Pocket-sized Digital SLR

[philg]

<P>

 

A professional digital SLR, such as the Canon 5D, is too cumbersome for most

people to carry around all day every day. The consumer digital SLRs, such as

the Nikon D40, come with slow low quality zoom lenses and the only decent normal lens for these cameras is the bulky/heavy Sigma 30/1.4. A typical point and

shoot camera is useless due to the clumsy user interface, the slow zoom lens,

the poor viewfinder (if it has a viewfinder at all).

 

</P>

<P>

What about a real camera that is reasonably pocketable, like you used to be able

to buy in the 35mm rangefinder days?

</P>

<P>

Olympus has introduced one: <a

href="http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1372">the

E420</a>. They also introduced a very compact 25/2.8 lens (50mm equivalent),

which is exciting for those of us who like to use a normal perspective lens and

also great for beginners, who need to learn to pre-visualize a photo and

position themselves appropriately for it, not stand there dumbly and zoom in and

out hoping that a good picture will materialize.

</P>

<P>

This camera has almost everything that you would ever want from a camera: automatic dust removal, 10 MP resolution (good

enough for 14x20 enlargements, certainly), RAW output, built-in flash (for those

deer-in-the-headlights restaurant photos). It has some things that you probably

wouldn't ask for, but you get anyway, e.g., face detection autofocus and live view. It does not seem to have the sensor-shifting image stabilizer of some of the other Olympus bodies, instead having a "digital image stabilizer" idiot mode that pumps up the ISO (and therefore the noise). Note that the camera isn't going to be great for portraits, either, because f/2.8 at 25mm won't result in a blurred background.

 

</P>

<P>

The camera should weigh about one pound with the 25/2.8 lens. Olympus lists the

price as $600 with a junk mid-range kit zoom. Available in May.

</P>

[Matt Laur]

<i>Olympus lists the price as $600 with a junk mid-range kit zoom. Available in May.</i>

<br><br>

Well, don't sugar-coat it there, Philip! Still, it's an interesting distraction from some of the digicams one might otherwise settle for.

[frank_skomial]

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=27050807

 

Does not look like a pocket size camera. $600 is too much.

[tonybeach]

I think the problem is mostly a format issue. The camera and lens combo you are raving about is two stops slower than an f/1.4 (slow is slow, and you can't stop subject motion with image stabilization) and used on that format its DOF is the same as an f/5.6 lens would be on 135 format film -- ugh. Throw in the different optical characteristics of a 25mm focal length as compared to a 50mm focal length, and you are going to have a lot of uneducated photographers scratching their heads about why they can't get that "look" they are trying to emulate.

[Hector Javkin]

Given that Olympus still seems committed to a very small sensor, they should be making small cameras like this. Hopefully, with effective in-body image stabilization, the inherent problem of small sensors, high-ISO noise, can be less bothersome.

<p>

It's not clear, however, that the E-420 will have <b>effective</b> image stabilization. The site that Philip references says the following:

<p>

<i>The E-420's Digital Image Stabilization, activated as a Scene Select Mode, allows high ISO sensitivity and faster shutter speeds so you can freeze the action to capture sharp, blur-free images even if you or your subject is moving.</i><p>

I don't believe that this is the same method as used on other Olympus DSLRS with image stabilization. We don't know how effective it will be.

[philg]

Hector: I think that you are right. I read the site too quickly and assumed it had a sensor-shift, not an idiot mode that cranks up the ISO to 800 and tells you to suck it up with all the resulting noise.

 

Agreed that this is not going to be a good portrait camera given the depth of field of f/2.8 at 25mm. Nonetheless, I think it is an honest effort at doing something interesting. Despite my closet full of Canon stuff, I think I am going to buy one to play with and then give it away to a teenage cousin when I'm done with it.

[bobatkins]

At 5.1 inches by 3.6 inches by 2.1 inches (excluding protrusions), it's not all that pocketable unless you have a large pocket and don't mind a bulge.

 

I think there'd be more interest in something like an equivalent 28 or 35mm prime. The only reason the 50mm prime lenses for SLRs sell so well is often that they are fast and cheap. For cameras like the better fixed prime lens P&S and rangefinders like Leicas, most photographers seem to favor at least a semi-wide lens.

 

Still it's an interesting "intermediate" camera and at $600, the price isn't bad. Pity they didn't include sensor shift stabilization though.

 

The E510 (photo.net review to be published "any day now" I hope...) has sensor shift stabilization and is 5.3 x 3.6 x 2.7, which really isn't much bigger (about 1/4" wider and 1/2" deeper).

[Jim_Tardio]

I posted this earlier today on the Street & Documentary Forum:

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Og2A">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Og2</A>

<p>

In that thread there are a couple of links with more info.

[ed_nicholson4]

How does it compare to a Pentax Ds with a 40mm f2.8 Pentax pancake lens? Anybody?

[mharris]

Toss the Panasonic/Leica 25mm 1.4 on that bad boy and you may have something.

[michael_moon2]

Well, Philip's observations may be very much on the mark as far as the niche this Olympus should fill. I's got some solid selling points.

 

Here's my "however": to sing the praises of this camera's compactness as if it is in a class by itself is in my view stretching things a bit. I decided to see for myself if it really could be touted as a pocket-sized or purse-sized camera.

 

Olympus says (thanks for the link) the camera is 5.1 x 3.6 x 2.1 inches, without protrusions and presumably without lens. Phil thinks it will come in a bit under a pound with its "pancake" normal lens.

 

I can't really tell it that's pocketable, so I pulled my Pentax ZX-M out of the closet (had to hunt around a bit). Why the ZX-M? because in its day it was the lightest SLR you could find, period. I think 11.7 ounces? Not sure, but 3/4 of a pound, ballpark. Throw on a 50/2 or a 28/2.8 and it would be just over a pound. Well, let me admit very quickly that you get a lot more features and capability in the new Olympus for similar weight!

 

But, as to dimensions: the ZX-M, I was a bit surprised to find, is almost identical at 5.2 x 3.5 x 2.2 inches. Plus, it has no noticeable protrusions beyond the base dimensions. Throw on a 40/2.8 pancake or one of Pentax's newer flat gems and the dimensions are certainly not much diferent from the new Olympus with its 25/2.8.

 

This is not a head to head contest, of course; two utterly different cameras, both equally praiseworthy on their respective merits.

 

But ... I never put the ZX-M in my pocket. I'm sure I have a pocket somewhere it would fit, but ... nah, I don't think so. The long and the short of it is that it's still just too bulky. My wife could probably carry it in the "purse" we call the "feed=bag" but there's no way it would fit into her date night purse with or without all the stuff ... uh, better not go there ...

 

So, the Olympus may well be in a new class of compactness, as was the ZX-M in its day, but it's not THAT compact. Neither camera broke into a new class; the pocket-size SLR.

[Brian]

The sticking point as regards compactness is the reflex housing. Can a camera maker come up with a compact interchangeable-lens body with live view off the sensor and a good electronic viewfinder? This would do away with the mirror box so you wouldn't have to worry about retrofocus lens designs and the body could be as thin as you like.

[randmcnatt]

"The sticking point as regards compactness is the reflex housing."

 

It's been done, and more to their shame, it was done by Olympus themselves. You would think that the company that created the fantastic Pen-F could have come up with something a bit classier. Even though the dimensions (130x91x53mm vs 127x70x63mm) are roughly the same, the overall design looks to me like they set out to make it look like a big, mean, ugly SLR.

 

http://www.mediajoy.com/en/cla_came/olympus_penft/

[dbcooper]

"What about a real camera that is reasonably pocketable, like you used to be able to buy in the 35mm rangefinder days?"

 

What about a Canon G9?

[i386]

<p>In regards to the last post<br /> ..But the G9/G10 or the Lumix LX3 sensors are way too small.</p>

<p>In regards to the OP<br>

<br /> I'm no expert, here are my thoughts on pocket-size SLR. Also I think people are willing to pose or entertain a small non-threatening camera especially if it looks not too modern or quaint especially for street.<br>

<br /> <strong>Lumix G1</strong> <br /> pros:has good reviews and cheap alternative to a rangefinder,<br /> cons: modern looking, might still be too bulky<br /> <strong>Sigma DP1 Picard Kit </strong> <br /> pros: pocketable, large senser, looks good with the lens hood on it.<br /> cons: 28mm, f/4, can't change the lens<br /> <strong>Leica M8 </strong> <br /> pros: 1.33 crop factor, wonderful photography tool and super glass<br /> cons: expensive, expensive <br /> <strong>Epson R-D1</strong> <br /> pros: great Leica alternative which fits heap of lens<br /> cons: 6 MP, 1.5 crop factor<br /> - Epson R-D1 they go for about 900 - 1000 euros second hand, then you still need a lens.</p>

<p>Feel free to add to the list :)<br /> Gavin<br>

http://www.glyons.at</p>