Fixed Lens Cameras

[gary0319]

A

Sure, they’re really small, and a marvel. But the Ricoh’s collapsible lens makes them much smaller once you factor the lens in.

My GM1 was hurt that your GM5 thought it was the smallest.

A

I like small, too. My OM TG7, fixed/internal 25-100 zoom lens, never gets me confused with being a “camera guy” when out with friends and family. Here she is with my iPhone. They both fit nicely into that little purse-bag.

 

[nikonzednaikonzee]

About Fixed Lens Cameras

Buying these cameras seem like photographic masochism to me. Amateur photographers eagerly pay thousands to give up their options.

They praise being freed from the burden of “the bag”. But of course they don’t have to buy a fixed lens camera to get free of the bag. They could just leave the bag home.

Some think the fixed lens camera is lighter. But full frame camera and lens combinations can be even lighter than the fixed lens cameras they emulate.

They trade interchangeable lenses and zoom lenses for zoom by crop. But they needn’t buy a fixed lens camera to do that. They can mount their favorite lens on their favorite camera body and venture forth.

And if that isn’t really a rigid enough straight jacket, they can mount that lens with a drop of Loctite and never change lenses again. Does that idea elicit horror? Is it any worse to hinder a used ILC and lens, perhaps worth $2,000, than to spend over $6000 for a fixed lens camera? If one creates his own fixed lens camera he can choose the lens, perhaps even a zoom, for greatly enhanced functionality. Oops! I forgot that these folks seek less functionality, not more.

The latest development in this craziness is the medium format fixed lens camera with an f4 lens and no IBIS. In the past decade, it’s unlikely that anyone had a real need for digital medium format. Sure, they shoot it, but did even one of their images get presented in a manner where medium format was perceivably better than full frame?

The following is quoted below with the kind permission of Petapixel.com

This comparison, by Norwegian professional photographer and photography teacher/author Magnar W. Fjørtoft, is backed up with a real test. He shot a scene of a shipyard containing great detail at f/8 on his old 12mp APS-C camera and his brand new 24mp full frame camera.

He printed each photo 43″ wide and asked a group of 30 photo professionals and enthusiasts to write down which camera shot each print. Was it the 12mp APS-C or the 24mp full frame? They were allowed to examine the prints as closely as they wished.

Only 50% of their calls were correct, which is the same a flipping a coin. Magnar said that he himself could not detect a difference between the prints and had to label them on the back “A” and “B” to keep track of which was which.

After printing both images, Magnar wrote, “We simply could not believe our eyes! Then we laughed and laughed. We could not spot any differences!”

Well you've certainly gone into this very thoroughly and that puts you in a very commanding position when you decide what camera you want to use. Its not really anyone else's place to tell you what your choices should be, but since you have ruled out a fixed lens camera for yourself then I think you'll be wanting to use a camera with interchangeable lenses.

There are a few systems out there, so research the right one for you that has the lenses you think you might need. Some have lenses so wide that they can 'see' wider then 180 degrees!! So they can actually show what is behind the camera. Or maybe you prefer to really zoom in. You could have a lens that can take pictures of your favourite rabbit from the other side of the park and see the fluffy hairs on its bushy tail. Some lenses even allow you to 'zoom' , yes thats right, by twisting the 'zoom' ring you can actually have two lenses in one.

I imagine the folk in the Norwegian example you gave appreciate the zoom lens because they certainly cost less than if one had to buy two or three different lenses. Scandinavian countries can be very expensive and good value is always something to look out for.

I like photographing shipyards too. I'll be sure to bear what you've said in mind and when I next want to take test shots of a stevedore loading a grainship I'll take my interchangeable lens camera for best results.

Takk (thats thank you in Norwegian)

 

[Hal Wilson]

In today's world they are rather a fashion statement or lifestyle product for those that want a Minox 35 back in their pocket.

IMO a modern top of the line cell phone does better at this point.

I'm inclined to agree with this, mostly. Cameras are tools, or at least they should be. If a tool is much more expensive than others, then it has to also be proportionately better, imo. Are Leica better tools than anything else? The answer is no. Size aside, most current MILCs are better tools in terms of versatility, and if you really want 60Mp, then Sony offer far better value for money products. Something like a Q3 is a luxury item more than it is a tool. Leica's own SL3 is a better tool than an M11, and significantly cheaper. But then Leica are now a luxury brand rather than a serious player in the world of professional photography, so they have their own niche market sector covered.

I think the idea of a small, fixed lens high quality camera is appealing, but the reality isn't, so much. Yes it's a nice thing to have, but also very expensive. I wouldn't cry if someone gave me something like a Q3, but I wouldn't be spending my own money on one that's for sure. And I'm sure I'd find myself grabbing my Z50ii far more often if I wanted something small and lightweight. The recent Fujithing is what, getting towards £5000 for a fixed lens camera. Maybe that is a bargain in terms of MF cameras, but it's still very expensive for what it is tbh. Ditto the X100 range; popular in theory, and I'm sure that there's a lot out there, but is it that great? You can buy a better MILC for less.

I'm sure some will say stuff about 'purity' and 'stripping away complexity' etc, but I'm not convinced. Emperor's New Clothes. Now if a X100VI was about £500, closer to what it should cost, then perhaps it might be a more viable option. £1600?? I can buy a Z50ii with a bunch of lenses, plus other bits and pieces, a whole photographic kit, for that. And get better results.
Horses for courses, but also, strawberries for donkeys.

 

[tbcass]

To me, large resolution sensor cameras are about low light and extremely large prints for detail retention.

Yes, and for me the ability to crop more while retaining a usable resolution. I consider 6-8 mp my minimum sensor resolution. I find the ability to crop useful because a large percentage of my photography is telephoto.

 

[tbcass]

I have noticed that we roll differently when it comes to shooting. I typically have an idea and then see whether I can get there:

I could have used a GFX100RF, then shot something and then try to see what I can find at my computer by cropping. Is this how you work? Not always but "why not"??

You see I don't. I frame things first in my mind then through the lens. Doing this gives me some pleasure as if I am "discovering" what is in front of me. I feel like I want to shoot people, so don't use a wide angle zoom, but either a portrait lens, 65-105 mm, maybe, but not a 16-35 and then crop later. Or some special lens, like the Fuji 35/14:

Your approach would have given you some options, like cropping the whole person in - or just the face?? I took the photo the way you see it here. There may be some merit in your approach but I am not seeing it and don't want to go down that route.

But: whatever rocks your boat, I could still have a beer with you and secretly think about your next ventures, 28-400?? Canon?? Ricoh?? PhaseOne? ;-) any chance to see some of your photos??

Deed

You don't see value in cropping in post probably because you don't do it. That doesn't mean it isn't a viable creative alternative for other people.

 

[jhunna]

To me, large resolution sensor cameras are about low light and extremely large prints for detail retention.

It is also about cropping and composition options.

Cropping blurs intent though!

(you know what I am talking about right??)

I don't think so, let me know what you mean. I like to crop because sometimes I know the scene is interesting but don't know why. And sometimes you can get multiple pictures from a good shot.

I have noticed that we roll differently when it comes to shooting. I typically have an idea and then see whether I can get there:



I could have used a GFX100RF, then shot something and then try to see what I can find at my computer by cropping. Is this how you work? Not always but "why not"??

You see I don't. I frame things first in my mind then through the lens. Doing this gives me some pleasure as if I am "discovering" what is in front of me. I feel like I want to shoot people, so don't use a wide angle zoom, but either a portrait lens, 65-105 mm, maybe, but not a 16-35 and then crop later. Or some special lens, like the Fuji 35/14:



Your approach would have given you some options, like cropping the whole person in - or just the face?? I took the photo the way you see it here. There may be some merit in your approach but I am not seeing it and don't want to go down that route.

But: whatever rocks your boat, I could still have a beer with you and secretly think about your next ventures, 28-400?? Canon?? Ricoh?? PhaseOne? ;-) any chance to see some of your photos??

Deed

I shoot people in scenes or action, so I know when something is about to happen and go there. My subjects are rarely static unless I am practicing. I try to frame the composition in real time, but sometimes the moment is over before I am sure of what I have captured. I don't spray and pray unless it's sports.



I mainly take pictures for memories of the family and every now and again someone will give me free entrance into an event to capture the moment. So let's say a grand parent is holding a baby, and the grandparent doesn't want her picture taken. The moment is too good not to capture, and I want to get essence of the scene. If I have a flash then, I get one shot so I work to set it up and pop. If I can I will take several shots as I approach the subject and from that shot one will be close to perfect. A crop will get it perfect.



Because of the personal nature of my photos I don't post many and when I do I take them down after a bit. I can tell you I have never produced a flower shot as gorgeous as the one in this post, but I do capture moments equal to the portrait.

 

[jhunna]

In today's world they are rather a fashion statement or lifestyle product for those that want a Minox 35 back in their pocket.

IMO a modern top of the line cell phone does better at this point.

I'm inclined to agree with this, mostly. Cameras are tools, or at least they should be. If a tool is much more expensive than others, then it has to also be proportionately better, imo.

Cameras are tools AND toys. If you are referring to cameras in a similar line up then yes as they get more expensive they should get better.look at the Sony Alpha line up.

Are Leica better tools than anything else? The answer is no.

Are they better toys,maybe.

Size aside, most current MILCs are better tools in terms of versatility, and if you really want 60Mp, then Sony offer far better value for money products. Something like a Q3 is a luxury item more than it is a tool.

I say toys but can agree luxury item is probably better.

Leica's own SL3 is a better tool than an M11, and significantly cheaper. But then Leica are now a luxury brand rather than a serious player in the world of professional photography, so they have their own niche market sector covered.

Agreed.

I think the idea of a small, fixed lens high quality camera is appealing, but the reality isn't, so much.

I can guarantee you that anyone who has a small, fixed lens high quality camera also has other cameras.

Yes it's a nice thing to have, but also very expensive.

They aren't for everyone.

I wouldn't cry if someone gave me something like a Q3, but I wouldn't be spending my own money on one that's for sure.

To me that says it's more about the cost than the camera. And that's fine, I don't berate people who use hasselblads and Leicas. I either plot to get one, or enjoy what I have.

And I'm sure I'd find myself grabbing my Z50ii far more often if I wanted something small and lightweight. The recent Fujithing is what, getting towards £5000 for a fixed lens camera. Maybe that is a bargain in terms of MF cameras, but it's still very expensive for what it is tbh.

It is both expensive and a bargain. You just can't get a new 100MP camera for less than that, and it uses the same sensor as the Hasselblads.

Ditto the X100 range; popular in theory, and I'm sure that there's a lot out there, but is it that great? You can buy a better MILC for less.

I'm sure some will say stuff about 'purity' and 'stripping away complexity' etc, but I'm not convinced. Emperor's New Clothes.

I don't subscribe to photography purity, I think you get the picture or you don't. Use what's at hand and make the most of it.

Now if a X100VI was about £500, closer to what it should cost, then perhaps it might be a more viable option. £1600?? I can buy a Z50ii with a bunch of lenses, plus other bits and pieces, a whole photographic kit, for that. And get better results.

Depends on the venue, subject etc but in general any camera from the last 10 years can give you good results.

Horses for courses, but also, strawberries for donkeys.

I have to look that saying up, not sure if I am a horse or a donkey.

 

[deednets]

I have noticed that we roll differently when it comes to shooting. I typically have an idea and then see whether I can get there:

I could have used a GFX100RF, then shot something and then try to see what I can find at my computer by cropping. Is this how you work? Not always but "why not"??

You see I don't. I frame things first in my mind then through the lens. Doing this gives me some pleasure as if I am "discovering" what is in front of me. I feel like I want to shoot people, so don't use a wide angle zoom, but either a portrait lens, 65-105 mm, maybe, but not a 16-35 and then crop later. Or some special lens, like the Fuji 35/14:

Your approach would have given you some options, like cropping the whole person in - or just the face?? I took the photo the way you see it here. There may be some merit in your approach but I am not seeing it and don't want to go down that route.

But: whatever rocks your boat, I could still have a beer with you and secretly think about your next ventures, 28-400?? Canon?? Ricoh?? PhaseOne? ;-) any chance to see some of your photos??

Deed

You don't see value in cropping in post probably because you don't do it. That doesn't mean it isn't a viable creative alternative for other people.

 

[MyReality]

To me, large resolution sensor cameras are about low light and extremely large prints for detail retention.

It is also about cropping and composition options.

True, but I do most of that in camera.

 

[tbcass]

You don't see value in cropping in post probably because you don't do it. That doesn't mean it isn't a viable creative alternative for other people.

You are exaggerating my point. Gone way over the top here. What I am saying is that there's a difference in between shooting with intent in a particular format and shooting a scene and then see what you can find in post. An example would be street photography where you use 28mm 100Mpx and take a few snaps and then crop something out in post. I am sure that there's something to be found in any shot.

But isn't that a more random process? What I was saying, if you like, is that this isn't my way of expressing creativity. That doesn't mean that I never crop, but not as a means of discovery.

Deed

The flaw in your reasoning is you can do both. When I shoot a photograph, I compose carefully. When I edit in post, I have the option of cropping to different formats and compositions. I also crop to extend the "telephoto" range of my lenses. (I realize that cropping and using a telephoto are not exactly the same)

 

[mobi1]

If people are buying fixed lens cameras with their own money and happily use them, I don't see how it is a problem.

Most budget smartphones still come with just 1 fixed lens camera. So half of the world is familiar with fixed lens camera. Some people don't enjoy changing lens.

Technically one change change the engine of a car, but 99.999% don't do it. Whatever engine their car comes with they happily drive the car everywhere.

Same can be said for fixed lens cameras. Most come with a 28-35 mm (full frame equivalent) lens which is perfect focal length for general photography.

 

[MyReality]

To me, large resolution sensor cameras are about low light and extremely large prints for detail retention.

Yes, and for me the ability to crop more while retaining a usable resolution. I consider 6-8 mp my minimum sensor resolution. I find the ability to crop useful because a large percentage of my photography is telephoto.

To me , cropping is ok if I must. The negatives are increased noise and DR loss.

My minimum sensor resolution depends on my end use: Posting on DPR, 8x12 in. prints, medium prints, large prints. I don't like to carry heavy or large gear when I am not going out to specifically photograph. 5 mpx is my min.




Panasonic TZ1, 5 mpx. Good for an 8x12 in print.

 

[Dak on cam]

I have noticed that we roll differently when it comes to shooting. I typically have an idea and then see whether I can get there:

I could have used a GFX100RF, then shot something and then try to see what I can find at my computer by cropping. Is this how you work? Not always but "why not"??

You see I don't. I frame things first in my mind then through the lens. Doing this gives me some pleasure as if I am "discovering" what is in front of me. I feel like I want to shoot people, so don't use a wide angle zoom, but either a portrait lens, 65-105 mm, maybe, but not a 16-35 and then crop later. Or some special lens, like the Fuji 35/14:

Your approach would have given you some options, like cropping the whole person in - or just the face?? I took the photo the way you see it here. There may be some merit in your approach but I am not seeing it and don't want to go down that route.

But: whatever rocks your boat, I could still have a beer with you and secretly think about your next ventures, 28-400?? Canon?? Ricoh?? PhaseOne? ;-) any chance to see some of your photos??

Deed

You don't see value in cropping in post probably because you don't do it. That doesn't mean it isn't a viable creative alternative for other people.

You are exaggerating my point. Gone way over the top here. What I am saying is that there's a difference in between shooting with intent in a particular format and shooting a scene and then see what you can find in post. An example would be street photography where you use 28mm 100Mpx and take a few snaps and then crop something out in post. I am sure that there's something to be found in any shot.

But isn't that a more random process? What I was saying, if you like, is that this isn't my way of expressing creativity. That doesn't mean that I never crop, but not as a means of discovery.

Deed

It's not necessarily a matter of finding detail. When photographing, I tend to take care to capture the whole scene, but many photographs gain from putting a focus on critical detail, and cutting off people's legs may actually help the composition, and cropping into side subjects (particularly when they aren't in focus enough to count as main subject) may be what puts them into proper relation with the rest of the image. And then there are things like this:




Uncropped




Cropped

Completely different cat…

I find it actually comparatively rare that a photograph cannot be improved with a judicious crop.

--
Dak

 

[jhunna]

It's not necessarily a matter of finding detail. When photographing, I tend to take care to capture the whole scene, but many photographs gain from putting a focus on critical detail, and cutting off people's legs may actually help the composition, and cropping into side subjects (particularly when they aren't in focus enough to count as main subject) may be what puts them into proper relation with the rest of the image. And then there are things like this:


Uncropped


Cropped

Completely different cat…

I find it actually comparatively rare that a photograph cannot be improved with a judicious crop.

@deednets this is a perfect example of how I shoot a scene. I capture it as it is in my mind, and then crop it if there is something to be gained from the crop. In this case, this cat is much more intense in the second shot. It comes down to what I continually say is the benefit of Huge MP... options.

 

[wheresrunnicles]

If people are buying fixed lens cameras with their own money and happily use them, I don't see how it is a problem.

Most budget smartphones still come with just 1 fixed lens camera. So half of the world is familiar with fixed lens camera. Some people don't enjoy changing lens.

Technically one change change the engine of a car, but 99.999% don't do it. Whatever engine their car comes with they happily drive the car everywhere.

Same can be said for fixed lens cameras. Most come with a 28-35 mm (full frame equivalent) lens which is perfect focal length for general photography.

This was probably true once, but smartphone makers have abandoned 28mm as their standard, which is a real shame. My iPhone 12 has a downright weird 26mm equivalent. Think the Pixels use 25.

 

[wheresrunnicles]

In today's world they are rather a fashion statement or lifestyle product for those that want a Minox 35 back in their pocket.

IMO a modern top of the line cell phone does better at this point.

I'm inclined to agree with this, mostly. Cameras are tools, or at least they should be. If a tool is much more expensive than others, then it has to also be proportionately better, imo. Are Leica better tools than anything else? The answer is no. Size aside, most current MILCs are better tools in terms of versatility, and if you really want 60Mp, then Sony offer far better value for money products. Something like a Q3 is a luxury item more than it is a tool. Leica's own SL3 is a better tool than an M11, and significantly cheaper. But then Leica are now a luxury brand rather than a serious player in the world of professional photography, so they have their own niche market sector covered.

It depends what you want. If you want a rangefinder then it’s hard to argue the SL3 is better. Personally the existence of cameras like the M series makes more sense than the SL. The SL has much better value direct competitors so it really does feel like you’re just paying a big premium for the red dot.

Of course few people want a rangefinder which is a big part of the reason they’re so expensive. That’s a shame though as they’re one of the few manufacturers who offer cameras without colour filters. I wish there were more reasonably priced options for that. Even 10+ year old type 246 rangefinders are over £2k.

I don’t disagree that Leica isn’t well represented in the pro world, but there are still pros who use them.

I think the idea of a small, fixed lens high quality camera is appealing, but the reality isn't, so much. Yes it's a nice thing to have, but also very expensive. I wouldn't cry if someone gave me something like a Q3, but I wouldn't be spending my own money on one that's for sure. And I'm sure I'd find myself grabbing my Z50ii far more often if I wanted something small and lightweight. The recent Fujithing is what, getting towards £5000 for a fixed lens camera. Maybe that is a bargain in terms of MF cameras, but it's still very expensive for what it is tbh. Ditto the X100 range; popular in theory, and I'm sure that there's a lot out there, but is it that great? You can buy a better MILC for less.

I'm sure some will say stuff about 'purity' and 'stripping away complexity' etc, but I'm not convinced. Emperor's New Clothes. Now if a X100VI was about £500, closer to what it should cost, then perhaps it might be a more viable option. £1600?? I can buy a Z50ii with a bunch of lenses, plus other bits and pieces, a whole photographic kit, for that. And get better results.

Depends how you define better. At similar focal lengths I doubt there’d be a huge amount of difference.

Horses for courses, but also, strawberries for donkeys.

 

[M Gartner]

You say that like being an amateur is a pejorative, it isn't. I don't care about being associated with pro photographers. I don't want a pro setup, although some of my gear is the best in the lineup. This is a hobby, I don't need my hobby to generate my income. I don't discuss money on this forum, but I assure a $2k isn't worth my time. But I do get great joy from people enjoying the prints/books/etc... that I give them. And yes they often times offer to pay...

Anyone who takes a picture.

Exactly.

You believe what you want, there are plenty of proper photographs that aren't purchased.

They aren't available from vendors.

I didn't say you couldn't afford it. I said you probably can't get one. If you can great, but let us know how you get on with it.

There are 9 gfx100rf on ebay right now.

Limited supply / production is yet another clean sign of it being a lifestyle product, making it a collectable and interesting to scalpers that will suck even more money out of those wanting one. It's a halo product, not a proper camera for work.

If it makes you happy, that's all that counts. But its not more than that.

 

[jhunna]

You say that like being an amateur is a pejorative, it isn't. I don't care about being associated with pro photographers. I don't want a pro setup, although some of my gear is the best in the lineup. This is a hobby, I don't need my hobby to generate my income. I don't discuss money on this forum, but I assure a $2k isn't worth my time. But I do get great joy from people enjoying the prints/books/etc... that I give them. And yes they often times offer to pay...

Anyone who takes a picture.

Exactly.

You believe what you want, there are plenty of proper photographs that aren't purchased.

They aren't available from vendors.

I didn't say you couldn't afford it. I said you probably can't get one. If you can great, but let us know how you get on with it.

There are 9 gfx100rf on ebay right now.

Limited supply / production is yet another clean sign of it being a lifestyle product, making it a collectable and interesting to scalpers that will suck even more money out of those wanting one. It's a halo product, not a proper camera for work.

If you are a proper photographer I am amazed that you can't take proper photos with any modern camera. The limited production is a combination of Fuji not making enough of their cameras in several lines, and I was prescent enough to expect the shortage, because I knew it would be popular and the tariffs may limit supply.

If it makes you happy, that's all that counts. But its not more than that.

It makes me happy because it's the latest version of proper photography equipment. And it needn't be more than that.

 

[M Gartner]

This is my cheap, small, "fixed" lens setup, and the lowest I would go. Making use of my old A7R II and a new 24-50 2.8 GM.

 

[M Gartner]

If you are a proper photographer I am amazed that you can't take proper photos with any modern camera. The limited production is a combination of Fuji not making enough of their cameras in several lines, and I was prescent enough to expect the shortage, because I knew it would be popular and the tariffs may limit supply.

It makes me happy because it's the latest version of proper photography equipment. And it needn't be more than that.

Proper real estate photos with a 35mm? Headshots with 4.0 max? I'm sure my clients will love it when I'm right into their face with 35mm.

Just stop, now it gets embarrassingly stupid.