Beni wrote:
and still at the price of a new DSLR, sigh...

I'd be willing to pay for a decent small cam. I'd rather not spend $1000 on it, but for $500-600 I could be convinced.

The kicker for me on something like the Ricoh is the additional cost of the viewfinder. $200 is obscene.

munckee wrote:
Beni wrote:
and still at the price of a new DSLR, sigh...

I'd be willing to pay for a decent small cam. I'd rather not spend $1000 on it, but for $500-600 I could be convinced.

I could easily see spending in $1000 on one. Maybe even $1500, if the quality/features of it justified it). I really don't think you'll see one (quality one, that is) for $500. The market is relatively small, so the manufacturer will have use a higher price rather than volume to get their fixed (investment) costs back.

munckee wrote:
The kicker for me on something like the Ricoh is the additional cost of the viewfinder. $200 is obscene.

Obscene is quite right. Especially since it would cost maybe a quarter of that if they included it with the camera, and even less if they just built a real optical viewfinder into the camera itself. They remove a key usability feature for many, many potential users, and to get it back (with essentially reduced functionality) you have to pay not just for the separate piece, but for all the extra packaging and, marketing, and all the additional costs and profits of distributors, middlemen and retailers along the way. Quite frankly, this is just revenue enhancement device for the value chain. They can exploit they ones who value to feature the most because they are the one most likely to pay extra for it (i.e., those more "serious" about a camera's use).

I have the gX100 and loved it. The 24mm and 19mm conversion is fantastic!

I'm not sure how much u guys have to pay for the cam and all the accessories. However, the cam + EVF + hood + adapter + 19mm lens conversion cost me about USD $620. Yes, it is one of the more expensive lens in the market but the premium isn't obscene.

weekh wrote:
I have the gX100 and loved it. The 24mm and 19mm conversion is fantastic!

I'm not sure how much u guys have to pay for the cam and all the accessories. However, the cam + EVF + hood + adapter + 19mm lens conversion cost me about USD $620. Yes, it is one of the more expensive lens in the market but the premium isn't obscene.
Sounds like you got a really good deal. Adarama sells the body only for 599.00

Lotusm50: agree 100%. The 410 that is sitting on the desk in front of me as I type absolutely NEEDS a small range of pancakes.

My suggestions (anyone reading out there) are:

10mm, 17mm, 20mm. The current zooms are good, not doubt, but I would pay premiums for these lens lengths I mention. The 410 is smaller than the OM-4 sitting alongsde it, believe it or not.

Let's see. KL

cactusclay wrote:
weekh wrote:
I have the gX100 and loved it. The 24mm and 19mm conversion is fantastic!

I'm not sure how much u guys have to pay for the cam and all the accessories. However, the cam + EVF + hood + adapter + 19mm lens conversion cost me about USD $620. Yes, it is one of the more expensive lens in the market but the premium isn't obscene.
Sounds like you got a really good deal. Adarama sells the body only for 599.00

US retailers are making big profits!
What I had is the normal retail price in Singapore.

weekh wrote:
US retailers are making big profits!
What I had is the normal retail price in Singapore.


It's not only the retailers it also (and probably mainly) the US distributor.

I mean how much sense to the consumer does it make to charge $45-50 for an optional plastic hood? Or to package it with the "adapter" for the auxiliary lens? The adapter is virtually useless to you unless you by the auxiliary lens so why do you get forced to buy it if you want the hood? Why isn't it included with the auxiliary lens? And why is the cheap little plastic hood sold separately as an "option" anyway? It costs no more than $1 to make and include with the camera and is essential to many users -- so why rape your customers needlessly? (the same argument goes for the cheap plastic adapter). The little plastic hood was included in the past with the Ricoh GR1s camera, why change that policy other than to try to needlessly extract more money from your customers? Ricoh is really barking up the wrong tree if they think that this is an effective strategy to win over customers and build market share. Their product strategy here is really a big turn-off and there is too much competition in this market (and their product is sufficiently unremarkable) such that it is too easy for customers to go somewhere else.

The cam with the EVF set sells for S$850. The retailers here will package it (throw in) together with the adapter and hood.
The 19mm conversion lens cost S$130.

To me, the EVF and hood is useless!

I don't understand why we are talking about reinventing the wheel. It's clear that there is no digital alternative to what the op is asking. What's wrong with film? Really, if you so want digital files and don't want to scan them yourself then get them digitized at costco or target when they develop it. Not the best i agree but you can always rescan the good ones (as opposed to retaking a shot with a crappy toy digital).

Seriously get a nikon 35Ti or Contax T2/T3 or Leica minilux and be happy.

stompyq wrote:
I don't understand why we are talking about reinventing the wheel. It's clear that there is no digital alternative to what the op is asking. What's wrong with film?

I think thaty people are generally expressing their frustration that manufacturers have not stepped up and produced a quality digital compact, that is, quality comparable to film compacts. I don't think we are talking about re-inventing the wheel but rather realizing the logical progression of the wheel.

I and others, suggesting that a quality digital compact does not exist, have recommended film compacts. (go back through the posts in this thread and you'll find we're pretty much in agreement).

The Contax T2/T3, the Ricoh GR1, Leica Minilux and CM, the Nikon Ti's, even the really retro Rollei 35's, all are capable of exceptional image quality. And I should point out that both Fuji and Kodak film over the last few years has continued to improve.

I would add that forums are where the designers might find out what people really want in these sorts of cameras, too. I live in hope that one wil be designed and built to meet this need. Cost is not that important to me, but the quality of the image is.

I agree about all the great compact film cameras that people have mentioned, but film is just not part of my workflow now, hence threads like these.

I would pay $1500 for a compact. But it would have to at least a 2/3" sensor, fast glass, next to nothing shutter lag, and excellent image quality at ISO 400.

Right now, I have the Canon Pro 1 that I use for my compact.

The GRD is a fine little camera. Yes, it is expensive, but it produces excellent results and is a joy to use. The rumor mill has a GRD-2 projected for October FWIW.

Another choice might be the 8MP Panasonic LX1 (I have the Leica version, the D-LUX 2). I'd get it over the newer LX2 for lesser MP and therefore better noise characteristics. It is 28-100mm with a true 16X9 sensor, with full controls and RAW capability. I glued a CV 28/35mm mini-finder on mine as I use the 28mm setting so much and it works very well.

Both of these cameras can be said to be "noisy" but be realistic, you're not going to get, nor should you expect noise-free performance from these small sensors. You can shoot at lower ISOs (200 & 400) and push the exposure compensation to get better results than the native higher ISOs also.

I use these cameras and get great looking B&W shots that are very reminiscent of Tri-X. The GRD's "noise" is the best I've seen for appearing as film grain.

Simon Hughes wrote:
The GRD is a fine little camera. Yes, it is expensive, but it produces excellent results and is a joy to use. The rumor mill has a GRD-2 projected for October FWIW.

You are obviously very forgiving. I compared the GRD when it came out to the GR1s that I had loaded with Kodak Portra 400VC (color negative film). The GR1s with 400 speed negative film provided more detail and resolution, less noise (grain), and sharper than the GRD at 100 speed. To me and many other GR1 users, the GRD was a big disappointment. Not only in image quality but it it's feature set (removing the optical viewfinder from the camera and then charging the customer $200 to get a less functional one back -- yes, this REALLY annoys me). And as for the GRD's noise looking like "film grain" is rationalization of the highest order. It really just looks like crap.

Perhaps if a GRD-2 is coming out in October, maybe Ricoh will have listen to all the comments, complaints, and disappointment voiced about the camera and finally get it right. That means a integral, integrated viewfinder, manual control, a substantial sensor (4/3'rd minimum, APS-c preferred) to provide REAL image quality, and an included lens hood (no $50 add on to get the little cheap plastic hood). They really need to take a better look and re-examine why the GR1 was a successful classic. If they do, maybe with the GRD-2 they can turn the GRD from an expensive dud into the significant sought-after product that people expected a digital GR1 to be.

Rather than forgiving, maybe I'm just ready to accept that there is such a miniscule segment of the overall digicam market that wants what you (and I) really do that we need to be happy with whatever comes closest. I've had design and marketing experience enough to know that a company has to create products that have mass-marketing appeal, and that means we, the "power-users", will always have to compromise on what we expect.

The GRD offers the closest I've yet seen to that compromise to give a solid, practical, flexible user experience. You're dreaming if you think that the GRD-2 , or any other camera, will give you all that you're asking for... no company would ever recoup their development costs on such a small market niche.

You need to get beyond comparisons with film cameras... if you want film, then shoot film and scan it and stop lamenting how digital doesn't give you the same results. These small cameras are a totally different breed of beast, with very different characteristics and different methods of usage.

My "rationalization" as to the noise/grain characteristics is not mine alone, there are many satisfied GRD users. It's a shame you can't find what you're looking for in a small digicam, but obviously many of us are quite content to use what we have in hand and are out there producing excellent images.

Simon Hughes wrote:
You need to get beyond comparisons with film cameras... if you want film, then shoot film and scan it and stop lamenting how digital doesn't give you the same results. These small cameras are a totally different breed of beast, with very different characteristics and different methods of usage.


It not about digital vs. film. It's about compact digital vs. DSLR's and how compact digital doesn't come close to DLSR's inb output quality in anywhere near the same way quality film compacts could duplicate pro film SLR output.

Further, this discussion is not about the user experience, about "different methods of usage", or even "different characteristics" (a euphemism, perhaps, for noise and lack of detail?), its about producing image quality. It's about having the flexibility, resourcefulness, availability, performance and value afford by quality film compacts in the digital realm. Further still, the market for this bigger than you think. As evidenced by this thread and others, serious users will pay a lot of money for a real quality digital compact -- as much as 5 times the cost of a tiny sensor P&S equivalent or more. They will sell for much more than basic DSLR's and cost less to make. Development costs are not all that much. Most of the work has already been done -- it is incremental R&D putting together DLSR sensor electronics with compact camera mechanics and packaging. Contax, Leica, RIcoh, Nikon and Rollei sold alot of quality film compacts and made a good amount of money doing it. Virtually every pro had one (or more), not to mention all the advanced enthusiasts. Without any competition is this market segment, the manufacturer that jumps in with a serious, quality product will make real money on very high margins.

They don't want to do it, in fear of loosing DSLR sales. It's typical that Sigma, who doesn't have much to defend in the DSLR market, is the only one trying at the moment.

Typical for the situation is also that, while there were some serious attempts a few years ago (Olympus 7070, Nikon 5400, Canon G-series etc.), there's nothing left now. There are cameras like the G7 and the Nikon P5000, with lots of bells and whistles, but when it comes down to the real important stuff, lens and sensor, they are just run-of-the-mill compacts. A G7 is mostly an A640 with more features.

One thing that must be remembered though, is that this may not be as easy as it seems. Sigma apparently has some challenges to overcome still, and we all know the M8-story. But it's obviously doable, and the question is if this technology will soon reach a state of maturity that makes it viable for smaller, more innovative enterprises to participate, like we see it in the hi-fi sector. The photographic version of the tube amplifier.

Or is that what we call film

Jorgen: definitely we call that film!. And did you know that tubes are making a big comeback? I have always had high-end tube amps—but I bought my girlfriend a really cute thing called a "FatMan" lat week—a tube amp for iPods. The sound is great, and it smooths off the audio equivalent of digital 'jaggies'.

cheers, kl

Jorgen Udvang wrote:
They don't want to do it, in fear of loosing DSLR sales. It's typical that Sigma, who doesn't have much to defend in the DSLR market, is the only one trying at the moment.

Well, to extend the analogy, sales of quality compact film cameras didn't seem to affect sales of pro film SLR's. I've heard those concerns before, but I really believe they are overstated. For the vast majority of potential sales , it would be tapping in to latent demand satisfying an unmet need -- a need that really is not met by a DSLR. Further, if they do take away DSLR's sales, they should be ecstatic. Because the first to do it will not only take away sales from other DSLR makers (so he will sell a lot more than he might loose), he will also earn a higher margin on the compact than on the sales of their own DSLR's that were lost. Especially for the first to enter the market segment, it is a win-win-win situation.

It could be, as you suggest, a market for small producers -- like high-end audio equipment. With the digital technology more widely diffused into the economy, and more of a commodity these days, it is easier for smaller makers to produce products. This is the natural realm of a maker like Leica, Zeiss (either a Zeiss Ikon or Contax), potentially Sigma and Ricoh (who has unfortunately been substituting hype for quality), Cosina (if they break down and embrace digital), and Rollei. But quite frankly I would not rule out Nikon (who need a kick in their compact P&S sales), Olympus (who need some kind of break-out, innovative product), Sony (there was a digital Konica Hexar reportedly under development) or Fuji.

Kit Laughlin wrote:
Jorgen: definitely we call that film!. And did you know that tubes are making a big comeback? I have always had high-end tube amps—but I bought my girlfriend a really cute thing called a "FatMan" lat week—a tube amp for iPods. The sound is great, and it smooths off the audio equivalent of digital 'jaggies'.



I currently have a couple pieces of tube audio equipment (Kora and Blue Circle), and have had others (Sonic Frontiers) in the past. Really nice stuff. Hell, I even have the sound from my computer hooked up to a tube pre-amp. When it beeps at me for doing something wrong in Photoshop it sounds so smooooooth.

In addition, tube guitar amps are still the amps to get.

Lotusm50 wrote:
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
They don't want to do it, in fear of loosing DSLR sales. It's typical that Sigma, who doesn't have much to defend in the DSLR market, is the only one trying at the moment.

Well, to extend the analogy, sales of quality compact film cameras didn't seem to affect sales of pro film SLR's. I've heard those concerns before, but I really believe they are overstated.


I don't think the assumption is right either, but I fear that it's the "logic" behind. It's an interesting fact that all of them stopped making the advanced compacts within a very short time-window. It almost looked like a coordinated action from all players simultaneously.

I don't think you can necessarily compare the engineering involved in what you'd like to see with a small digital to that which goes into comparable-sized film cameras, they're simply two very different things. I think the proof of this is that we simply don't see what I know we'd all like to have.

As far as market size, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Compared to the market that buys the existing products en masse, we are simply much too small a segment to be financially feasible for the research, engineering manufacturing and support effort. Again, if it were feasible, we'd have these products.

The closest we've come to a (released) niche product was the Epson R-D1, which, for all it's foibles was a wonderful piece of gear. Where is it now though? Three words: not enough market. Leica, with the M8 is another, but not without problems and an uncertain future, even with a strong captive (rangefinder) market.

No one seriously believes that what we want is impossible, it's simply unfeasible. As others have pointed out, no manufacturer will cannibalize it's existing, major money making lines with competitive product. Canon, for example, dropped RAW from the G7. Why? To force buyers to the next tier.

Like it or not, it's all about ROI, especially with the bigger corporations. You'd have to have a) an clear (read "enormous") market need and b) an overwhelmingly appropriate device to secure that market against competition.

Simon Hughes wrote:
I don't think you can necessarily compare the engineering involved in what you'd like to see with a small digital to that which goes into comparable-sized film cameras, they're simply two very different things.

I didn't say that they were.

Simon Hughes wrote:As far as market size, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Compared to the market that buys the existing products en masse, we are simply much too small a segment to be financially feasible for the research, engineering manufacturing and support effort. Again, if it were feasible, we'd have these products.

We will just have to disagree. Just because we don't see it, does not mean it is not feasible. With such logic we would never have any new products. Further, small niche segments have existed quite profitably and successfully in the camera market for decades, and can do so in digital. These things do not cost that much to build anymore, and there are now many, many OEM producers who can crank out cameras or components or sub-systems for small producers. Costs are way down and chip prices continue to fall. Total costs of digital camera use are now lower than what they were for film.

Again, I think you are overestimating the "research" that is required. Quite frankly all the "research" is done. It's all a matter of systems integration (engineering) at this point -- integrating systems that they already know how to successful build and design.

Simon Hughes wrote:The closest we've come to a (released) niche product was the Epson R-D1, which, for all it's foibles was a wonderful piece of gear. Where is it now though? Three words: not enough market. Leica, with the M8 is another, but not without problems and an uncertain future, even with a strong captive (rangefinder) market.

I'm not talking about the R-D1 and M8 market segment for digital interchangeable lens rangefinder cameras -- and neither is anyone else in this thread. That is a much different market segment. Further, each of these cameras was their respective makers first attempts at an integrated professional digital camera system. No one's first attempt is without problems. And while the M8 had some initial teething problems it is a success and a quite capable performer. But let us be clear, these are quality, large-sensored, digital, compact P&S cameras we are talking about, not interchangeable lens system cameras.

Simon Hughes wrote:No one seriously believes that what we want is impossible, it's simply unfeasible. As others have pointed out, no manufacturer will cannibalize it's existing, major money making lines with competitive product. Canon, for example, dropped RAW from the G7. Why? To force buyers to the next tier.

As i suggested, I don't think it will cannibalize their other product lines much atall and if you think through it logically, it will allow them to sell more cameras at higher average margins. As I indicated, if it indeed does cannibalize their cameras, the effect is small instead filling mostly demand unmet in the market, but if it does it will takes sales from the whole market not just the manufacturer's own. The potential market effect due to cannibalization, while small, is actually positive for the manufacturer. Further, these cameras will be cheaper to make than an entry-level DSLR and sell for more ($1000+), and have dramatically higher margins than other, more common, small-sensor P&S's. In short, it will make them more money and produce higher returns.

Simon Hughes wrote:Like it or not, it's all about ROI, especially with the bigger corporations. You'd have to have a) an clear (read "enormous") market need and b) an overwhelmingly appropriate device to secure that market against competition.

I'm not saying it isn't about ROI -- and that is true of both bigger and smaller companies. There is certainly a "clear" market need here, and while not enormous, these cameras will certainly sell in significant and sufficient numbers (probably in numbers similar to many products actually on the market now) and do so quite profitably. And let us be clear, for the first manufacturer to come out with one, there is NO competition and if competition does develop it will always be limited for the niche becuase it is relatively small and most of the competition in the niche will occur on quality and features rather than on price. These are not bulk, mass-market commodities we are talking about -- and they don't have to be to be successful. They just have to meet a need at a price customers are willing to pay and that is not only "feasible", but quite do-able.

I think we will just have to disagree and wait and see how things develop.

While I remain skepical, I hope you are right!

Is it possible that manufacturer's are now moving towards really tiny SLR's instead of P&S when it comes to using better sensors. Just a thought, but if you look at the Olympus E-410 or the Rebel XTi, these SLR's are getting to be as small as some P&S camera's now.

I know the fuji, casion, sony P&S's etc. go much slimmer and smaller and more pocketable. But if you look at the mock up of the Sigma DP-1, it wasn't really that small compared to the Sigma SD-14.

Maybe Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. just don't see the point of making a large sensor P&S when they can shrink the D-SLR to really teeny tiny sizes thereby giving consumers more choices and still making the camera and a really small and light kit lens combination that gives you better images than any P&S ever could. Plus, it opens to the doors to future sales of lenses and accessories for the D-SLR when consumers feel the urge to "upgrade" their cameras. So why bother with a expensive niche product which may fail when you have a winner with a sub-compact D-SLR.

I am quite impressed with the new Olympus bodies and the light lenses they have. While it surely will not replace the Fuji F30, it sure can provide all the detail and image quality while still maintaining a light and small package.