agree that the trend is towards more premium FLCs for most photographers.
Click to expand...
Depends on how you define 'photographers'.
Click to expand...
From the Merriam Webster-

Photographer: noun \fə-ˈtä-grə-fər\ : a person who takes photographs especially as a job.

With that definition in mind, we won't be seeing FLC's in the hands of photographers all that much. However, they are perfect for the shutter bug, who's ranks I am a proud member of, having been a "photographer".
Click to expand...
You're misreading things again. The general definition of photographer is encapsulated in the first part of your citation. The second part ('especially...') indicates that the more specialised usage is also current.

I started using a camera around 1958, was paid to do it between 1970 and 1998 and then returned to being an amateur (i.e. not paid) from 1998 to the present. During the whole of that time I have been a photographer.

As your closing sentence indicates that you have also, at some stage, been a professional I am surprised that you perpetuate this misinterpretation. Why do you think that the term 'professional photographer' is used so often if it is a tautology?
 
micronean said:
Yes, I think it is. The paradigm being that one NEEDED to have many lenses of different focal lengths to get the most out of photography. If one thinks about this carefully, it spells out sheer inconvenience despite having it programmed into our heads that it meant "versatility".

If you don't have to carry dozens of lenses, you wouldn't. These new fixed lens cameras are quickly approaching the quality of a complete lens kit. It's possible that one day photographers will never need to have more than one lens for any of their work. Then the paradigm will have made a complete shift; a transformation, really.
Click to expand...
So you believe that within the foreseeable future I shall be able to buy a camera with a single fixed lens that combines the image quality of APS-C (or better) with a lens ranging from 15-300mm FF equivalent focal length and an aperture of f:1.4? All in a package no bigger than a 70's vintage SLR with its 50mm standard lens?

Using my current kit I have the choice of using one or two compact primes, giving me the speed and compactness I expect, or switching to a long zoom or other less compact lenses when I need them for my chosen subject.

I don't think the fundamental scientific theory is available to even postulate technologies capable of replacing my preferred lens kit in a single body/fixed lens combination. And I do not think I am unusual among enthusiasts in this respect

If you mean that I should own several fixed lens bodies to approximate to my lens kit, why should I lug around and pay for the redundant sensors, controls and displays needed for all these bodies?
 
AlbertInFrance said:
micronean said:
Yes, I think it is. The paradigm being that one NEEDED to have many lenses of different focal lengths to get the most out of photography. If one thinks about this carefully, it spells out sheer inconvenience despite having it programmed into our heads that it meant "versatility".

If you don't have to carry dozens of lenses, you wouldn't. These new fixed lens cameras are quickly approaching the quality of a complete lens kit. It's possible that one day photographers will never need to have more than one lens for any of their work. Then the paradigm will have made a complete shift; a transformation, really.
Click to expand...
So you believe that within the foreseeable future I shall be able to buy a camera with a single fixed lens that combines the image quality of APS-C (or better) with a lens ranging from 15-300mm FF equivalent focal length and an aperture of f:1.4? All in a package no bigger than a 70's vintage SLR with its 50mm standard lens?

Using my current kit I have the choice of using one or two compact primes, giving me the speed and compactness I expect, or switching to a long zoom or other less compact lenses when I need them for my chosen subject.

I don't think the fundamental scientific theory is available to even postulate technologies capable of replacing my preferred lens kit in a single body/fixed lens combination. And I do not think I am unusual among enthusiasts in this respect

If you mean that I should own several fixed lens bodies to approximate to my lens kit, why should I lug around and pay for the redundant sensors, controls and displays needed for all these bodies?
Click to expand...
 
AlbertInFrance said:
micronean said:
Yes, I think it is. The paradigm being that one NEEDED to have many lenses of different focal lengths to get the most out of photography. If one thinks about this carefully, it spells out sheer inconvenience despite having it programmed into our heads that it meant "versatility".

If you don't have to carry dozens of lenses, you wouldn't. These new fixed lens cameras are quickly approaching the quality of a complete lens kit. It's possible that one day photographers will never need to have more than one lens for any of their work. Then the paradigm will have made a complete shift; a transformation, really.
Click to expand...
So you believe that within the foreseeable future I shall be able to buy a camera with a single fixed lens that combines the image quality of APS-C (or better) with a lens ranging from 15-300mm FF equivalent focal length and an aperture of f:1.4? All in a package no bigger than a 70's vintage SLR with its 50mm standard lens?

Using my current kit I have the choice of using one or two compact primes, giving me the speed and compactness I expect, or switching to a long zoom or other less compact lenses when I need them for my chosen subject.

I don't think the fundamental scientific theory is available to even postulate technologies capable of replacing my preferred lens kit in a single body/fixed lens combination. And I do not think I am unusual among enthusiasts in this respect

If you mean that I should own several fixed lens bodies to approximate to my lens kit, why should I lug around and pay for the redundant sensors, controls and displays needed for all these bodies?
Click to expand...
 
GeraldW said:
AlbertInFrance said:
micronean said:
Yes, I think it is. The paradigm being that one NEEDED to have many lenses of different focal lengths to get the most out of photography. If one thinks about this carefully, it spells out sheer inconvenience despite having it programmed into our heads that it meant "versatility".

If you don't have to carry dozens of lenses, you wouldn't. These new fixed lens cameras are quickly approaching the quality of a complete lens kit. It's possible that one day photographers will never need to have more than one lens for any of their work. Then the paradigm will have made a complete shift; a transformation, really.
Click to expand...
So you believe that within the foreseeable future I shall be able to buy a camera with a single fixed lens that combines the image quality of APS-C (or better) with a lens ranging from 15-300mm FF equivalent focal length and an aperture of f:1.4? All in a package no bigger than a 70's vintage SLR with its 50mm standard lens?

Using my current kit I have the choice of using one or two compact primes, giving me the speed and compactness I expect, or switching to a long zoom or other less compact lenses when I need them for my chosen subject.

I don't think the fundamental scientific theory is available to even postulate technologies capable of replacing my preferred lens kit in a single body/fixed lens combination. And I do not think I am unusual among enthusiasts in this respect

If you mean that I should own several fixed lens bodies to approximate to my lens kit, why should I lug around and pay for the redundant sensors, controls and displays needed for all these bodies?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
micronean said:
AlbertInFrance said:
micronean said:
Yes, I think it is. The paradigm being that one NEEDED to have many lenses of different focal lengths to get the most out of photography. If one thinks about this carefully, it spells out sheer inconvenience despite having it programmed into our heads that it meant "versatility".

If you don't have to carry dozens of lenses, you wouldn't. These new fixed lens cameras are quickly approaching the quality of a complete lens kit. It's possible that one day photographers will never need to have more than one lens for any of their work. Then the paradigm will have made a complete shift; a transformation, really.
Click to expand...
So you believe that within the foreseeable future I shall be able to buy a camera with a single fixed lens that combines the image quality of APS-C (or better) with a lens ranging from 15-300mm FF equivalent focal length and an aperture of f:1.4? All in a package no bigger than a 70's vintage SLR with its 50mm standard lens?

Using my current kit I have the choice of using one or two compact primes, giving me the speed and compactness I expect, or switching to a long zoom or other less compact lenses when I need them for my chosen subject.

I don't think the fundamental scientific theory is available to even postulate technologies capable of replacing my preferred lens kit in a single body/fixed lens combination. And I do not think I am unusual among enthusiasts in this respect

If you mean that I should own several fixed lens bodies to approximate to my lens kit, why should I lug around and pay for the redundant sensors, controls and displays needed for all these bodies?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
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