Compact Camera Enigma.....

[Tom Swaman]

Thanks to many of your responses and to the fact that few to none responded to several of my recent threads about compacts, or at least aboutpoint-and-shoot, camera issues, I think I have exhausted this subject. However, before dropping this issue completely, I find one photographic consideration totally enigmatic.

People keep buying compact cameras having huge focal length ratio lenses with relatively long wide angle or no wide angle performance capabilities. These wonderous and expensive pocket-sized boxes also contain built-in flashes. Clearly, these compact wizards are not being used for what they really could do best if designed and constructed properly. Much of this was pointed out in the excelent review/commentary by Thom Hogan which Michael called to our attention. Upon reading this, I recalled originally reading this and being a bit saddened by what I read.

On a 35mm equivalent basis, a compact camera that takes good photo image files ought best have a 28mm or thereabouts wide angle capability with an idealized optical-only zoom capability in the 2X to 6X range. Think of the benefits to today's obese society. Photographers would need to get a bit more exercise walking forward to lessen the amound of diffraction degrading their image at any given viewfinder crop. A few steps forward, a sharper overall image, a more detailed crop and a more dynamic perspective and the camera would still fit in your pocket! If only the consumer would think about and care about the products of their own efforts.

Oh yes, and family photos would appear without partial heads or without half of a birthday cake and not palled by deathly putrid colors due to built-in flash fall-off. All of this is possible if we the consumer and we the photographer exercise a bit of restraint and a bit of care and pride. We must tell the camera producers that we want compacts with optical glass lenses having their minimum focal length such that we can image at least 75 degrees on the long image axis. Then we need only use the camera that we worked hard to purchase correctly. .....and how do we do this? Simply by only purchasing quality and rejecting crap!

Is it not a bit enigmatic that we buy expensive dSLRs, extoll the virtues of prime lenses, belabor the degree of weaknesses exhibited optically by zoom lenses, gruel and ogle over the increased distortion of ever wider angle optics and then we go purchase compact cameras with lenses whose focal lengths can only start to produce mediocrity and decrease in production quality as we sit on their zoom rocker switches?

The morals to the story are:
.....1) Consider purchasing compacts with moderate glass element zooms capable of wide angle coverage of about 75 degrees.
.....2) Walk a few steps closer towards your subject and get not only a better view, but a better lasting memory of your view.
.....3) Let the pride of your improved quality photography enhance your fun and the smile on your face which will prove positive for all!

Now that is two cents worth,
Tom


Than

[Arizona]

I agree Tom, the compacts don't go wide enough for me, they are too noisy, not near enough dynamic range so I will not buy one. DSLRs are bulkier and heavier but I will always take that penalty to have the focal lengths and IQ that is desired. Most of the compacts don't even support RAW anymore, too many strikes.

Some of the DSLRs are relatively small though they don't come close to many of the compacts. The masses of consumers buying these type cameras are many compared to the fraction of a percent of discriminating users so I don't see manufacturers changing. DSLR remains the only choice for me.

[Tom Swaman]

Arizona,

I agree with your comments. However, there are those times when it is handy to hae a quality shirt=pocket camera to memorialize a passing scene when the ole dSLR is in the bag, the other car or wherever. Remember the Rollei 35. This was available wioth a good 28mm lens and it took great photos. And then there was Contax and a Ricoh that could do similarly. I am certain that I have forgotten a few.

The sad part is that the digitals use a sensor smakller than the old 35mm film, do not need a winding mechanism or room for a film casette and I do not believe that there is a true, high quality digital compact comparable to any of the 35mm film cameras mentioned above that are available at any price, with or withour RAW capability. And, you are so right, these cameras are noisier than loud, in general!!!!! And, sad to say, many of the newer toys pack more pixels into a smaller area and neglect the resulting impact on noise. So, it is the photographer's fault for patronizing the crappy manufactured toys.

IMHO,
Tom

[heartseye]

Some truth to what you guys are saying, but it's not the whole story.

You probably heard me say this before, but I am utterly convinced that the DSLR is a species destined for extinction. They are too large, too expensive, too demanding of supporting hardware, (lenses) etc.

Smaller ccd, cmos, and others types as yet unknown are currently in development which will absolutely replace dslrs at some future point......nearer than further is my guess.
Already, the quality of the best of the compacts allows for larger prints of excellent quality than many photographers are currently producing.

The status-quo crowd always are skeptical about what is going to replace what they use. When I started in my career, medium format was everything......35 was a joke, and the scoffers abounded. That position gradually evolved though.....just as sheet film cameras became less essential for what most photographers were doing, so the medium format gear DID take a hit from the ever better 35mm gear.

Progress never stops. I never usually talk about my gear...I do use a 5D for some of what I do. But I also use a V-Lux and a Fuji 9000 as well. It just depends on the job. But I think the latter 2 cameras are more representative of where the industry is headed.
Day will come when I park my 5D beside my old Sinar P.........it's coming. Cheers...Bob

[Tom Swaman]

When I started an amateur used 127 or 610, if I recall correctly The 610 or equal was identical to 120 with a different spool. A pro used 4 X 5 as the Hasselblad 500C was not yet around and the Rolleiflex and the Minolta Autocord were still in the womb.

While the dSLR is a bit cumbersome, the flexibility afforded by interchangeable lenses will, I predict keep this around well into the future. Just look at what has happened to medium forman. It certainly has not become less clumsy!

Well, Heartseye, I hope we are boh around to see who is right. I think a lot of what is on the drawing board exists not for photography, but for commercialism.

Tom

[Tom Swaman]

Another puzzle, take a look at the specifications for the Fuji 460 and for the Canon 870IS, both introduced this year. How can th canon cost nearly twice the price of the Fuji?

Tom

[jfrancho]

Looks like a HIGHLY updated version of my S500, which I love.

[Tom Swaman]

Which one, John??

Tom

[jfrancho]

The 870.

[Bunyip]

I agree Tom, the compacts don't go wide enough for me.

How about 35mm equivalent of 19mm? (Ricoh, GX100)

How much would you pay for a 19mm equiv lens for a DSLR, with decent macro thrown in? Probably a lot more than for the total cost of the GX-100?

This is why there are a lot of "compact camera" users out there, myself included.

[jfrancho]

I just realized Tom has like four posts about what piss-ant camera to buy. Dude, you know a Holgaroid is where its at, don't you?

[Goofup]

The Perfect Compact Camera is out there. Course, only the government has it, or can afford it....

[Tom Swaman]

Goofus,

I believe you are correct. Just think, we paid for it!

Tom