What is smallest, lightest digicam with APS-C sensor?

[vrankin]

I travel light (hiking, mountain biking) and would like to move from my Canon

A620 to something that is still compact, but with an APS-C sized sensor. I'm

reading that DSLRs are the next step, but they seem pretty chunky. Ideally,

I'd like to keep down to belt pouch size and avoid a return to the old camera

bag. Is there anything smaller, lighter, more portable than a DSLR that still

has the APS-C size chip? If not, it appears to me that a Pentax/Samsung DSLR

with a smaller 28mm prime might come closest. Zooming isn't as important to me

as is image quality and portability. (The Ricoh GRD looked nice, but seemed

noisy.)

[terry_rory]

Nikon D50 is quite small also but probably not a hiking/mountain biking tool.

 

If noise is what you want to avoid, then a Fuji F30 may be worth looking at.

[mars c]

Smallest APS-C sized sensor NON DSLR?

 

Hehehe, the R1 I think :-)

[phule]

<<If not, it appears to me that a Pentax/Samsung DSLR with a smaller 28mm prime might come closest.>>

 

Actually, a Pentax with one of their Pancake lenses would be the lightest setups around for a DSLR.

 

There are no small point and shoots with large sensors.

[mars c]

Big sensors need big lens, there is no way an APS-C sensored camera be pocketable for that reason.

 

The R1 is a digicam with aps, but its very big for your needs.

 

Your best bet is the 350d 0r 400d with kit, I think thats the smallest body and zoom lens combo available today, unless of coarse you want primes.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

I wonder if it's even physically possible to build a large sensor

camera the shape and size of a Canon A620 or Fuji F30.

 

The engineers are probably working on it right as we speak.

[eric friedemann]

A friend is an executive with Pentax. I've been needling him to comp me a K100D (with the built-in anti-shake feature) and a 21mm F3.2 AL Limited digital lens (equals 31.5mm in 35mm format):

 

 

http://www.pentaximaging.com/products/product_details/digital_camera--K100D/reqID--7717476/subsection--digital_slr

 

 

http://www.pentaximaging.com/products/product_details/camera_lens--smc_P-DA_21mm_F3.2_AL_Limited/reqID--7878390/subsection--Digital_35mm_wide_angle

[godfrey]

You guess right: a Pentax *ist DL with the DA21 or DA40 is the smallest camera available

with a large sensor. Although I'd take the K100D instead, despite it being a little bit larger,

for the advantage that the image stabilization brings.

<br><br>

The smalled fixed lens camera available with a large sensor is the Sony DSC-R1 which is

no smaller than a DSLR ... and much larger than the Pentax. This is a side-by-side picture

of the R1 and the *ist DS (latter fitted with an FA135mm lens ...):<br><br>

<center>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/godders/pentax-vs-sony-size.jpg"><br>

</center><br>

They both fit in a modest-sized belt pack easily, however, like the Lowepro Photo Runner.

The Pentax with a DA21 or DA40 on it will fit into a much smaller bag.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[mark u]

The only non DSLR with an APS-C size chip (well, approximately) is the Sony R1. However, it isn't as compact as all that, weighing in at over 2lb. If size is your priority, then either you will need to compromise on sensor size and consequent low light performance or go with a DSLR. Smaller and lighter models include the Nikon D50 mentioned above, Canon's 350D and 400D, and Olympus models, the Sony A100 as well as the Pentax/Samsung choices. Try handling the choices, and read comparative reviews to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the alternatives.

[vrankin]

Thanks, everyone, for this helpful discussion. Godfrey's photos were really informative, comparing the Pentax to the Sony. I'd have never seen that comparison by looking in the ads. It looks like the Pentax K100 with the smc P-DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited will fit the bill for me, very well.

[don_e]

Howard,

 

The K100 w/wide angle is the likely candidate for my 2nd camera to carry on backcountry treks -- 2nd camera because I decided telephoto was more important.

 

It depends on the geography where you're hiking. In my case the horizon is often 100 miles distant and it is often impossible to get close enough to the subject for a good frame without telephoto due to how broken up the terrain is.

 

Just a consideration about regret at not be able to bag the shot.

 

Good Luck,

 

Don E<div></div>

[godfrey]

Subject matter and personal style come into play, for sure. The 135mm lens is pretty much

the longest lens I use on the Pentax, most of the time my work is closer in and done better

with 20 to 35mm lenses.

 

That is, in fact, my most used setup: Pentax *ist DS with Pentax FA20-35/4 lens, which fits

with much room to spare in the aforementioned belt pack. But it's nice

to have the option of a more compact prime, so I've got the 21mm in my sights. :-)

 

Godfrey

[waltflanagan]

I'm assuming you want something affordable but if price doesn't matter then I suggest the Epson RD-1 digital rangefinder. It's got an APC-C sensor and takes Leica M lenses. You could also wait for the Leica M8 digital rangefinder... Rangefinder lenses are small, you could fit 3 in your pocket.

[godfrey]

I've used the Epson RD-1, but frankly most Leica mount RF lenses aren't particularly small.

Nor inexpensive. The RD-1 is only marginally smaller than the Pentax K100D+21mm lens

and would cost at least three/four times as much with a similar 20mm lens, even considering

a Cosina/Voigtländer lens rather than the Elmarit-M 21/24/28mm lenses.

 

Godfrey

[andreas_weber]

> Big sensors need big lens, there is no way an APS-C sensored camera be pocketable for that reason.

 

You know it was possible with film? (Film was this sensor before digital was invented. Its frames commonly were of a size known now as "full-frame digital". And there was an APS-H sized film, too!)

 

Andreas

[don_e]

"Although I'd take the K100D instead, despite it being a little bit larger, for the advantage that the image stabilization brings."

 

Godfrey

 

I was explaining to my wife the advantage of IS, pointing to a macro I'd taken handheld. She said: and stooped over on your bad leg with a 30 pound pack on your back.

 

Image stabilization. Don't leave home without it.

 

Regards,

 

Don E

[don_e]

"Big sensors need big lens, there is no way an APS-C sensored camera be pocketable for that reason."

 

If that is so (I don't know, but I don't see why -- those Pentax pancakes are not particularly bulky to my eye)

 

.. What about 4/3? There's a format looking for a niche. Where it is now it competes with APS.

 

--

 

Don E

[godfrey]

Andreas:<i><br>

You know it was possible with film? (Film was this sensor before<br>

digital was invented. Its frames commonly were of a size known<br>

now as "full-frame digital". And there was an APS-H sized film,<br>

too!)</i><br>

<br>

A remark, Andreas, that adds no information to the discussion. <br>

<br>

Film is almost totally insensitive to the angle of incidence of the light striking it so the use

of lens designs that are compact and cover the format is pretty easy, and can be fitted into

a very compact body. <br>

<br>

Unfortunately, digital sensors are quite sensitive to the incident angle of the light striking

them. Fast, high performance lens designs that cover large digital sensors properly are

difficult to make compact enough for a compact camera. <br>

<br>

There's nothing wrong with film if you choose to use it. The discussion here is about

digital cameras.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[andreas_weber]

> There's nothing wrong with film if you choose to use it. The discussion here is about digital cameras.

 

Godfrey, don't you try to twist my words in a fim-vs-digital direction! I was talking about sensor size, not type of imager.

 

Andreas

[vrankin]

Actually, the film question did come into play for me before I came to the point of posting this original question. I sold two old Nikon SLR bodies and three lenses last winter to purchase the A620, because frankly, I can't find high quality affordable 35mm film processing and scanning in our town of 15,000 anymore. The A620 stuff looks better than what I can print from local low resolution 60 min. photo lab scans of about 1.5 MP from 35mm film. But those thirty years of film work (and B&W darkrooms) spoiled me for the long tonal range of film, especially in twilight which I'm increasingly liking to shoot under. So, therefore, the need for the larger sensors that I hope will improve the low light and broadly lit outdoor scenes I love to shoot. I thought of buying a good film scanner, but after reading many posts about that world I decided for simplicity. I can print direct from media cards with my own laptop and Epson inkjet. That means a lot. I DO understand what you film guys are about, though...

[godfrey]

Andreas:<i><br>

> don't you try to twist my words in a fim-vs-digital direction! I was talking <br>

> about sensor size, not type of imager.<br>

</i><br>

Sorry Andreas, but that's just BS. A digital sensor is not like a piece of film and you know it.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[godfrey]

Don:<i><br>

> > Big sensors need big lens, there is no way an APS-C sensored<br>

> > camera be pocketable for that reason.<br>

> > <br>

> If that is so (I don't know, but I don't see why -- those Pentax<br>

> pancakes are not particularly bulky to my eye)<br></i>

<br>

The Pentax pancake design lenses are remarkably compact for their focal length and the

fact that they were designed to work well on a digital body. However, realize that they are

still designed for a Pentax K-mount body, with a lens mounting register of 45.36mm ...

this is generally a much deeper, larger body than you'd find in a compact camera. Also,

the lens speeds of the Pentax pancakes are relatively modest (DA21/3.2, DA40/2.8 and

DA70/2.4) which means the designs can be somewhat more easily corrected for the digital

sensor. <br>

<br>

> <i>.. What about 4/3? There's a format looking for a niche. Where <br>

> it is now it competes with APS.</i><br>

<br>

The 4/3 mount and imager was designed from the bottom up as a digital system, so the

sensor diagonal is smaller in relation to the mount flange than was the average for a

35mm film camera and the mount register is shorter than all the 35mm SLR cameras as

well, with 38.61mm being the shortest SLR mount register of any camera in the class. This

is to allow room for more light path correcting elements at the rear of the lens, optimizing

the designs for digital sensors. <br>

<br>

Look at the resulting bodies and lenses ... They're not that much smaller than the other

DSLR systems on the market, although they're not as huge as the pro Nikons and Canons.

<br>

<br>

Size-wise, the dimensions are close to the Pentax although the proportion is different:

<br>

    Olympus 4/3: 18 x 13.5 mm<br>

    Pentax *ist DS: 23.7 x 15.7 mm<br>

<br>

It's simply hard to design a lens optimized for a large digital sensor that is both

inexpensive and small enough for a compact camera. I'd love someone to do it ... I'd like

something the size of a Rollei 35S with a 4/3 or 16x24mm sensor, capable of performing

well at ISO 800 to 1600, a high quality lens with "wide-normal" focal length for the sensor

size (28mm for 16x24, 21mm for 4/3) that was f/2.8 or so. A camera like that would go a

long way for me. <br>

<br>

Godfrey<br>

[don_e]

"A camera like that would go a long way for me."

 

Godfrey

 

I'd be on the waiting list myself.

 

As far as I know, Panasonic's 2/3" is the largest sensor used in a p&S.

 

Olympus has several models, plus the Panasonic LC1/Leica Digilux 2. I don't know if a 1" ever appeared. 2/3" is 8.8mm - 6.6mm. A 1" would be 12.8mm - 9.6mm...I'll take that as a consolation for no 4/3.

 

--

 

Don E

[godfrey]

I think you mean the Sony 2/3" chip. It was used in various cameras from Canon, Nikon,

Sony, Konica Minolta, and others IIRC. The last rev of these chips were the 8Mpixel models of

which I still own the Konica Minolta A2. It's a darn good chip, but the size means the

sensitivity is limited.

 

Godfrey

[don_e]

Godfrey,

 

According to dpreview.com, Sony DSC-F828 has a Sony 2/3 sensor. The Leica and Panasonics are 2/3 Matsushita sensors. The Olympus and Konica-Minoltas (A1, A2, A200) 2/3's chipmakers are listed as "unknown".

 

I've never used a 2/3" and so don't know whether the larger size compared to say the 1/1/7" would make much of a real-world differnce. If it did, I'd consider picking up a "Leicasonic".

 

Regards,

 

Don E