Fixed Lens Cameras - Opinions?

<p>I have been thinking about getting a small camera in addition to my Canon T2i. I have the full assortment of lenses with the T2i but its an ordeal to drag it around so am looking for something smaller. Even on my DSLR I only change the lens when I am doing something specific like macro or ultra wide landscape. Most of the time I use the same lens (which is the Canon 15-85mm and its pretty sharp though not so fast).</p>

<p>I have noticed that several manufacturers have produced cameras with fixed lenses but have HUGE APS-C sensors :) . It got me thinking do I really care if the lens is interchangeable on a camera thats primary focus is portability? Nope. I was considering the Olympus OMD EM5 but I don't really care about the lens being interchangeable. I was looking at these:</p>

<ul>

<li>Fuji x100s</li>

<li>Nikon Coolpix A</li>

<li>Sony RX1R</li>

<li>Ricoh GR</li>

</ul>

<p>From the shots I have seen they all take amazing photographs. I have not had a camera with a fixed lens since I was a teenager. Most have a lens that has a view similar to 35mm.</p>

<p>I would like to read some opinions about the fixed lens. Is it a handicap? Is it a blessing? A curse? Or does it just make things easier as you don't have to deal with the lens at all.</p>

<p>I know the shots I have seen with the x100S have been dazzling.</p>

<p><em>I know the shots I have seen with the x100S have been dazzling.</em> That pretty much sums it up. BTW, you listed "Olympus x100s," but I assume that you meant Fuji x100s? It was the Fuji x100 that finally got be to move from film to digital. I suppose the x100s is even better. I don't regret the decision one bit. It is small, light, very portable, and the field of view is very useful. If I hold it in the natural horizontal position and then later crop square, it gives me the same "normal" field of view as my beloved Hasselblad 501CM. I often put a bubble level in the hot shoe, hold it to my waist, and shoot with the film ....uh, I mean sensor... plane pretty much vertical, thereby giving me a very natural perspective...again, much like my Hasselblad. I sometimes wish I had an interchangeable lens digital camera, and will probably get one within a few years. But for travel, and now that I am in my fifties, I really appreciate just hanging the Fuji x100 on my shoulder with its retro brown leather case.</p>

<p>Fixed ;) . Typing fast and furious. The big thing for me is small, light and portable. This is why I am considering a camera with a big sensor and fixed lens. I want something I can take anywhere and have full control over it without dragging around a brick. One of my other threads is where they suggested a camera with an attached lens instead of buying another system. Though the OMD-EM5 is smaller than my Canon, with the 12-50 lens its not the size of an x100s. With the X100S - small leather case, an extra battery and memory card in my pocket and I am good to go. </p>

<p>You do not have to change lenses with the ILC if you do not want to .... I do not .... having come from bridge cameras [and dispensed with my DSLR]. Not a 'small' rig becuase it is my 'main' camera, my solution to the problem of small sensored bridge cameras was to go to MFT with a x10 zoom. If I wanted a 'small' camera I have my old Canon P&S s20 or I could fit a compact lens to my Olympus PEN.</p>

<p>The advantage of the ILC is that you can change lenses but if you can control the ILC sickness of buying more and more lenses you can work with just the one lens. <br>

An admission ... I have a bug eye lens on its way to me so sadly I have slipped :-)<br>

Possibly I will put the bug-eye on the Oly as I bought the PEN with its IBIS as body-only to use my old legacy lenses. </p>

If you like the 35mm lens, the X100S is a heck of a good camera. Having only 35mm appeals to some people and not

others.

<p>And, of course, the big selling point of the Fuji x100s is the fantastic hybrid finder. Another reason I bought my x100 is because, at the time, EVF weren't quite there yet. I figured the hybrid optical finder would be ideal. Although from what I have read, EVFs are now very, very good. And lets not forget the Leica-good looks of the Fuji x100s, and the easy to use manual controls.</p>

<p>John, you have indeed listed 4 very nice large sensor fixed lens cameras and recognize sensor and lens as key to a compact camera, but you have not addressed how you feel about how you will compose the image. The Fuji is the only one you list with an electronic view finder built in. You can add an EVF to the RX1R, but that camera is extremely expensive. The coolpix A and Ricoh GR can only be fitted with optical viewfinders that offer no data, which I could live with, but I don't think that is a very usable way to focus.<br /> I agree with JC that you should not rule out interchangeable lens cameras completely since some are similar in size and price with a small lens to some of the fixed lens alternatives, and that opens up the options concerning types of viewfinder. By the way, I wouldn't recommend a slow zoom as your "one lens" under any scenario.<br /> In your prior post, I suggested the Sony 5n with the Sigma 30 and the external EVF. I would say that the Fuji X100s would be perfect for about 75% of what I do, and it is so compact and wonderful in every way in fact. The reasons I bought the Sony is that in that one small camera, I have it for that 75% and the other 25% too with different lenses when I need it, and it is still pretty small with a longer lens when needed compared to other options.<br>

I guess I'm saying that if you care anything about an informative/effective finder, the Fuji is the only one on your list that qualifies, and it indeed remains on my own list. (I am here assuming that the $2500++ RX1 is a different category.)</p>

<p>If it were me I would go with the Fuji product. Solid build, great optics and good viewing too. But all would fit the bill. Most of my better than average shots were with the one 'standard' or even slightly wide lens I had on the camera. Why not one lens is my answer to all your questions. Little downside once you decide to use what is on the camera and fit the world into it.</p>

<p>Buy the Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS. Put it on the T2i and walk around. Pocket the $750 in savings. </p>

<p>[[From the shots I have seen they all take amazing photographs.]]</p>

<p>Photographers, not cameras, take pictures. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>opinions about the fixed lens. Is it a handicap? Is it a blessing? A curse?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Easy for you to find out - take your T2i and the 15-85 and tape it at the 24mm setting - then go out and shoot. If you rip off the tape in frustration within a few minutes - then a fixed focal length camera is not for you.</p>

<p>I looked at numerous X100s and OM-D + 17mm 1.8 shots and couldn't tell the difference between them, either from other photographers's shots or my own. That inspired me to pick the OM-D: the <em>option</em> of using other lenses is still valuable (especially if you know anyone else with a M43 camera: you can borrow / swap lenses), and the in-body stabilization is amazing. <br>

Prediction: if you pick the OM-D, you won't have the t2i much longer. </p>

<p>From the four you listed I'd go for the Ricoh GR, despite the lack of an optical finder, because of the outstanding ergonomics. Nobody does it better than Ricoh. And the price has recently dropped a bit.</p>

<p>Some of these are at big box retailers, which is nice.<br>

In theory you could also get a NEX or Nikon/Canon variant and throw on a lens. Sell the kits lens and you can get a whole lot more than most of these for the same money.</p>

<p>Just dumped all my Nikon gear in favor of the fuji X100s Not looking back, the images are fantastic and I use my two legs as my Zoom.</p>

<p>This thread seems to blur "fixed lens" meaning a camera on which the lens cannot be changed for a different lens, and 'fixed focal length' meaning a non-zoom lens. IMOPO doing without interchangeable lenses makes perfect sense when looking for a very small carry-around camera, but doing without a zoom is too limiting. Even if 80% of my walkaround pictures are taken with the equivalent of a 28mm or 35mm lens, sometimes you really need to zoom. And no, 'zooming with your feet' is not the answer, because sometimes you can't, and anyway I at least want to be able to control perspective and field of view independently (you simply do <em>not</em> get the same composition by moving closer or farther, instead of using a longer or wider lens).</p>

<p>So where does that leave you? If you can do without a viewfinder and will accept a sensor smaller than "APS-C" but still <em>much</em> larger than most compact cameras' sensors, the Sony RX-100 (original or better yet Mk. II) are fantastic cameras that will fit comfortably in any reasonable pocket but can still produce excellent images. In the same basic category, but IMO less desirable and with a somewhat smaller sensor, I'd rate the Fuji X20 next in desirability, although I've never personally used one.</p>

<p>If you can live with an interchangeable-lens camera for which you never change the lens, and also give up true pocketability, then the Sony NEX-6 plus 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS gives you an APS-C sensor and a good electronic viewfinder. And if you don't need the viewfinder and would accept a Micro-Four-Thirds sensor (a little bigger than the RX100's but a little smaller than APS-C), I've got to admit the Panasonic GM1 plus 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6 OIS intrigues me.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>This thread seems to blur "fixed lens" meaning a camera on which the lens cannot be changed for a different lens, and 'fixed focal length' meaning a non-zoom lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>From the camera selection in the original post it is quite obvious that the OP is interested in cameras that have non-interchangeable fixed-focal length lenses.</p>

<p>If your subjects are mostly people who are close by and you will use the camera mostly in an urban area, a single 28, 35, 40, or 50mm lens would be very useful. It will make more sense if this lens can be made small, fast, and of very high quality, hosted in a very compact camera body. The price of the camera will determine whether people would want to have one, since this is unlikely to be one's only camera.</p>

<p>For me personally, since I already have m4/3 cameras with the outstanding 20/1.7 lens, I do not find the APS-C compacts to be that desirable, especially at the price they ask, and f2.8 is not that exciting. I would rather consider a full frame compact like the SONY RX1. However at close to $3,000, it is just not something I would like to pay for. I think many people would agree that if you have a m4/3 camera with its most current sensor, to really see a significant improvement in IQ, you would need to go FF.</p>

<p>An Olympus E-PM2/E-PL5 plus 20/1.7 or the Panasonic GM1 plus the upcoming 15/1.2 are very compact and weigh close to nothing, and you will have the option to use different lenses, depending on the needs. So one alternative would be to get a larger m4/3 camera with better handling, such as the OMD, GH3, or EM1 for more serious shootings but get one of the compact m4/3 camera as a back up. Because they are so light, carrying two cameras are not an issue at all. You can have different lenses loaded to each camera to save the time for lens change. In the evening for a quick trip to the restaurant with your family, you can put a fast prime on the compact camera, which goes in easily in your jacket pocket. (Note even the outstanding Panasonic 12-35/2.8 is very light (= a jar of baby food) and small)</p>

<p>i just picked up a (used) fuji x100. the prices are considerably lower now that the x100s is out, and all the firmware updates make the camera much better than at introduction. the x100 has a slightly different sensor which some prefer, and there's about $500 differential between that and a new x100s, which is notable.</p>

<p>after using the camera for awhile, i'm really starting to warm to it as a go-everywhere shooter. it's not a do-everything camera, and if you want the fastest AF speed possible, you'll have to look elsewhere. but the fuji now seems fast enough for everything but tracking AF of moving subjects, which is still an area mirrorless isn't quite there yet. there's still quite somewhat of a learning curve, and the camera does have some quirks, but it's pretty satisfying to use. low-light/high-ISO performance is better than i expected, but close-focus AF performance can be hit or miss (not sure if they addressed this in the x100s). flash sync is super-high -- 1/2000, allowing fill-flash and wide apertures at high shutter speeds, and the fill-flash is the best in the business, which ultimately impacts how you shoot this thing; with DSLRs, i sometimes didnt use fill flash for fear of overpowering the subject; the fuji adds just a kiss so you can use confidently in many situations. i wouldnt expect much from manual focus, which is poorly-implemented, and video is an afterthought. it's up to you whether the x100s updates and higher resolution are worth the price differential. The big plus with the x100/s over any MILC except nikon 1 is compactness. it's jacket-pocketable, or shoulder-strapped-under-jacketable. and, looks damn good, especially the black body.</p>

<p>in actual use, the 35/2 lens on the fuji lives up to its billing. 35mm IMO is a very useful focal length, and having a prime aids composition from a conceptual POV as you start "thinking" in 35mm, rather than having to guess at the best framing/compositional focal length with a zoom. in practice it is liberating, as you just naturally start to gravitate toward the camera's strengths. this camera takes great candids and environmental portraits, as well as fairly-wide landscape shots. some might complain about the lack of perspective flattening w/ a 35, but no one's making a fixed-focal APS-C cam with a longer lens, except for the Sigma dp merrill cameras, which are notoriously slow and laborious to use (although the 75mm equivalent macro lens on the DP3 makes it an intriguing option as a compact portrait specialist). personally, i find it more natural to include background in candid shots to establish location anyway. having a clickable manual aperture ring</p>

<p>some thoughts on the other cameras you mention:</p>

<ul>

<li>Nikon Coolpix A</li>

</ul>

<p>i really wish this had a faster lens, ideally 1.8 instead of 2.8. IMO the price is about $300-$400 higher than it should be. you also really have to love 28mm as a focal length.</p>

<ul>

<li>Sony RX1R</li>

</ul>

<p>too expensive. too many consumer features for an advanced camera.</p>

<ul>

<li>Ricoh GR</li>

</ul>

<p>also 28/2.8. much more affordable than other cameras on the list. the current amazon price of $600 and change is super-low. many user-configurable settings. kind of a no-frills, utilitarian camera, but aimed at technical shooters. not as retro-sexy as the fuji but not without a certain minimalist appeal.</p>

<p>i wouldnt rule out a sony RX100 either, especially if you wont be printing larger than 11x14 often. at base ISO, IQ is impressive. if you're not married to fixed-focal, and not put off by the smaller sensor, it's a serious compact.</p>

<p>it is true that a m4/3 camera with a 17/1.8 or 20/1.7 does what the APS-C fixed-focal compacts do, except for some of the "compact" part, but with added versatility of having lens-switching options. the main reason i'd consider one of these now would be body-based stabilization, which thusfar only appears in a few, higher-end bodies. but with m4/3, you do take a hit on high-ISO performance where you'll begin to see noise and smearing of detail about a stop earlier than on APS-C. and an ILC isnt somehow quite as liberating as a fixed-focal; not having to pick a lens is one less decision to make before shooting.</p>

<p>regarding CC's idea of multiple bodies; this could just as easily be done with two APS-C compacts as m4/3. an x100 or Ricoh GR could be combined with the DP3's 75/2.8 for a pro-quality compact set-up. also, there's no reason you cant have one MILC and one fix-focal APS-C body at the same time. I also picked up an 18-55/x-e1, and fuji has a bunch of v. good primes in varying lengths, including two pancake lenses, and portrait and wide options. i fully plan on using the x100 and x-e1 together in some capacity in the future, and the 14mm and 56/1.2 are on my want list.</p>

<p>getting back to the OP's list, my top two choices would be x100 or x100s and Ricoh GR. besides, price, this might come down to whether you prefer 28 or 35mm, whether the Ricoh's 2.8 would be less preferable to the Fuji's f/2, and whether you prefer the Fuji's retro-tech aesthetic over the Ricoh's industrial-chic look. </p>

 

<p>There is a confusion in the question: fixed as opposed to interchangable and/or as opposed to zoom.</p>

<p>Of course the more options the better but I can live with 35mm (35mm equivalent)</p>

<p><em>[T]he original post it is quite obvious that the OP is interested in cameras that have non-interchangeable fixed-focal length lenses.</em></p>

<p>I disagree--IMO, what is quite obvious is that he is <em>considering</em> cameras with fixed-focal length lenses; from his post, it seems almost equally possible that he may not be aware of some of the cameras with fairly large sensors and non-interchangeable zoom lenses. He may prefer a zoom lens as long as it is attached to a camera with a compact body and a fairly large sensor. You get zoom lenses on the Sony RX100 (original and Mk. II), Fuji X20, and Canon G1X, and they all have sensors smaller than APS-C but bigger (some much bigger) than typical compact cameras (even more enthusiast-oriented ones like the Canon G16, Canon S120, and Nikon P7800). And of course, if money is no object, you can get an APS-C sensor and a zoom lens on the Leica X Vario.</p>

 

<p>I bought a Fuji X100s recently and I am very happy with my choice.<br /> The key elements that I like are:<br /> Has Eye/Optical Viewfinder<br /> Flash Sync Speed<br /> Quality lens<br /> Fast lens<br /> ISO extremes<br /> Silent<br /> Small <br /> Easy one hand operation<br /> . . . and it is very beautiful also. <br /> <br /> I often use Canon 5D’s and 35/1.4 for general street portraiture: I am now practicing with the X100s, to take that role particularly, though since I have had the camera I have taken it out each day <strong><em>wherever</em></strong> I go and it is great to use and experiment with, especially the JPEG capture / film simulations.<br>

There's a lot to learn about this camera, (and I expect he earlier x100) I agree with Eric on that point: but it is great fun and very stimulating to learn all the nuances and to push the limits of this genre of technology. <br /> <br /> Although at F/2 and an APS-C sized sensor the very discrete DoF is not as achievable as with 135 Format and F/1.4 – the Fuji X100s is still a wonderful camera, for my uses.<br /> <br /> I want a case for it, but will not buy the leather one that Fuji make. As I understand, the camera does not fit into the leather case with the lens hood on the camera. Also I am not keen on leather as I live and work in in a relatively humid climate and close to the sea.<br /> <br /> As an added bonus, the Fuji Hot-shoe pin arrangement are in the same positions as Canon EOS, so I can use my Canon Off Camera Cord with the Fuji X100s – and when I do use flash, I often shoot one-handed and use the flash off camera, held in my other hand.<br /> <br /> I looked at many similar cameras: the eye / optical viewfinder is important to me. The Sony and the Nikon you mention have viewfinder attachments – but neither of those floated my boat.<br /> <br /> I think that you should list in detail what are the critical elements of the camera for you, the way you want to use it – for example, as I mentioned using my eye to the viewfinder is important for me – looking at a screen holding the camera 12 inches from my face is not “photography” as I know it and doing that would just drive me nuts . . . your mileage will vary to mine, so do make a detailed list of what is important apropos how you USE your tools. <br /> <br /> WW</p>

<p>I have been a fan of the bridge camera since I got my first one early on in digital days ... my complaint was the small sensor but it has not eventuated so next best is MFT with a 14-140 lens. This may not be the smallest way to go but it matches my Panasonic FZ50 so I'm happy.</p>

<p>Like all the other things found in modern cameras you do not have to use them nor do you have to change lenses just becuase you bought an ILC and I have not in my first two years of MFT though getting a 7.5mm bug-eye so that may change although an alternative is to use it on my Pen E-PL1 which I bought as a body for my legacy lenses. Its IBIS should suit the bug-eye as well as my older lenses. I largely gave up changing lenses when I left film for the original bridge camera :) The compact bridge equalled my SLR and its heavy bag of five lenses in almost everything and didn't 'cost' to press the trigger :).</p>

<p>Sounds like William W needs an 'elephant' case as Pentax made in the old days :)</p>