Too much to ask?

[robert_lauder]

Pocketable, Flip-Screen, Wide Angle, Image Stabilization

 

This would hardly be an exotic camera, yet it does not exist.

 

Comments?

[godfrey]

Never existed in the previous 180 years of photography either. I think it's an exotic camera.

 

G

[don_e]

Why IS?

[phule]

You can come up with a thousand different camera designs that have never been made.

 

Either you can wait and wait and wait for your personal preference to show up or you can buy a camera that comes close and begin shooting.

[dmanthree]

If it doesn't exist, then there's no perceived market for it. Camera makers will build anything

if they think they can sell it and make money on it.

[jcuknz]

I think the combination of specifications is rather contradictory and not needed in general photography.

 

You don't generally need IS with a WA lens.

 

Stitching copes with most situations. [editing with layers rather than a stitch programme]

 

Flip screen is nice to have but I rarely use it .. perhaps being old fashioned user of a viewfinder :-) We shouldn't encourage the use of the LCD for sighting the shot?

[iancoxleigh]

"Stitching copes with most situations. [editing with layers rather than a stitch programme]"

 

Why 'rather than a stitching programme'?

[robert_lauder]

What I meant was a zoom lens starting at 28mm (35mm equiv.)

 

These come very close:

 

Canon PowerShot A650 IS (no wide-angle)

 

Nikon Coolpix P50 (no flip-screen)

 

Again far from exotic.

[michael s.]

I've been banging the drum along with you, Robert -- but louder and more frequently.

 

I thought Canon was headed there when the G6 and S70 were around. I'd have arranged a shotgun marriage of those two for a camera offering 28 - 100mm (equiv), with articulating screen, manual controls and raw.

 

Nikon was nearly there with the Coolpix 8400, an optically good but maddeningly unresponsive camera (though capable of pleasing photos of landscape and other literally still subjects) with 24 - 85mm (equiv) and the articulating lcd. Had that one just evolved naturally, by now it would .... ah, well.

 

But no one was was listening to me. Instead manufacturers were under the influence of luddites like our pal Godfrey. :-)

 

Which I suppose is why, at that price range, people buy so-called "entry level" dslr's, which are now extraordinarily capable cameras, and good values, too, in my opinion.

 

And those not under his influence (same folks, of course !) were, and still are, adding megapixels and zoom length annually -- a digital equivalent of adding horsepower to cars on congested roads -- to cameras that benefit from neither of those "enhancements."

 

I'll calm down in a few minutes.

[dg1]

Might I suggest that the Ricoh GX100 is awfully close to what you are asking for? With the exception of the flip screen..however, the removeable EVF can tilt up 90deg. If you are adaptable at all I would think that this 24-70mm equiv camera with arguably the sharpest lens on any compact zoom would get you close enough.

 

As for luddites, there's an elegance of design and functionality that film cameras have evolved to over their long history, that make most digital cameras seem at some adolescent stage of development in comparison. Capable, flexible, but still often at times awkward. I think this is one reason that some of us value any digital that approaches the purposeful simplicity of design of film cameras. Just my opinion.

[anthony_zipple]

The Canon G9 is close. When they move to a 24-135 equivalent lens instead of the current 35-210, it will be almost perfect!

[robert_lauder]

I like the G9 a lot, perfect size size and great design.

 

Wonder why Canon removed the flip-screen from the G series. They had it in the G6.

 

My suspicion is that they didn't want to cannibalize sales of their A series cameras.

[jcuknz]

>>Ian Cox-Leigh, Apr 15, 2008; 06:12 p.m. "Stitching copes with most situations. [editing with layers rather than a stitch programme]"

 

Why 'rather than a stitching programme'?<<

 

Working with layers in an editing programme you have control over the stitch and can input, when it is needed, the human factor -- command decisions. I use a stitch programme for simple situations and speed. For difficult situations and quality I go the editing route. To work this way does require some editing skill and visual appreciation of what looks right.

 

By difficult I do not mean those, to me, exotic situations that require special equipment to do "all round" views following on from what a 'bug-eye' lens gives you. I well believe you need the specialist stitch programme for those for sure :-)

[sarah_fox]

For that matter, how about an APS-C Canon EOS body with electronic shutter and digicam capabilities? Wouldn't it be great to be able to use some nice L glass on a silent camera, for instance for photographing wedding ceremonies? It wouldn't be a "nice" camera, but it would definitely have its place.

[robert_lauder]

How about a Sigma DP1 successor with wide angle zoom, flip-screen , IS.

[dg1]

As long as we're designing our own personal digital compacts, how about something based around the sigma dp1, but designed like the Olympus Trip 35? With a 40mm f/2.8 fixed lens of really high quality.

 

Concessions would have to be made to have a battery(bummer), but otherwise equip the camera with the APS sized sensor from the Sigma, have aperture and focus rings (for zone/scale focusing) as well as an additional ring for selecting ISO speed..like the trip 35 lens has. Use a simple but bright viewfinder window. No LCD.

 

Just one highly accurate metering mode, center weighted, including half press AE lock capability. Good size buffer to allow a fast RAW mode (the only mode). The lens would be fixed in place, not extending, so no time is wasted sticking it out. There's no on/off switch, just grabbing the camera and a light touch to the shutter button (the only button on the camera) turns it on instantly (no lens assembly to boot up)..like a perpetual, but fast, sleep mode.

 

I'd like that, but I'll have to settle for the film version.