I want a pocket NEX

[alphaomega]

You cannot have everything in a small envelope. I use both the Panasonic LX2 and 3. Each fit into a small bag that fits on to my belt. The 1/1.63 or so 10Mp sensor provides excellent images at low ISO settings but with a limited zoom range. Move up to my NEX kit. I can fit the NEX-5 with 18-55 Zoom, 16mm pancake and U/W converter into a small Hama bag 16x12x10 cm and light. This little thing will provide images as good as current Sony DSLRs. Then moving up a bit I can get my A550 or 580 with Sony 18-270 and Tamron 10-24 into a bigger Hama bag with some spare space or I can buy a small P&S that will not meet Alamy IQ requirements - so why bother? Maybe one day technology has moved so far that bakubo's dream can be realises, but technology needs to take a couple of spectacular jumps in terms of small sensor performance and lens design.

[bakubo]

If you need a large range and small size, something has to give. Instead of an f1.7 lens, what about an f3.5 prime? I wonder if Sony's upcoming 30mm is f3.5? It looks pretty small. If you can stand that field of view... If it turns out to be f2.8, I think that's pretty tempting as a general-purpose pocket camera. Although that CZ looks nice... Perhaps it is still going to be a bit large.

I read this twice and was just scratching my head since it doesn't seem to be in response to what I wrote in the OP or my other posts in this thread. I sort of get the impression you may not have read the thread. The reason I say that is that I never said "large range and small size" and I never said anything at all about an f1.7 lens. If you look back I suggested a ~35-70mm ~f4-5.6 (equivalent) or a dual lens ~35mm/70mm (equivalent).

But back to the topic of small sensor cameras, what about that new Oly with the 1.7 lens? Sounds fantastic, if you must have a small sensor. I think Sony has a gap that I suppose they expect the Nex-3 to fill. Step down from there, and I suppose it's superzooms or the HX5V, which seems interesting to me.

The topic of this thread is an APS-C or 4/3 sensor camera, not small sensor cameras.

[Greg Beetham]

Henry I don’t think the camera industry is ready to build a photographic orientated camera with a framing and composing device like an OVF/EVF built in yet, it’s more interested in building frivolous gimmicks with large rear screens and the ‘must have’ video. It’s the same story with DSLR’s; the camera industry has wandered off and lost the plot with making dedicated still cameras. Right now all the camera manufacturers using the latest sensors could make a superior still camera better than anything that’s available now or in the past both in a compact and DSLR if they got rid of battery wasting video and LV as a design priority.
I know with macro, LV would be very handy especially with a tilting rear screen, but why have they done it like they have? Why don’t they have a normal big bright OVF with no LV or video, and selectable rear screen LV and MF with MLU when you want it, on those occasions it’s actually needed?
The fact that they chose to produce frivolous video orientated cameras with compromises instead tells me where their head is at, and it’s not making dedicated photographic tools. It’s about meeting expectations with the generation who have grown up with holding cameras out in front and gazing at the back of them to take photos.
Why not make the SLT a non EVF camera anyway? Just a rear LV screen would do the job; then the very few who buy a 500mm f4 or such for it can make their own arrangements about how they use it.
It probably comes down to what will sell the most, or what they think will sell better; a large rear screen high MP small sensor super-zoom compact is the thing that sells, and a compact with a smaller rear screen but having an EVF/OVF is something that would be more expensive most likely, and having a large sensor it would not compete in the zoom range either. Most would look at the MP’s available in both first, (you always can tell a good camera by how many of those it has) then at what zoom range both had , finally they would also compare the rear screens and it would be game over for the APS-C compact with EVF/OVF.
So Henry I think you can join me in whistling Dixie while we wait for them to make a photographic orientated compact camera (or DSLR)…for now.
Greg

[Vidgamer]

If you need a large range and small size, something has to give. Instead of an f1.7 lens, what about an f3.5 prime? I wonder if Sony's upcoming 30mm is f3.5? It looks pretty small. If you can stand that field of view... If it turns out to be f2.8, I think that's pretty tempting as a general-purpose pocket camera. Although that CZ looks nice... Perhaps it is still going to be a bit large.

I read this twice and was just scratching my head since it doesn't seem to be in response to what I wrote in the OP or my other posts in this thread. I sort of get the impression you may not have read the thread. The reason I say that is that I never said "large range and small size" and I never said anything at all about an f1.7 lens. If you look back I suggested a ~35-70mm ~f4-5.6 (equivalent) or a dual lens ~35mm/70mm (equivalent).

But back to the topic of small sensor cameras, what about that new Oly with the 1.7 lens? Sounds fantastic, if you must have a small sensor. I think Sony has a gap that I suppose they expect the Nex-3 to fill. Step down from there, and I suppose it's superzooms or the HX5V, which seems interesting to me.

The topic of this thread is an APS-C or 4/3 sensor camera, not small sensor cameras.

You said pocketable and less than $400, though. At that price-point, I generally only consider P&S cameras as an option, and thought Kevin had a good point. Maybe that price-point will change, eventually. I agree with Kevin that with a couple of allowances, you could get a lot of bang-for-the-buck with a smaller sensor. Rather than a m43 (or APS-C) sensor at f4, a 1/1.7" sensor with f1.7 might be pretty close. Anyway, I think it's a tempting option. A lot of photographers have enjoyed the Panasonic LX series, which is a similar concept. It's not a "large range" camera.

[Greg Beetham]

I think a lot depends on whether the camera is intended for use in daylight only or in low light as well, and how good the wide end of the lens has to be. The small sensors struggle with wide angle, they do do tele and large dof well, but APS-C would easily be better at wide angle...depending on the lens. And that's where the tradeoffs might happen, to get full even sensor coverage at wide-ish angle with an inbuilt small light lens would most lilely tend to make it quite a slow lens, thus making it not a very good camera at low light levels.
It might be too much of a gamble making such a camera these days, it being more of a niche camera for a smallish market, like journos for instance; although Fuji thought there was a market for their rangefinder X100 (35mm fixed lens and the package is on the large side) camera, and that has to be a niche camera if ever there was one...and a lot more expensive than the $400 mark.
I still think to get the price per unit down to around $400 for such a camera it would have to sell a lot of units, or be expected to sell a lot of units, I have my doubts if a niche camera would sell in the volume required, mores the pity.
Greg

[pakodominguez]

Henry I don’t think the camera industry is ready to build a photographic orientated camera with a framing and composing device like an OVF/EVF built in yet, it’s more interested in building frivolous gimmicks with large rear screens and the ‘must have’ video. ..

The fact that they chose to produce frivolous video orientated cameras with compromises instead tells me where their head is at, and it’s not making dedicated photographic tools...

Greg,

I think you are taking a wrong path here.

A camera, like a hammer, cannot be frivolous. It is the use you give to the tool that is frivolous or not. You have more and more video productions (real art projects) made with video-DSRL. A student needs "only" 1000 US$ (A55 + double lens kit http://www.adorama.com/ISOSLTA55VLH.html) and he/she can produce a video with image quality hard to imagine just 3 years ago.

Then, if you have a big part of the new video DSRL owners using their cameras as "handycams", well, they will find at the first panning that it doesn't work...

[Greg Beetham]

Yes Pako I agree the video quality is outstanding from a large sensor at a budget price compared to cinecams. But I think something that doesn't do either job properly (stills or video) is in the end frivolous.
And yes you can do movie takes with a DSLR/DSLT if you have enough of them to overcome the short duration/reliability problems. And what's more, they are all welcome to do that if they want, I won't get in the way.
But like I was saying I'll just hang around hoping that sooner or later we'll get back on track with making a dedicated still camera (at least one model in the range isn't too much to ask surely); and such a camera will be better at stills (provided it's not a token gesture, leftover from making video/still cameras) than a camera that attempts to do both stills and video.
Greg

[bakubo]

You said pocketable and less than $400, though. At that price-point, I generally only consider P&S cameras as an option, and thought Kevin had a good point. Maybe that price-point will change, eventually. I agree with Kevin that with a couple of allowances, you could get a lot of bang-for-the-buck with a smaller sensor. Rather than a m43 (or APS-C) sensor at f4, a 1/1.7" sensor with f1.7 might be pretty close. Anyway, I think it's a tempting option. A lot of photographers have enjoyed the Panasonic LX series, which is a similar concept. It's not a "large range" camera.

I know that a pocket camera with a larger sensor that is something similar to what I described in my OP may never appear. Just a few years ago they were very common and they even had FF sensors, but not anymore. I seem to be in the minority in thinking that it could be done though and the reason it isn't is not for technical reasons, but just that the companies don't believe they would sell. Of course, the world is full of products, often successful products, that the professional business people didn't have enough imagination to think would be worth making. Lots of low-end stuff too. Flip, disposable/single-use camera, VW bug, etc..

I didn't just pick the $400 out of the air. A quick look at Amazon shows these new camera kits:

Panasonic G10 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 OIS $399.95
Sony Alpha A290 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 $388.99
Olympus E420 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 $418.99
Canon XS (1000D) 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS $479.00

Actually, these cameras all have 6 out of 7 of the points in my OP. It is just #2 (not pocketable) where they miss out. These cameras are pretty small though and not too far off from being pocketable. They all have much wider range zooms than I mentioned in #4 though. Then there is this, but it doesn't have an OVF/EVF, but price is in the right range.

Olympus PEN E-PL1 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 $418.13

Seems to me that the camera I describe in my OP is simpler than any of the cameras above so no more than ~$400 is not an unreasonable price.

As for small sensor digicams, well, I am always looking over what is available and the pickings rather than getting better are getting slimmer and slimmer. Almost all of them these days have only a rear LCD, no OVF/EVF.

[KevinBarrett]

As for small sensor digicams, well, I am always looking over what is available and the pickings rather than getting better are getting slimmer and slimmer. Almost all of them these days have only a rear LCD, no OVF/EVF.

That the OVF cuts into real estate both on the front of the camera and the back is no small matter. It starts to dictate the placement of the on-board flash and competes for priority of rear LCD size.

[agorabasta]

How about Pannies Lx3/Lx5?

(a later added) P.S. Not sure of Lx5, but there was/is an add-on OVF for the Lx3. Bolted on, it still left the cam more pocketable than a Nex.

[bakubo]

How about Pannies Lx3/Lx5?

(a later added) P.S. Not sure of Lx5, but there was/is an add-on OVF for the Lx3. Bolted on, it still left the cam more pocketable than a Nex.

Yes, I have looked at the Panasonic LX5. It has a 1/1.63" sensor. Just for those who might not be familiar with the size of this sensor here it is in comparison to some larger sensors:

7.9 x 5.8 mm, 0.5 cm² 1/1.63"
17.3 x 13 mm, 2.2 cm² 4/3
22.3 x 14.9 mm, 3.3 cm² 1.6x APS-C
23.5 x 15.6 mm, 3.7 cm² 1.5x APS-C

The LX5 has a fast zoom lens so the smaller sensor size is ameliorated a bit because of that. The LX5 gets good reviews though and I have given it some thought, but the biggest single problem is that it has no OVF/EVF. You can buy an accessory EVF for it and for those who haven't seen what that looks like you can see it here:

panasonic_lx5.jpg

(128.81 KiB) Downloaded 2630 times

panasonic_lx5_2.jpg

(83.86 KiB) Downloaded 2630 times

The camera without the EVF is a nice size, but with it attached it isn't really a pocketable camera. In Tokyo I had a chance to look at this EVF mounted and play with it. Not saying you can't get it into some pockets, but it would no longer be something you could easily put in and out of the pocket for quick use and the EVF probably wouldn't last long. It would end up broken. Also, the accessory EVF will just be catching on everything. So, this camera is not pocketable and has a small sensor. Once the camera isn't pocketable anymore then you can sort of go ahead and get a Panasonic GH2 or Sony A55 or something else that also has a large sensor.

At Amazon the LX5 is $399.00 and the EVF is $149.99 for a total of $548.99 for a camera that is not pocketable, has a small sensor, and costs 40% more than a 4/3 Panasonic G10 + 14-42mm or APS-C Sony A290 + 18-55mm (or one of the other combos I mentioned earlier).

[bossel]

Since you're using that chinese 'man saying/doing' proverb, let me quote a french one:

You cannot have the butter and keep the money for the butter.

That is, you can't have everything. We'd all love a large sensor compact that fits into your pocket. Technology is just not yet there. We cant't cheat physics.

The solution might be a new standard in 5 years, micro 4/9th. A small sensor with the same performance of todays m4/3. This might allow for small lenses, body batteries and leave some space for an EVF.

[bakubo]

Since you're using that chinese 'man saying/doing' proverb, let me quote a french one:

You cannot have the butter and keep the money for the butter. That is, you can't have everything.

Quite the contrary. Rather that wanting everything, I am wanting something rather modest.

We'd all love a large sensor compact that fits into your pocket.

Actually, I have gotten the impression that several people are not interested in this sort of camera.

As it turns out, you can go on ebay and buy tons of large sensor (FF and true APS-C) compacts that fit into your pocket. You can probably even find some brand new ones still being sold.

Technology is just not yet there. We cant't cheat physics.

I have suggested that I don't think this is a technical problem, but just a marketing decision. Please go through the entire thread to see what my points are and if you have something that shows I am wrong then please post. I realize that I could be wrong.

The logic I seem to be seeing in several posts is that because no one makes it the reason must be because physics don't allow it. I don't believe that is it at all.

[agorabasta]

The logic I seem to be seeing in several posts is that because no one makes it the reason must be because physics don't allow it. I don't believe that is it at all.

You've been told more than once in this very thread of the quite specific physical problems preventing a small FF P&S with a silicon sensor.
And once again you say you 'don't believe'.
But that's not a matter of belief - that's a matter of knowledge and ignorance. In your case it's worse than ignorance - you simply don't want to learn, neither from what you are being told here, nor from any other freely available source.

[stevecim]

The logic I seem to be seeing in several posts is that because no one makes it the reason must be because physics don't allow it. I don't believe that is it at all.

You've been told more than once in this very thread of the quite specific physical problems preventing a small FF P&S with a silicon sensor.
And once again you say you 'don't believe'.
But that's not a matter of belief - that's a matter of knowledge and ignorance. In your case it's worse than ignorance - you simply don't want to learn, neither from what you are being told here, nor from any other freely available source.

Sorry Agorabasta, Can you please explain why you can't have some thing like a NEX with a fixed lens? surely if you took a lens like the 18-55 made it power zoom AF only in a collapsible design it would work OK?