Would it be asking too much........

[doug_nelson3]

How about a compact, serious digital camera with:

 

1. A 28 or so equivalent wide angle with NO distortion? The major makers of

prime lenses have shown it can be done. Why should I have to lug around a 5D

with a Leica 28mm f2.8 adapted to it to get distortion-free wide angle?

Ricoh makes a decent camera with a 28 equiv prime, but the image is said to be

on the noisy side.

 

2. If a zoom lens, less of a zoom range with little or no compromise on

optical quality.

 

3. RAW format or, to save money, RAW only? George Schaub in Shutterbug brought

this up.

 

4. Compact size. Motorized SLR's and lenses are just too darned BIG. These 72

and 77mm filter size lenses are ridiculously huge for travel and street

shooting.

 

5. If compactness was possible with 35mm size film frames (OM-series, Pentax

MX), then why not with a 35 frame size CMOS?

 

For me, shooting film and scanning still makes sense, because I have

compactness and reliability on the shooting end. I am taking the hit on the

producton end, because any scanned image is a compromise, a 2nd generation

image.

 

In short, my beef with digital is huge size to get decent optics, or no good

distortion-free wides on the affordable end. There may in fact be what I am

looking for out there, but reviews seem to say little about optical quality.

[phule]

[[if compactness was possible with 35mm size film frames (OM-series, Pentax MX), then why not with a 35 frame size CMOS?]]

 

Because light has to strike the sensor at a perpendicular angle and it doesn't have to do that with film. Or you have to design a sensor with off-set micro lenses (ala the Leica M8) and push the price of the camera into the stratosphere.

 

[[if a zoom lens, less of a zoom range with little or no compromise on optical quality]]

 

Everything is a compromise. Always. There is no such thing as a perfect lens.

 

[[Ricoh makes a decent camera with a 28 equiv prime, but the image is said to be on the noisy side]]

 

Which would indicate that you've not directly investigated the image qualities yourself. I would invite you to do so. I find the "objections" to the noise to be a lot of noise itself. It's pixel peeping gone mad yet again. The GRD II looks to be really quite nice.

[phule]

To answer your original question: Yes, for right now, it is too much to ask.

 

Your needs represent a fraction of a fraction of the digital camera market. Your needs are not the needs of almost everyone else in the world who buys a camera. The market has changed. Camera companies want to sell cameras and they want to sell them to consumers. Consumers buy cameras and then by a new one in a couple years. They don't pixel peep, they don't talk about "noise," and they don't even know what 28mm means. They want more MP, more zoom, more features.

 

Your wish list does not make anyone any money. (I would like to point out that your wish list and my wish list have a lot in common). Ricoh has stood out from the manufacturers in this respect as they've gone after the niche market. Occasionally other companies will hazard a new design or venture into this area, but for the most part it remains lonely because it /is/ lonely. There simply are not enough buyers out there for the product you want.

 

That's my take on it at least. Maybe this will all change; I hope it does. My view is: support the companies getting you the closest to what you want. If that means Ricoh or Sigma (if they ever release their point and shoot) then so be it.

[sandysocks]

Mostly, I'm with Rob, but a few things do seem strange to me. One is camera shape. With digital, we no longer have a film path to factor into design, yet digital cameras still look just like film cameras. Remember medium format? Some rangefinders were built with portrait orientation. Seems like a good idea for digital to me. Given the option, I am sure that many people would find portrait orientation practical and choose it. I think it only a matter of time before we see things like this and more, such as expensive little point and shooters and rangefinders with big sensors that will give you exactly what you want.

[Ed_Ingold]

Red One has announced a pocket-sized, 12 MP digital 35mm video camera (commonly known as a "lipstick" camera). Of course you need a recorder on a shoulder strap instead of a CF card. Perhaps that's the price of innovation. In compensation you could capture 60 fps. There's a slim chance that you could get everyone in a wedding group with their eyes open at once;-)

[phule]

Edward,

 

At 6MP instead of 12, I'm guessing Casio's 60fps camera will probably be less costly than Red One's...

 

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08010601casiof1.asp

[rjacksonphoto]

If you want it for street shooting, why the insistence on "distortion free"?

[godfrey]

Take a Panasonic 10Mpixel 4/3 sensor. Fit it into a body with an electronically coupled,

optical rangefinder/viewfinder about the size and shape of the Leica CL. Provide simple

controls (like the CL), PASM exposure modes, and Live View. Simple JPEG image processing

controls, RAW format capture primarily. Make it quiet and reasonably fast ... but it doesn't

have to be machine gun quick like a D3.

 

Build three dedicated, high quality, manual focus lenses for it ... 12mm f/4, 20mm f/2,

38mm f/2 ... that are top notch quality and not too bulky. Provide a fully dedicated

adapter so any 4/3 System DSLR lens can be used, and through it, all the legacy manual

focus/manual iris lenses from Nikon, Leica R, Olympus, Pentax, Contax, etc. that you can

frame and focus using the Live View.

 

Don't price it astronomically.

 

I'd buy that in an instant. :-)

 

Godfrey

[doug_nelson3]

Folks, thank you for the thoughtful replies. I did a street shot of demonstrators across the field of vision and the heads of those at the ends were lopsided. I have since replaced this 24mm with a better lens.

 

Leica's M8 is WAY too expensive. For the compactness I'm proposing, I guess a small sensor is a given.

[phule]

Doug,

 

What equipment are you using, if you don't mind me asking?

[phule]

[[[Why should I have to lug around a 5D with a Leica 28mm f2.8 adapted to it to get distortion-free wide angle?]]

 

I apologize. My brain skipped right over that part of your original post.

[jobo1]

Sigma DP 1? If it ever is released...

[doug_nelson3]

Actually, Rob, I use the Leica 28 on a Canon F-1 with an adapter, and on the Leicaflex SL for which it was intended. I don't want to put 3K into a digital SLR, only to have the same features for half the money later. I still shoot film and scan the worthwhile ones.

[ilkka]

If small sensor is acceptable, then GRD is just right. Larger sensor would have lower noise. Sigma DP-1 might eventually bring that. It is still supposed to be under development. But the lens is a bit slow at F/4. I also wonder why no 4/3 manufacturer has made a small digicam and a fixed focal length lens or two for it. The same camera could use other, existing 4/3 lenses, widening its appeal. But at least for me, and for now, the GRD is the best there is and the new viewfinder is excellent and makes the camera a joy to use.