pascal03 wrote:
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.

To some extent. That apparent trend is only upset by the fact that (except for Pentax) they fail to produce compact lenses to go with them. Further these camera are still significantly larger (not to mention bulkier with a lens attached) than ANY quality compact film P&S (which is the size and performance target here).

pascal03 wrote: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.

Actually, that is not true at all. The SD14 body (without lens) measures 144mmx107mmx81mm, or a rough volume of 1248 cc's. The DP-1 measures 113mmx59mmx50mm or a rough volume of 333 cc's -- roughly a quarter of the volume or size of the SD14 body. Add one of the smaller lenses for the SD14, the 30mm f1.4, and you add another 260cc's, which is almost as large as the DP-1 itself. The DP-1 needs no mirror box or prism or lens mount/interface and that saves a lot of space.

pascal03 wrote: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.

They are really not so teeny tiny, compared to a compact P&S. The Oly E-410, probably as small a body as you are going to get measured 130x91x53mm without lens or 627cc's or nearly twice the size of the DP-1 before you add a lens. But I think the point is that the type of camera we are talking about is NOT a substitute for a DSLR, and a small DSLR is not an effective substitute for this type of camera. It may be used instead of, in certain cases, but it is not a substitute. By making a camera like this, you are giving the consumer another choices and a choice that will increase the number of cameras sold, not just displace others. Further, the point of this type of camera is that it can produce images as good as a DSLR -- relative to pro film SLR's, that is what the quality compact film P&S's were all about. The Contax T2 or Ricoh GR1 or Leica Minilux could easily produce IQ on par with any SLR. That's the point of it. A compact digital P&S with a large (APS-c or 4/3rds) sensor and a quality lens could perform the same relative to DSLR's. It wonlt replace a DSLR, but it will go places where and when you really can't take a DSLR, not matter how small.

pascal03 wrote: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.

I'm sure they are fine. But, relatively speaking, they are still big and clunky. It is far from small and light enough, or portable enough, or packable enough, or store-able enough, or concealable enough, for many times, many places and many uses.

Lotusm50 wrote:
I'm sure they are fine. But, relatively speaking, they are still big and clunky. It is far from small and light enough, or portable enough, or packable enough, or store-able enough, or concealable enough, for many times, many places and many uses.


The E-410 is in my view almost small enough. The problem is the lenses. There are no pancake lenses available, at least nothing that will AF on the E-410. It would be interesting to mount the Pentax 21/3.2 on it. I don't know how thick the adapter is, but it's probably as flat as it gets. There are also a couple of pancakes around 40mm. The Nikkor would be ideal, since the adapter is rather thin.

Jorgen Lotus, pascal

The 410 is small enough, I believe, but the lenses are relatively really big. I have a look around at the 4/3's primes from Panasonic and Olympus, and the situation is not good for the purposes under discussion here.

The "Leica" 25 (so 50mm equiv.) is 500-odd grams, the Oly 50 (so 100) is 300, and the Sigma 24/1.8 (so 48) is 485—same weight roughly as the kit lens or the 11-22. All are heavy enough to unbalance the 410.

Jorgen, is there an adapter for that Pentax lens?

Kit Laughlin wrote:
Jorgen, is there an adapter for that Pentax lens?

Here's one:

http://cameraquest.com/adapt_olyE1.htm

At $175, Cameraquest does not sell the cheapest adapters, but they have a good reputation.

You will never be able to fit a DSLR in a shirt pocket. Or a hip pocket. However small it will always look like an SLR not a pocket camera. I think what so many people are disappointed in is having comparable quality to film from their DSLR's but not having even close to that from any pocket cameras on the market. This is a problem for people who are fully adapted to a digital workflow. There is only one manfacturer left making a dedicated 35mm film scanner and they show no sign of ever updating the line or indeed assuring it's continued production years hence. With the market ignoring this segment and the equivelent film pocket cameras both being lon g out of production and possibly not a viable medium anyway for the longterm, the future does not look rosy for us. Unfortunately whereas in the olden days niche camera manufacturers could flourish, now only the biggest can survive (as the history of the digital revolution has so grimly shown already) and the biggies really only pander to the general consumer market where the money is.

I agree Beni. I already have an XTi. It's reasonably compact with my 50/1.8 on there, but it's nowhere near pocket sized. I'm just looking for something that gets thrown in my pocket next to my cell phone so I have a camera with me. There have been a couple of good shots that I've missed because I didn't have my SLR on me at the time (I don't carry it to work, or out to the bars, etc).

I read an article about the Ricoh GR Digital that really caught my eye, but I'm open to other suggestions. And the Ricoh is pretty expensive too, as far as P&S's go. I may just spend a lot less and get something nice and compact to have a little fun with. Dunno.

I saw somewhere a rumour that the DP1 commenced production in July. Well it is the 27th now and I have not seen any so alas that seems to be just a rumour.

Jorgen hit it on the head - I would be all over a e-410 IF it could use pancake lenses (say a wide prime like 21mm or some such at say f3.2 or anything a bit faster than f4). That would make it as big as a G7 but a 'proper' slr with a compromise on the lens. I am happy to make that compromise as well as pay up well above a g7 price (like 2-3 times as much).

Or please just release the dp1 sigma!

I just discovered this thread and I've had absolutely the same dilemma as the original poster. I don't want to shoot film - I don't mind waiting for it to be developed, particularly, but I absolutely hate scanning it and don't care to make prints in the darkroom.

I ended up going with a very temporary and not completely satisfactory solution: a Rollei Rolleiflex MiniDigi. The specs are terrible, and I won't claim that it comes close to anything resembling good image quality. The results are totally inconsistent, it has no manual controls, and on a good day 60% of my shots might turn out.

However, I use it like I used to use a Holga. I actually kind of like the unpredictability of it. And I like the weird results... color shifts, softness, blur, and other defects that Holga fans go crazy over. But the main thing is this: the camera is absolutely tiny and I take it everywhere. Everywhere. Forget about putting it in your pocket... you can actually wear this thing around your neck. It has a vertical (waist-level style) viewfinder so that makes it even more unobtrusive. It produces square format images. And I have to say the thing just looks pretty cool. I've taken so many candids without anyone even noticing I have a camera on me.

Sure, it's a toy - and an overpriced one at that. But I've had some fun artistic results, and it has served the purpose of having a digital camera with me everywhere I go. I actually appreciate the lack of controls and the fixed lens.

When/if the DP1 comes out I'll probably sell this little toy and pick that up. But for now, I use my Canon 20D and fancy lenses when I want to get fancy, and the MiniDigi when I just want to have fun.

bdb, NOW you're talking! I wasn't familiar with that one. Granted, the hand crank and 2MP sensor are both annoying, but depending on price it looks like it could prove fun. How do images look at 6x6cm (since that seems to be what they're modeling it after)?

EDIT: Looks like they make a 3.1MP version now as well (or they've updated it). Still a little steep though at $325 + shipping (on ebay). What type of battery does it use?

Looks like Ritz has it for $200...

I shot with a Holga for months until I got really tired of seeing undeveloped an unscanned film laying around the house. However, I absolutely loved the square format and wanted to find a digital that could do it. Sure, you can always crop but it's just not the same as any medium format shooter will tell you.

How do the images look? It totally depends, as I mentioned. Sometimes they look like normal 3 MP digital images. Other times they have flare, distortion, color shifts or other inexplicable weirdness. You should check out the Flickr MiniDigi group to get a better idea.

I finally got my hands on a Ricoh GRD yesterday. Unfortunately it was a floor model at adorama, so it was attached to the anti-theft cord, etc and it wasn't powered. I was also disappointed by the quality. It felt pretty flimsy in my hands; the mode dial felt cheap and was a little loose/wiggly. The leather on the front of the camera was bubbling and starting to come off. I understand that this was due, in part, to the fact that the camera had probably been man-handled many times, but it still makes me wonder about long-term durability. After all, this is something that I want to be able to carry with me everywhere. Can anyone comment on their experiences with it?

I also noticed the Minox Leica knock-off that might be a fun mini-cam. Anyone used one?

Try the Ricoh GX100. It has a 24-72 zoom, 10 mpixel resolution, RAW mode, anti-shake (sensor shift), and the build quality is fine.

The GR1D is also first class in build quality. The floor model sound like it went thru a accelerated wear test to me.

Amateur Photgrapher magazine (British) has recently reviewed the GX100, and except for the expected noise at higher ISO's, it was pretty well reviewed.


Martin