I want a pocket NEX

[agorabasta]

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?

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).

[Vidgamer]

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.

Why won't they do it? If it's a purely marketing reason, what is the reasoning? I understand with Canikon, they don't want anything to threaten their existing locked-in customer base. That still wouldn't, in my mind, prevent them from making a DPx style camera.

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.

I haven't. I just think most people see the limitations and realize that they have to choose from among the available cameras. As for myself, if it weren't for Nex, I'd probably just keep using my existing cameras, but I saw the Nex as sufficiently close to "large sensor, small camera" for my needs/desires.

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.

Are you talking about film again? I actually bought a couple of old rangefinders to play with. For years, I used an Olympus Trip 35. Really good camera, fixed lens, manual "scale" focus. It wasn't exactly "pocketable". Now, the Olympus RC *IS* pocketable by any measure! But it doesn't have any focus motor -- manual focus only, again. The lens seems to be compromised, but indeed, it is small. But most of the rangefinders still are kind of large, at least the older ones, and hardly fit into a pocket.

Then there's the Fuji AF film camera I had. Boy, that thing was a brick. I wish it had been smaller, but given the technology of the time, I guess they couldn't get all of the motors and everything compact enough. It had AF, auto film advance, motorized zoom even. Even with the collapsible lens, it needed a big pocket; the Nex with the 18-55 is probably more comfortable to pocket.

Near the end of film, there were a lot more compacts, but did they actually take good photos?

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.

I've long thought that "something" could be done to make large-sensor cameras smaller. I never liked how you had go to with the DSLR form-factor to get a bigger sensor. I think we're pretty much there now. To satisfy you, perhaps all companies need to do is tweak their designs. My guess is that "photographers" will always be disappointed by Sony, who will continue to simplify where feasible. Never mind that those old rangefinders were pretty limited in operation.

In the meantime, I'm able to do a lot more with my Nex than I ever could with film. I am getting higher quality results that are easier to work with in the computer. The only thing that could make it perfect is a CZ 24mm lens for $400.

I wouldn't expect mirrorless APS-C cameras to be priced less than the high-end compacts, but then, another year or two of competition, and things might be more interesting.

[Vidgamer]

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?

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).

What you mean is that close, compact lenses will have high angles of attack for the light, which won't work well for digital sensors, but works OK for film. I guess that's the physics difference.

I think adding OSS, AF, etc., has also got to bloat the size. A manual-everything camera is probably a hard sell in today's market.

[bossel]

I still think for that type of camera smaller sensors are the future. We're now having acceptable quality at ISO 6400 when run through Lightroom. So a smaller sensor like APS-CC or m4/9 might do quite well till 1600.

And yes, I once owned a pocketable FF camera. It was a Canon Primera Super whatever with a built in, extracting 28-115mm lens or so. Even todays small cameras take better pictures than that (at 4x6)! I'd prefer a small sensor camera over that every day. Yes you can do retractable lenses for large sensors but forget quality.

APS-C cameras these days do easily 16 mega pixels at high ISO and you can print till A3 or A2. That's simply overkill for a walkaround camera that fits into your shirts pocket.

[Javelin]

it's not only noise it's DOF too. Small sensors alwasy have too much DOF for some things

[bossel]

You won't do your studio portraits with your pocket walk around cam! Thats again the 'i want everything' attitude

[pakodominguez]

You won't do your studio portraits with your pocket walk around cam! Thats again the 'i want everything' attitude

what's the problem of having high standards?
I would love a FF NEX!
I think it is just about today's standards that Henry's dream camera/lens will never see the light -unless he take his own Chinese advise and he make it himself...

[agorabasta]

The shallow DOF is not a pure blessing, it's just as much of a curse, if not more of the latter. That's generally speaking.

In case of small digicams and their most regular applications, the DOF too shallow is not only undesired, it would defeat the purpose of such cams.

[bakubo]

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.

Okay, I guess I missed those multiple posts and for that I sincerely apologize. Would you please point out the posts I missed?

[bakubo]

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?

[Greg Beetham]

Hmm maybe a foldout revolving rear screen that has the screen on one side and the EVF on the other, so you use it either/or.
The lens you want would be possible I think, the action of turning the camera on would cause the lens to go out to min zoom and the rear element reaches register at the same time, in anycase modern zooms don't have a fixed rear element register, it moves in and out as other elements move to get focus at any zoom position, and those aren't cheap. The only thing I'm not sure on is how small it can be made and still produce an IQ advantage over some of the other smaller sensor cameras available now. Also focus accuracy is more critical with larger sensors with the much shallower dof, it's not much use having more potential IQ and then waste it on focus gremlins, again getting that critical focus accuracy in a small package with a large sensor will not be cheap.
Henry I think you will have to start thinking of doubling your projected outlay, at least, because in the end it will still be a niche camera as it won't compete at the coalface with smaller sensor cameras with a much larger zoom range.
Greg

[agorabasta]

Just a quick note - some 12Mp 1/6" sensor coupled with a f/1.4 lens is absolutely equivalent to a 12Mp APS sensor with f/4 lens. Both the aperture opening diameter and the sensor diameter are just the openings put in series of each other. The smaller sensor is then operated at over 3 stops lower ISO for a given exposure time at the same effective DOF value, and it may even deliver lower noise due to shorter wiring...
Then if the pixel count is lower, the smaller sensor gets an advantage, and at the higher pixel count the larger sensor wins.
So what's the point of a large sensor in a fixed-lens digicam?

At the same time, the Olympus E-PL cams with the collapsible kit lenses already are almost at the physical design limits in regard of their size. The only thing they lack is a built-in EVF. I bet they'll get such an EVF pretty soon as the small s-AMOLED displays spread into the industry. And there will be many more digicams with built-in EVFs too...

[Vidgamer]

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 ....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.

Eh? I can get the Nex 5 with 18-55 into my jacket or cargo pants pockets, no problem. I can even fit it into my front khaki pants pockets, if I don't mind an unsightly bulge.

I know, lack of an EVF....

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.

What, the "image-space telecentric" explanation didn't do it for you? Yeah, Agorabasta could throw us a bone and explain the limitations a bit better, but I assume it's the angle of light, and that's probably going to be an issue with any larger sensor camera.

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?

Ha! Maybe. Unless, as indicated in the other post, the EVF technology becomes cheap and/or compact enough to be useful at reasonable price-points. At the moment, it adds so much to the cost, and it will make a huge difference in sales.... as in lack thereof, if the price goes up so much.

For me, I picked the Nex has having more flexibility, but had the ZX1 been available, I think I would have had to think about it a bit more. The Nex is going to be more capable, though. If money were no object, maybe I'd have both, and before travelling, decide how much bulk to take. All I know is that the last time I went to London with my 1/1.7" sensor camera, I had way too many blurry shots. Darned overcast days....

[agorabasta]

Yeah, Agorabasta could throw us a bone and explain the limitations a bit better, but I assume it's the angle of light, and that's probably going to be an issue with any larger sensor camera.

No bone throwing here That above 'image-space telecentric' was a link to the Wikipedia article. That better be read.

I mentioned it twice in this thread that the silicon is too reflective to catch oblique rays effectively. It's also somewhat translucent; so if, by chance, an oblique ray is not reflected, it has a great chance to get registered pretty much shifted out radially off the centre. David also mentioned the 'corner shading', it's exactly the same thing.

I simply cannot understand how can Henry be so much interested in the topic, yet never really investigate the abundantly available info. After all, the urge of constantly getting the new info is one of the basic instincts of human beings; so it's a lot of natural pleasure and fun in itself.

[Vidgamer]

Yeah, Agorabasta could throw us a bone and explain the limitations a bit better, but I assume it's the angle of light, and that's probably going to be an issue with any larger sensor camera.

No bone throwing here That above 'image-space telecentric' was a link to the Wikipedia article. That better be read.

Ah, I didn't realize it was a link. I thought you just highlighted it for effect.

I mentioned it twice in this thread that the silicon is too reflective to catch oblique rays effectively. It's also somewhat translucent; so if, by chance, an oblique ray is not reflected, it has a great chance to get registered pretty much shifted out radially off the centre. David also mentioned the 'corner shading', it's exactly the same thing.

There have been multiple reports of wide-angle lenses having this problem.

Hmm, maybe the answer is a design more like the small "handycam" type camcorders. There, you have something that collapses into a very compact shape. As it is, the Nex has a bit of an "L" shape that is hard to stuff into a pocket.

I simply cannot understand how can Henry be so much interested in the topic, yet never really investigate the abundantly available info. After all, the urge of constantly getting the new info is one of the basic instincts of human beings; so it's a lot of natural pleasure and fun in itself.

If I am stumped, it's more as to why Sony can't make an inexpensive add-on EVF. An EVF and a 24/1.7 CZ lens, and that would make a mighty-fine compact (if not cheap).