Later NEX models I would like to see

[bakubo]

Actually you did that when you suggested that I didn't know what I was talking about. I'm genuinely tired of that one. It wouldn't take much knowledge of photography/science/electronics/new media/visual arts to be a 'genius' in the A-mount community, the level of participation is so low.

You still don't get my point and you are again being very offensive. Oh well. Here is what I wrote in response to what the other guy wrote:

It is clearly the reason that the A900/A850 (with FF sensor) lens mount is so much larger than the A700/A550 (with APS-C sensor) lens mount. And the D3x/D3s/D700 lens mount is so much bigger than the D300s/D90 lens mount. And the 1ds4/5DII lens mount is so much bigger than the 7D/50D/550D lens mount.

Anyway, I can't say for sure. I suspect that this might be a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing though.

Also, just a reminder. We were talking about a non-interchangeable lens, i.e., fixed to the body.

Anyway, it is interesting that you automatically assumed that my "might be a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing" comment was about you. Do you get accused of that a lot so you have a chip on your shoulder about it?

The point was that the size of the E-mount is irrelevant since we weren't talking about an E-mount camera. The subject was a non-interchangeable lens camera that has no lens mount. The designer can choose any diameter, distance to sensor, etc. that makes the most sense to achieve the goals. Also, for a camera that does have interchangeable lenses and a lens mount there may be a more or less ideal diameter for the lens mount, but that doesn't mean that it can't be used at a less than optimum way. The A-mount may work well for APS-C, but it still works for FF too. A larger than A-mount might be even better for FF, but as it is it works well enough that a lot of people like the A900/A850 with the proper lenses. Anyway you are the expert, albeit very insecure expert.

And I'm familiar with your disingenuous style, by the way, since you asked me a question on DPR some time back and then tediously donned your sarcastic cape and underpants when I said what you were waiting for me to say.

I don't recall that, but based on the tone I keep seeing from you I probably enjoyed putting on my special underpants. I have to admit that statement of yours made me laugh out loud. Clearly this has been gnawing at your craw for a long time.

How about we just let this go? Peace. I am done.

[bakubo]

One of the great things about the E-Mount is that no-one needs to consider its effect on lens design. It is one of the first mounts which has, effectively, no effect at all on lens design and imposes no constraints.

Cool. I didn't know that.

[RubberDials]

Anyway, it is interesting that you automatically assumed that my "might be a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing" comment was about you. Do you get accused of that a lot so you have a chip on your shoulder about it?

Well who else could it be about. I am 'Rubberdials over at Dyxum'. I have the same user name on here, Dyxum and DPR. If you weren't referring to me then who else where you talking about? Yourself? If you were talking about yourself then I apologise, but you must admit that this wasn't clear.

I don't have a chip on my shoulder but I am tired of being criticised for making statements of fact, rather than opinion. It is not my fault if wide-angle lenses perform better on film than digital - I'm just pointing it out. The Dyxum thread that was alluded to - that you presumably aren't familiar with - went to 60+ pages arguing that the E-mount was the size it was to accommodate a FF sensor. All I did was point out early on that the diameter had been chosen to suit Aps-c not FF. 60+ pages later, someone posts a comment by one of the original design team who makes exactly this point. Does anyone acknowledge that I was right, or apologise for endlessly haranguing me? Of course not.

I am not looking for plaudits, a backslapping or a fan club, but I have been an active member of the Sony Alpha community since the beginning and have endured a lot of abuse - and I mean a lot - for simply making statements of fact - not opinion - on the FEW things I know about. This is the key - 'few things I know' - I do not post on everything - only if I can offer additional information or correct a mistake in good faith. I'm not an expert and do not claim to be, although I do have professional expertise in some areas.

The point was that the size of the E-mount is irrelevant since we weren't talking about an E-mount camera. The subject was a non-interchangeable lens camera that has no lens mount. The designer can choose any diameter, distance to sensor, etc. that makes the most sense to achieve the goals. Also, for a camera that does have interchangeable lenses and a lens mount there may be a more or less ideal diameter for the lens mount, but that doesn't mean that it can't be used at a less than optimum way. The A-mount may work well for APS-C, but it still works for FF too. A larger than A-mount might be even better for FF, but as it is it works well enough that a lot of people like the A900/A850 with the proper lenses. Anyway you are the expert, albeit very insecure expert.

I only posted to defend myself. The subject of the thread wasn't relevant. As for being 'insecure' - I prefer 'tired'. Everyone's patience has an elastic limit and I have reached mine. One reason I'm not a member of a camera club is because I really don't enjoy clashing antlers over equipment and the top-trumps bullsh1t of the lens collectors. In the Alpha community here, Dyxum and especially DPR I have found a whole rugby league of bull-necked, pin-headed gear-bores.

And I'm familiar with your disingenuous style, by the way, since you asked me a question on DPR some time back and then tediously donned your sarcastic cape and underpants when I said what you were waiting for me to say.

I don't recall that, but based on the tone I keep seeing from you I probably enjoyed putting on my special underpants. I have to admit that statement of yours made me laugh out loud. Clearly this has been gnawing at your craw for a long time.

How about we just let this go? Peace. I am done.

I recall it, if your DPR name is Henry Richardson. I am happy to let it go too, but that means you refraining from making the little snide asides that currently litter your replies. Adding a smiley just makes them easy to find, not less insulting.

[RubberDials]

First, drop the insults please, they really belong on dPreview .

David

I didn't insult anyone. I defended myself. It would be nice if you defended your site members when you know they are right.

I wrote a piece sticking up for you once on DPR.

As for your comments on the E mount, I joined the dots a long time ago.

[David Kilpatrick]

The request to cool off insults was aimed equally at Henry and yourself, there's a narrow line between an argument and a fight even in words. The forums here have shown a lot of self-control from many members as I think everyone knows my views on this. Don't take it personally. I am happy that we have some valued contributors to the forums (you and Henry included) and I note with interest the different responses obtained here when, for example, Henry posts more or less the same thread-starter here and on dPreview.

David

[bakubo]

The request to cool off insults was aimed equally at Henry and yourself, there's a narrow line between an argument and a fight even in words.

I said I was done with responding to him and I meant it. I try to keep it lighter here as almost everyone else does too. David, thanks for the good forum.

[bfitzgerald]

The other problem with just using the back lcd is you get no stability for shots. I feel the loss of OVF's in compacts is a problem and it's down to cost cutting and an over emphasis on small size. Ok many were not great but I do miss them.

I picked up a brand new Fuji zoom compact 35mm camera on ebay a few months back for someone. Yup a zooming OVF and it was not bad at all really considering and a mere €7 even had a roll of superior ISO 100 with it too

[bakubo]

The other problem with just using the back lcd is you get no stability for shots. I feel the loss of OVF's in compacts is a problem and it's down to cost cutting and an over emphasis on small size. Ok many were not great but I do miss them.

I picked up a brand new Fuji zoom compact 35mm camera on ebay a few months back for someone. Yup a zooming OVF and it was not bad at all really considering and a mere €7 even had a roll of superior ISO 100 with it too

Thanks for getting the thread back on track.

The digicam I bought 2 years ago has spent much of that time in my pocket and I have used it quite a bit. It is getting old though, it only cost $104 new, but there is nothing out there to replace it with anymore. The OVF has disappeared from all of them. I like the one I have because it is fairly small, has IS, has an OVF, uses 2 AA batteries, and has a small, retractable zoom lens. It would be much better if there was something similar with an APS-C sensor. Yeah, losing the AA batteries would happen but I can live with it. I use rechargeable nimh batteries, but have the option of using alkaline batteries if I can't charge -- done that a couple of times.

I suppose one of the companies, probably not Sony, will eventually put an APS-C sensor in something like this. I just hope they don't drop the OVF though. Although there were tons of 35mm pocket p&s cameras just a few years ago here is just one that would be a reasonable basis for an APS-C digicam:



I prefer the basic specs I mentioned earlier though and the styling could be updated a bit if the company decides this looks just so yesterday.

[Greg Beetham]

I don't see why they couldn't make something like that if they put their minds too it, the lens on APS-C would be something like a 24-80 (approx equiv to the 38-115 on the Canon 115u) the leaf shutter, flat chat, only does 1/440sec, not super fast but probably good enough. The existing lens is f4.6 - f13, so if the image circle was re-designed and tightened up for APS-C it might become a f3.5 - f8 but could be as slow as f10.
The big problem on a large format digital with a small slow lens is "corner shading", even though the image circle had been reduced to the correct size, I think too overcome that the lens would have too be radically re-designed. (or maybe hijack a Leica sensor too put in it)
David or Olaf being more into optical design might be able to shed more light (excuse the pun) on this.
Greg

[bakubo]

I don't see why they couldn't make something like that if they put their minds too it, the lens on APS-C would be something like a 24-80 (approx equiv to the 38-115 on the Canon 115u) the leaf shutter, flat chat, only does 1/440sec, not super fast but probably good enough. The existing lens is f4.6 - f13, so if the image circle was re-designed and tightened up for APS-C it might become a f3.5 - f8 but could be as slow as f10.
The big problem on a large format digital with a small slow lens is "corner shading", even though the image circle had been reduced to the correct size, I think too overcome that the lens would have too be radically re-designed. (or maybe hijack a Leica sensor too put in it)
David or Olaf being more into optical design might be able to shed more light (excuse the pun) on this.

Greg, you have missed the point. I need to go through this thread again because someone else missed the point earlier in exactly the same way. I am not talking about the same specs as that example 35mm p&s. I mentioned the specs in the OP camera #1 back when this thread started. I am just talking about the basic form factor and what it includes. Just so no one forgets, here is what I wrote about camera #1:

A model with image stablization that has a smaller, non-interchangeable lens that retracts in the body when turned off. Basically, pretty much like just about all 35mm p&s cameras of just a few years ago. An OVF like they had too and a built-in flash like they had also. Of course, have the LCD on the back too that can tilt. I love LV for when it is appropriate, but want the OVF for when it is not. I don't know exactly what lens specs would be possible for a relatively small retractable lens, but based on what we saw with 35mm p&s cameras of a few years ago that had a much larger FF sensor, I suspect, that 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 would be possible. In some ways it is easier to make a good performing lens these days. Smaller APS-C sensor and plus now the camera can automatically correct distortion, CA, and vignetting for JPEGs and the RAW processing software (Sony, LR/ACR, DxO) can do it automatically for RAW files. Using the menu to make most changes is okay.

Since I want it to be a camera that I can carry in a pocket (at least the side pocket of cargo shorts) it doesn't have to be a super-duper, fully featured camera. It doesn't even have to be a heavy, all-metal camera. In fact, I would prefer this model not to be heavy. And a reasonable price.

[Greg Beetham]

Basically I was only using those lens specs too illustrate the difficulty of building a lens for reasonably large digital format and have it perform adequately and still be small and lightweight, film didn't have sensor shading (not vignetting, different animal) so was not sensitive too divergent light like a digital sensor is.
Actually I covered the approx desired lens specs. already in a previous post, the Pentax approx equivalent APS-C lens 18-55 f3.5-5.6, and mentioned it weighed in at 220 grams all by itself, so even with those modest specifications, the lens side of the deal is already heavier than the entire Canon 115u camera at 195 grams.
I'm not missing the point intentionally Henry, I'm right there with you on this one, I do think if they wanted too the camera companies could do a reasonably good performing reasonably small and light APS-C compact (but with modest lens specs. of course) and with a range finder VF too boot....IF they wanted too that is. And yeah I agree, must also have rear settings/preview/LV screen, SSS or IS, and do RAW as well. It might just surprise everyone how well it would sell....I'd even buy one.
Greg

[bfitzgerald]

I'm all up for a proper compact that uses an APS-C sensor. That should make life a bit easier than a 35mm FF one. This is where APS-C can come into it's own as it's going to be a lot better than the small ones we have. I used lots of 35mm compact and some were pretty small as well. Not every camera has to be wafer sized and tiny.

I had a few MJU models and they were pretty small and ok the lens speed is less but a much larger sensor counters that. And they can put an OVF in there are well. I have a lot more interest in a good APS-C compact than I do in any of these compact lens change models, reason is I don't really see that I would want to buy lenses for them I already have an SLR system no need for a compact one. About time these £400 compacts got down n' dirty wit really decent sensor and not just a "bit bigger"

[peterottaway]

In the near future I can't see that Sony would be able to economically produce a compact APS camera. In 12 - 15 months time when the cost of sensor and electronics for the NEX 3 has been recovered any number of times then that may make sense as by then the next family of Nex cameras will be on the shelves.

As there is a market for non interchangeable lens cameras such as the Canon G, then for the holiday market a series of " bridge " cameras based on the both the NEX 3/5 and the new NEX video camera at about 95% of the list price would likely grow Sonys market. It would take some existing camera sales but also attack its competitors market share as well.

[Greg Beetham]

Now if some really progressive camera company decided too use a rear illuminated CMOS sensor in an APS-C compact instead of the traditional 'getting long in the tooth' front illuminated CCD's /CMOS's then the poo might really hit the fan, THAT could mean a smaller lighter lens design altogether.
Thinking about the weight of the Pentax lens (18-55 f3.5-5.6), a lot of extra weight is contributed by the interchangable lensmount system, the whole mount base on the lens and on the camera involves quite a bit of tackle that can be done away with by having a fixed lens, and thus saving some weight, the only dark cloud on the horizon is the much bigger demand for power a digital camera with a big sensor and high MP's, (+processor and high res. rear screen) has over a film camera, this would mean a rechargable and expensive Lithium batttery, so the saving in weight on the lensmount would then be put back in the battery/power department, thing is, can they also come up with a carrier/cassette for AA's to insert in lieu of the Lithium if need be?
Greg

ps. Caught your post Peter, It probably doesn't matter if it's Sony or not who does it, I know Henry isn't particular about the brand and I don't particularly care either, it would only take one camera company to build a compact along those lines (and have them sell like hotcakes) for the other camera companies to be able to find the money too build one as well, regardless of previous vested interests.

[agorabasta]

Henry,

The thing you ask of could be possible only if silicon sensors are made compatible with short exit pupil distance optics with large enough apertures. Now, if the lens need be small, it's whether the exit pupil is too close to the sensor or the aperture is too small.

The problem with short exit pupil distance at large apertures is not so much with the corner shading in silicon sensors poorly collecting oblique angle rays, it's more with the oblique light interaction with the CFA/LPF/microlens sandwich atop the silicon sensor. It's well enough evident with the current Nex lenses - the 16f2.8 one produces what appears as extreme blue CA in the corners when the subject there is something dark over a bright blue background, like foliage/twigs against clear blue sky. That CA is actually a reflection created inside the 'sandwich' atop the sensor, and it disappears if there's less of blue in the background and/or if the scene is of generally low brightness/contrast in the corners and/or if there's no transition from bright blue to dark areas in direction towards the corner (e.g. if there's some blue skies around some building).

A sensor to use in a kind of design you ask for would need to have bare silicon exposed to incident light, better yet with some anti-reflection coating applied straight over the silicon. In principle, that's possible with some Foveon-ish sensor design. But such sensor designs have yet a long way ahead to perfection. (Btw, Sony also has a similar to Foveon design patented.)