ideal DSLR = large sensor mobile?

[BGD300V1]

The main problem was that is had inconsistent image quality, poor performance, too expensive, poor user interface for a camera.

Well, yeah but other than those few problems it was a fantastic camera.

--
I'm a photographer, Jim, not a graphic artist!
WSSA#51 as BG5700
My photo blog: http://birdsnbugs.com
RF Stock Portfolio - http://www.dreamstime.com/resp129611

 

[Bender79ita]

Was shopping around for MFT prime lenses, and came to the conclusion that physics seems to favour the approach used in mobile phones.

Most of us dream of a fast objective with at least wide-to-portrait zoom. As we all know, such thing does not exist, and even if it does, it would be crazy bulky and expensive.

But to pick the MFT options as an example, I can purchase the following primes right now:

9mm F1.7 130 grams

20mm F1.7 87 grams

45mm F1.8 115 grams

The paradox here is that these weight less and cost less together than the only 10-25mm F1.7 available, which comes in 690 grams.

So if I accept the burden of swapping objectives and the annoyance of no continuous zoom, I can already have a perfect 9-45 (18-90mm FF) F1.7 wide-to-portrait, in a small package, right now.

So if physics prohibit packing these three primes in one body, why not have a device that has each of them attached all the time? Carrying a mere 200 g extra tops is not a big deal.

My conclusion is that the ideal DSLR is a large-sensor device that has multiple primes. Practically, it is the same approach what phones use, but designed for photo only. The sensor could slide in the body below the prime used, and drop MF for packing the lens as close together as possible.

So why does such a device not exist yet?

You mean something like this? 16 lenses enough? :-D

This was the Light L16, I don't remember why it didn't succeed and how it worked though.

The main problem was that is had inconsistent image quality, poor performance, too expensive, poor user interface for a camera.

Basically a large heavy poor performing super expensive smartphone without a phone.

So the only good thing it had going for it was not being a phone... well, for a specific demographic at least :-D

 

[sybersitizen]

So why does such a device not exist yet?

Such devices exist, but hardly anyone other than yourself appears to want them.

 

[FrancoD]

The main problem was that is had inconsistent image quality, poor performance, too expensive, poor user interface for a camera.

Well, yeah but other than those few problems it was a fantastic camera.

Yes, it was the very best of it's type.

(to the OP: not for you anyway because it used 1:3.2" sensors)

 

[GodSpeaks]

Most people who own ILCs use their camera across a much wider range of focal lengths (typically at least 24-200 FF equivalent

Where did that statistic come from? How was it arrived at?

I would expect if you were to dig into sales data by mount, you would find that zooms outsell primes. Sales data alone would not tell the whole story unless you broke that down into use (sports/wildlife/fashion etc) at which point I think you might see primes outselling zooms for some fields of photography.

All of that, of course, is just conjecture on my part. But digging into the sales data would start to show how it all breaks down.

 

[JohnSil]

I think what you're advocating has actually already been done. It was called a movie camera but instead of moving the sensor to the lens, The lenses were moved to the sensor(film).

And for whatever reason they buried the last one of those with the last dinosaur. Are you suggesting that we exhume them? I mean the movie camera, not the dinosaur!!! :-D

The first exhumation seems to have taken place already:

Multi Turret rotating prototype mounts three lenses on a single camera

OMG, leave it to Sony to raise the dead!!! LoL

And here I thought optometrists were the last ones to use those to read the charts!!!

John