agorabasta wrote:Sure you can, why not? Just don't detach that 16mm.
The problem is that Henry wants an equivalent of a FF/APS film P&S pocketable soapbox. That's quite impossible without having an effectively
'image-space telecentric' optical design. It means use of physically larger lenses and/or use of 3D microlens array where every single microlens is of unique size and shape which is prohibitively expensive for the type of cam in question (check the Leica designs).
As an example I look at the NEX 5/3 and its size and shape. I then look at the NEX 16mm f2.8 and NEX 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 (27-83mm equivalent). As David and others have said (and I can confirm) the NEX 5/3 + 16mm f2.8 is pocketable. I then think that if the body, say, the NEX body was somewhat thicker but the NEX 5 grip doesn't get thicker and then you had a rather modest ~24-48mm ~f4-5.6 (slight adjustments to the focal length and aperture is acceptable) which is 36-72mm equivalent. I am pretty sure a 24-48mm f4-5.6 could be a bit smaller than an 18-55mm f3.5-5.6, especially since it wouldn't be an E-mount lens and would not have a zoom ring or focus ring. Now get rid of the lens mount since the lens is permanently attached. Also, the lens diameter can be whatever is deemed reasonable and the rear element can be at whatever distance from the sensor is deemed reasonable since it doesn't have to conform to any predetermined E-mount lens mount specs.
This rather modest lens can retract part of the way into the body so that the lens hump may not be much larger than the 16mm f2.8. The body could be made slightly taller or the LCD could be slightly smaller or a bit of both. With a bit more space add an EVF or OVF, maybe with no vf hump or, if necessary, a very small one in order to keep the lines reasonably smooth so that it is still pocketable. Weight is also important since even if a camera is small enough for a pocket it might be such a heavy lump that it isn't all that practical for a pocket. Use lots of plastic and that will help, no lens mount will help. This is meant to be a camera to really use and not just a nice doodad to show your friends.
To be clear, I am not saying that nice, heavy, jewel-like cameras aren't for real use, just that for this type of camera that I am imagining pocketability is very important so that you can carry it with you all the time. For me that means it would always be in the side pocket of my cargo shorts or in a jacket pocket (as I have said before). Plastic these days doesn't have to mean junk and doesn't have to mean it isn't reasonably robust.
Using 4/3, I think, one can also come up with something that would be workable just by looking at what is available now, the sizes, and so on. Looking at various existing APS-C and 4/3 cameras and lenses can give some general idea of what might be possible but, of course, it is imperfect just looking at what is available now. I suspect that once you get rid of the standardized lens mount which then gives the lens and body designers more freedom, make a 2.5" or 2.7" rather than 3" LCD acceptable, if necessary, in order to get an EVF/OVF, and various other simplifications since these are not meant to be high-end cameras, just pocketable and good IQ this wouldn't be so hard. I think that with the in-camera lens corrections and/or raw processing software lens corrections (both are pretty common now) the lens would probably be pretty good since the actual glass might be a bit simpler. I am not a lens designer and have never pretended to know about it, but I do observe what other cameras are like these days.
Also, I don't see why you say that the lens/sensor would produce doggie-doo. It seems to me that if that is so then the existing NEX and m4/3 mirrorless cameras would all be acknowledged to be doggie-doo and I generally get the impression that people think they are pretty good. Anyway, in many posts I have explained my reasoning about why I think the things I do. I know I could be wrong, but so far no one has explained well why I am.
Oh, and, by the way, I have also looked at the Olympus ZX-1. It along with the Panasonic LX-5 are pretty attractive and I am starting to think they
could be acceptable, but both have no vf.
Just very big external EVFs.
I suspect if this trend of no vf continues then in 5-10 years some young hotshot on a forum is going to have a brainstorm and post about his super-duper idea to get around the disadvantages of only having the rear LCD. He will suggest that it would be really cool to have built-in OVF/EVF to use sometimes. A bunch of his fellows, all under 25, will exclaim what a really cool idea and why hadn't anyone thought of it before?