I want a pocket NEX

[agorabasta]

Something is definitely doable

That something would be an equivalent of 2Mp-res FF soapbox with horribly soft image corners plus a vignetting of about 4-5 stops plus strong coloured ghosting into the corners too.

But you may already 'preview' such a system output. Just dig up some old roll, scan it, add vignetting and ghosting in the corners...
Still you could possibly get an almost decent 10x15cm printout off it some now and then, that's if the captured scene cooperates somehow.

[KevinBarrett]

With improved sensors that give us ISO's in the stratosphere, there's no need to have f2.8 lenses on the cameras. As you stated, with improved lens making technology and smaller than 35mm sensors, the lenses should be no problem.

Exactly!

So a 1/1.7" sensor isn't large enough for you? If you're already willing to go for a smaller maximum aperture, then the myriad smaller format cameras with larger maximum apertures should begin to account for the depth-of-field differences.

[bakubo]

Something is definitely doable

That something would be an equivalent of 2Mp-res FF soapbox with horribly soft image corners plus a vignetting of about 4-5 stops plus strong coloured ghosting into the corners too.

But you may already 'preview' such a system output. Just dig up some old roll, scan it, add vignetting and ghosting in the corners...
Still you could possibly get an almost decent 10x15cm printout off it some now and then, that's if the captured scene cooperates somehow.

Well, a few things spring to mind immediately.

1. You have the the NEX 5 which is what you like. If someone starts to sell a camera something like what I am hoping for then it definitely is not for you. Easy solution: Don't buy it.

2. About 25 years ago I had something on my office wall that said:

Old Chinese Proverb: Man who says it can't be done should not interrupt man who is doing it.

3. In 1999 there was the APS film Canon IXUS II with a 23-46mm f4.2-5.6 lens. With the APS 1.25 crop factor that was 29-54mm equivalent. With a 1.5x crop factor that is 35-70mm equivalent. Actually, a lens for an APS film camera had to also cover APS-H so that is even tougher. A 1.5x, 1.6x, or 2x (4/3) digital sensor is much smaller than APS-H. Here are the 3 APS sizes that were available with APS film:

APS-C 25.1 x 16.7mm
APS-H 30.2 x 16.7 mm
APS-P 30.2 × 9.5 mm

As you can see, the lens had to cover APS-H even if the print that was made had a 3:2 aspect ratio (APS-C). Note that APS-C film size (1.25x) is bigger than the APS-C 1.5x and 1.6x digital size.

Probably in 2011, 12 years later, a somewhat better lens could even be made especially since it would be for a smaller 1.5x, 1.6x, or 2x sensor rather than 1.25x sensor. These days the camera would do automatic lens corrections (CA, distortion, vignetting, etc.) which would improve the results (as some digital cameras already do). Not suggesting that this or any other old lens be used. I think better lenses could be made now.

[agorabasta]

Henry,

The lenses are no problem whatsoever. The sensors are.

You'd need an effectively concave sensor top surface. That's if the sensor is made with current silicon tech. That's because the silicon is too reflective.

Your dream system will soon become more viable with organic sensor tech. And Sony is your best hope with that tech.

[bakubo]

So a 1/1.7" sensor isn't large enough for you? If you're already willing to go for a smaller maximum aperture, then the myriad smaller format cameras with larger maximum apertures should begin to account for the depth-of-field differences.

You seem to be saying there is no advantage to using an A580/A55/other APS-C bodies with a 18-55mm f3.5-5.6, CZ 16-80mm f3.5-4.5, 70-300mm f4.5-5.6, etc. so just use a 1/1.7" sensor camera. That probably isn't what you meant so I am not sure what you are saying.

[bakubo]

Does anyone know why the term APS-C is used for 1.5x and 1.6x sensors? The term APS-C is from the APS film format, but the size is quite different from APS-C sensors. Why was this misleading, inaccurate term used for digital sensors?

APS-C film 25.1 x 16.7mm 419 sq mm
APS-C 1.5x 23.6 x 15.7mm 370 sq mm
APS-C 1.6x 22.2 x 14.8mm 329 sq mm

And the APS-H film term is also used for the Canon APS-H 1.3x sensor:

APS-H film 30.2 x 16.7mm 504 sq mm
APS-H 1.3x 28.7 x 19.0mm 548 sq mm

[Lonnie Utah]

Does anyone know why the term APS-C is used for 1.5x and 1.6x sensors? The term APS-C is from the APS film format, but the size is quite different from APS-C sensors. Why was this misleading, inaccurate term used for digital sensors?

It was used because while not exact, those sensor sizes approximated the size of APS-C film.

[bakubo]

It was used because while not exact, those sensor sizes approximated the size of APS-C film.

Yes, I imagine that is why, but it doesn't make sense to me. Using that logic why not use APS-C for 4/3 and FF sensors too since they also approximate the size of APS-C film? Also, why not call a V-6 engine a V-8 since it also approximates a V-8? Or, call a 85mm lens 100mm since it approximates 100mm?

[Vidgamer]

My old Fuji was not pocketable by most standards -- it was a brick! I could stick it into a large pocket, but it's not really better than the Nex. It seemed to have a small aperture, and the lens was small. Perhaps the motors for zoom and AF forced it to be large.

I don't see why someone couldn't make, say, an f5.3 - 8 zoom lens, in order to be more compact. But would it sell? People are so wound-up about specs. But if it were obviously smaller, it might be worthwhile to some.

But there still needs to be an AF motor. And OSS would be nice. Those have to take up room.

Yeah, the XA was compact, but wasn't it a fixed lens? Did it AF? I also read that it had vignetting. Even so, it does show what "can" be done. But would it sell in large enough numbers? I think you might want to look at cameras like the X100 or DP1/2, which will need to cost more. If Sony's design is not matching your needs, look elsewhere. In the past, I would have said that companies are dropping the bridge camera concept to protect DSLR sales, but now things are getting interesting.

Meanwhile, I hope one of the third parties will make a 24mm pancake lens for Nex. It could happen.

[bakubo]

Meanwhile, I hope one of the third parties will make a 24mm pancake lens for Nex. It could happen.

I hope they don't. Totally unnecessary and would just muddy the waters. Bad idea.

[pakodominguez]

Meanwhile, I hope one of the third parties will make a 24mm pancake lens for Nex. It could happen.

I hope they don't. Totally unnecessary and would just muddy the waters. Bad idea.

I don't find any bad in that idea.

I hope we'll see soon a 24mm f2.8 (OS if possible) smaller than the Zeiss (f1.8?) Sony shown as mock up -That is what I want. And a 70 to 90mm f2.8 Macro -then, my life with NEX will be perfect.

Regards

[pakodominguez]

Yeah, the XA was compact, but wasn't it a fixed lens? Did it AF? I also read that it had vignetting.

The Olympus XA is a wonderful little camera with a wonderful little 35mm f2.8, extremely sharp and probably some falloff wide open. Then Olympus brought an AF version, called Stylus in the US, with a f2.8, and another with f3.5. Wonderful little camera that sold like hot bread for years. I remember a 20th anniversary version of that camera in gold, a beauty!

I have a couple of XA and tried to shop for a Stylus, but never found any interesting. So, I bought a couple of Hi-Matic AF2 (38mm f2. as "cameras for going to the beach"

[bakubo]

I don't find any bad in that idea.

There already exists the Sony 16mm so just crop. It is pointless to add yet another lens that is nicely covered by the 16mm.

I hope we'll see soon a 24mm f2.8 (OS if possible) smaller than the Zeiss (f1.8?) Sony shown as mock up -That is what I want. And a 70 to 90mm f2.8 Macro -then, my life with NEX will be perfect.

As for OS, just use a tripod, higher ISO to get faster shutter speeds, or flash.

Note: I am joking and just mimicking the you don't need it, it can't be done, it is pointless, etc. comments we often see here and on other forums by those who remind me of this:

Old Chinese Proverb: Man who says it can't be done should not interrupt man who is doing it.



So, yes, a 24mm f2.8 OS would be a nice addition.

[bakubo]

The Olympus XA is a wonderful little camera with a wonderful little 35mm f2.8, extremely sharp and probably some falloff wide open. Then Olympus brought an AF version, called Stylus in the US, with a f2.8, and another with f3.5. Wonderful little camera that sold like hot bread for years. I remember a 20th anniversary version of that camera in gold, a beauty!

I have a couple of XA and tried to shop for a Stylus, but never found any interesting. So, I bought a couple of Hi-Matic AF2 (38mm f2. as "cameras for going to the beach"

I have an Olympus XA that I bought in 1981. Nice little camera with a 35mm f2.8, aperture priority, adjustable aperture, and shutter speed shown in the vf. I also have the original Olympus Stylus and the later Stylus Epic too. Both with a 35mm f3.5, AF, but no exposure controls. The Yashica T4 Super with a 35mm f3.5 was pretty popular too, but a bit larger.






The Olympus Infinity Dual that I mentioned earlier had a dual lens: 35mm and 70mm. It is bigger than the XA and Stylus cameras, but still will fit in a pocket. When I say pocket I mean a pocket such as the side pocket on cargo shorts, coat pocket, etc. It can't be too large, but it doesn't have to be tiny. It also must be reasonably light so a heavy camera isn't good, such as the old fixed lens heavy metal rangefinder cameras from the 1970s. As I said in my OP, a dual lens, IMO, is almost as useful as a modest zoom and would be acceptable to me.

[Vidgamer]

So a 1/1.7" sensor isn't large enough for you? If you're already willing to go for a smaller maximum aperture, then the myriad smaller format cameras with larger maximum apertures should begin to account for the depth-of-field differences.

You seem to be saying there is no advantage to using an A580/A55/other APS-C bodies with a 18-55mm f3.5-5.6, CZ 16-80mm f3.5-4.5, 70-300mm f4.5-5.6, etc. so just use a 1/1.7" sensor camera. That probably isn't what you meant so I am not sure what you are saying.

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.

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.