The resurrection of the single focal length lens point & shoot

I never thought I'd see a day when the single-focal length lens P&S
would be brought forward, but now we have Sigma's 3 models, Nikon's
new Coolpix A, Ricoh's GR, and Sony's RX-1. I'm sure there are more.
So how many people buy them because they are disciplined photogs who
can deal with a single focal length properly and how many buy it
because they are too lazy to change lenses? These are not cheap
cameras, they range from $900 to $3000 each.

 

On 10/06/2013 10:55 a.m., RichA wrote:
These are not cheap cameras, they range from $900 to $3000 each.Yet they'd be very cheap to make.
So even if the market is small (probably) the profit margin is high.
Especially when development cost to /remove/ features isn't exactly
killing the R&D budget.

 

So distributing the development and tooling and casting costs
on 1000 units versus on a couple million ones doesn't make a
difference in your world?

I *so* do have a bride to sell you. One where we removed
almost all of the hundreds of pylons, leaving only two or three.
The R&D budget for removing them won't cost much.

-Wolfgang

 

I'm not so sure that the Sigma DPx and Sony RX-1 are that cheap to
produce, as they all have a large sensor (1.6x crop, give or take) and
the Sony also has a Carl Zeiss Sonnar lens.
The Foveon sensor in the DPx cameras is what I'd call a "beautique"
sensor, having low production runs and thus higher costs.

I'd expect that the rest of the camera wrapped around the sensor
(including the supporting electronics) wouldn't be that much more
expensive to make than any other P&S camera.
The small-sensor non-zoom lens cameras could not possibly cost any more
to make than their zoom-lens equipped brethren, so I suppose the
attraction might be nicer materials and more manual controls?
I'm not that interested in this style of camera, so I haven't done
anything beyond a quick web search on them.

 

For certain values of "Zeiss".

 

Are we seeing the photographic equivalent of those restaurants that
drizzel some sauce artistically across a square plate, add six peas, and
charge $30?

 

Can't say, but I enjoy a quiet meal, without frenzy and screaming kids,
of all ages.
You may not get as much food per dollar, but the atmosphere is certainly
not frenetic. I have a strong preference for my local sushi bar, where
the chef serves edible art, and a nice variety of saki. If I don't
finish the bottle, it is saved for my next visit.

 

"RichA" wrote in message

I never thought I'd see a day when the single-focal length lens P&S
would be brought forward, but now we have Sigma's 3 models, Nikon's
new Coolpix A, Ricoh's GR, and Sony's RX-1. I'm sure there are more.
So how many people buy them because they are disciplined photogs who
can deal with a single focal length properly and how many buy it
because they are too lazy to change lenses? These are not cheap
cameras, they range from $900 to $3000 each.


OK, so these cams are "single focal length." But, do they incorporate a
"digital zoom"? (i.e. on camera cropping to an image size less than max
possible)

If so, I believe, several years ago, I predicted cam manufacturers would go
this route...

SZ (in one of his many incarnations) and I, and several others of you, were
jabbering on about "zooming with our feet," and I pointed out that
eventually, cam manufacturers would produce cams with large enough sensors
that they could put a good single focus lens on the body and get the same or
better results for average users than using a more expensive lens cheap
sensor configuration.

I love it when I'm right ...

Take Care,
Dudley

 

except they didn't do that at all. they use the same size sensor and
might have digital zoom, which is nothing you couldn't do later (and
better) on a computer. more importantly, digital zoom will never be
better than optical zoom.

 

"nospam" wrote in message

except they didn't do that at all. they use the same size sensor and
might have digital zoom, which is nothing you couldn't do later (and
better) on a computer. more importantly, digital zoom will never be
better than optical zoom.


Except, I never said it is better. At the time, I just said that
manufacturers would eventually adopt a single focal lens / digital zoom
configuration because it would be acceptable to most users and would be
cheaper to produce...

And, yes, sensor size is quite a bit larger now than it was then. At the
time, I think the average sensor size on PS cams was around 3 to 5 megs...

Take Care,
Dudley

 

they aren't cheaper to produce. have you seen the prices of these
things?

plus, camera makers have been making fixed focal length cameras for
years. cellphone cameras have always been fixed focal length using
digital zoom and only recently have cellphone cameras become any good.

there's no point in these fixed focal length cameras. the idea is to
get you to buy multiple cameras for every focal length you want to use.
that's really dumb, and expensive.

a much, much better idea is make interchangeable lens compact cameras,
which lets the user decide whether they want a fixed focal length lens
or a zoom lens as needed. there are quite a few of these cameras
available.

that's pixels, not size.

the size of the sensor is anywhere from about the same size to much
larger but as the size goes up, so does the price. in other words, it's
not cheaper.

 

"nospam" wrote in message

they aren't cheaper to produce. have you seen the prices of these
things?

plus, camera makers have been making fixed focal length cameras for
years. cellphone cameras have always been fixed focal length using
digital zoom and only recently have cellphone cameras become any good.

there's no point in these fixed focal length cameras. the idea is to
get you to buy multiple cameras for every focal length you want to use.
that's really dumb, and expensive.

a much, much better idea is make interchangeable lens compact cameras,
which lets the user decide whether they want a fixed focal length lens
or a zoom lens as needed. there are quite a few of these cameras
available.

that's pixels, not size.

the size of the sensor is anywhere from about the same size to much
larger but as the size goes up, so does the price. in other words, it's
not cheaper.


The way you twist around the minutest details and try to make a correct
statement sound incorrect is really quite humourous ...

Regardless of physical size, a large pixel count sensor makes possible the
ability to use a single focus lens with digital zoom configuration
acceptable for many camera enthusiasts...

If you are simply down-sizing, what's the issue? If you're just going to
produce a jpg and post it on Facebook where it's degraded again, who cares?

BTW, I agree with you totally that a good sensor with a good lens (whether
or not its a zoom) and optimal placement of the subject is the way to get
the best overall pic, especially when coupled with lossless storage and
great post processing / printing.

As for the cost, these cams are the test balloon. If they pass muster, look
for a raft of cheaper models.... Just like I predicted, many, many, years
ago ... GBFG ....

Take Care,
Dudley

 

i'm not twisting a thing. you said sensor size, not how many pixels it
has.

you could always do that. the only advantage of more pixels is more
resolution after you crop (which is what digital zoom is). you'd have
even more pixels if you didn't crop.

however, it is true that a cropped image from a high megapixel sensor
today has more pixels than a low megapixel sensor from long ago, but
you're comparing two widely different vintage cameras. obviously the
newer camera is going to be better, cropped or not.

crop when you upload to facebook. no need for digital zoom on the
camera. many smartphones do that now.

digital zoom is a gimmick to fool the ignorant. some sleazy companies
even go so far to advertise zoom ratios with digital zoom included.

the companies are throwing out everything they can think of and hoping
something sticks. fixed focal length cameras where the lens can't be
removed is a dumb idea. make it interchangeable, and let the user
decide what lens to use.

 

"nospam" wrote in message

i'm not twisting a thing. you said sensor size, not how many pixels it
has.

you could always do that. the only advantage of more pixels is more
resolution after you crop (which is what digital zoom is). you'd have
even more pixels if you didn't crop.

however, it is true that a cropped image from a high megapixel sensor
today has more pixels than a low megapixel sensor from long ago, but
you're comparing two widely different vintage cameras. obviously the
newer camera is going to be better, cropped or not.

crop when you upload to facebook. no need for digital zoom on the
camera. many smartphones do that now.

digital zoom is a gimmick to fool the ignorant. some sleazy companies
even go so far to advertise zoom ratios with digital zoom included.

the companies are throwing out everything they can think of and hoping
something sticks. fixed focal length cameras where the lens can't be
removed is a dumb idea. make it interchangeable, and let the user
decide what lens to use.


Basically, we agree on everything, except for the definition of "sensor
size."

I tend to use the term more loosely, as do the majority of folks out there
who buy cameras: an 18meg sensor is not unlike a 1 litre carton of milk,
both are sized as per quantity, not physical dimensions.

Of course, with sensors there is the extra wrinkle of actual physical size,
so a more experienced photog will look at both pixel count and how much
space those pixels occupy.

Too bad you think so one-dimensionally ...

But, given I predicted this development quite some time ago, and most others
on the group scoffed, who's the real visionary?

Take Care,
Dudley

 

then you are using the term incorrectly.

when you say 'size', one assumes you mean physical size, not how many
pixels it has or any other characteristic about the sensor.

they do.

i'm not the one who is thinking one dimensionally. you are fixated on
number of pixels. that's not the only thing that matters.

don't pat yourself too hard. whether these cameras succeed in the
marketplace is unknown.

 

Let's think about this for a moment ...

ziplock bags are sold in sizes like 1 quart, 1 litre, 1 pint, etc ...

According to Wikipedia, quarts of various sizes have existed over time ...

Peaceful Valley Farm Supplies sells a 1 gallon size black plastic pot ...

When we're looking for a new vehicle, we check to see what size gas tank it
has, the brochure is going to list that stat in gallons / litres before it
talks about the physical dimensions ...

When the waitress asks you what size soft drink you want, don't you think
she's going to get pissed if you say you want one in a glass that has a top
with a circumference of 10 cm that tapers down to a 6 cm base, and is no
more than 12 cm tall?

And, if you give that anser to the barmaid when she asks what size draft you
want, you'll be cut off before you get your first drink ...

Top it all off with what answer most camera sales people get when they ask
what size sensor their customers are looking for, and I'll bet 9 out of ten
get a mega pixel count as the answer and you start to wonder how much
credence we can give to your strict adherence to area when discussing size
....

But, anyway, I'm getting bored with this one, so I think I'm going to go
find something more interesting to do ... like take some pics for an exhibit
I'm working on ...

Take Care,
Dudley

"nospam" wrote in message

then you are using the term incorrectly.

when you say 'size', one assumes you mean physical size, not how many
pixels it has or any other characteristic about the sensor.

they do.

i'm not the one who is thinking one dimensionally. you are fixated on
number of pixels. that's not the only thing that matters.

don't pat yourself too hard. whether these cameras succeed in the
marketplace is unknown.

 

How does this relate to more tinier sensels crammed onto a smaller
sensor, compared to the same number of larger sensels on a larger sensor?

You are using a broken metaphor: it makes no sense in this context.
It has no relevance to sensor resolution Vs sensor size discussion.

If you walked into a camera shop and asked for an APS-c (or FourThirds,
or APS-h) sensor camera with an interchangeable lens, then the sales
dude would show you a shelf-load of cameras and then probably try to
sell one to you.
No waitress involved.

Your "9 out of ten" people wouldn't even know that the lens-cap needs
removing before taking a picture.

You must be a "Mr 1 to 9" of your "9 out of ten".
Don't forget the lens-cap.

 

Hi,

I have a beautiful analog camera that by now is probably an antique. It
is a 35 mm. film camera, namely the Nikon Ti, with a fixed wide angle f
2.8 lens that gives exceedingly sharp pictures. It is solidly built, is
pleasant to behold and to hold, and functions well.

If only someone could put a good digital sensor and associated
mechanisms into this body, it would be a wonderful camera for today. Ah
well, I can still dream.

Mort Linder

 

snip

All I know is that until all these modern innovations of various sorts
settle down and reach some kind of stability, I'm sticking with
interchangable lense SLRs. When I want a lightweight point and shoot
I've already got several of those and don't see the need to spend $900
to $3000 for one.