Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What defines a compact system camera? Is there a standard somehow?
#1
I have been struggling to find a "standard" in terms of compact system cameras as they differ a lot within themselves.



[url="http://www.cscrumors.com/2012/05/13/are-there-any-agreed-upon-specs-of-what-defines-compact-system-cameras/"]This article talks about that[/url].



Only points of common between compact system cameras:



  • a system with interchangeable lens

  • a viewfinder (optical or electronic) without a mirror prism




With such a high diversity manufacturers should really come up with some standards to make comparisons easier.



What do you believe standards should be?
#2
For me the minimum requirements are indeed a system with interchangeable lenses and no mirror box, therefore a continuous optical viewfinder in combination with an electronic viewfinder. Yes, I want both.



The biggest problem to me is the format, sizewise I mean, because of portability, and of imaging possibilities. I did add a Pannasonic GF2 to the bag not so long ago, with a bunch of optics, but essentially that was a replacement with better IQ and more possibilities than my trusty old G10. It is not perfect, but it seems that the latest 16 MP m43 cameras are quite a bit better, and that was really the reason why I went this route, apart from the rather good and good range of optics and the good deal I got.



Ideally I would like a miniature FF system camera, no larger than my old Pentax-M series cameras, and AF not required as long as it has focus peaking and a proper rangefinder type focusing system (ideally both), which would at least bring the size of the lenses down to a more manageable level whilst being able to retain large apertures, a must for me from a creative POV - I do want and need thin DoF possibilities. As a temporary measure I wouldn't mind using my current dslr lenses, with an adapter of course, but ideally I would like to downsize my carry-all drastically, without compromising IQ and possibilities. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />

IOW, I really want at least Canon 5d MkII IQ in a much smaller package without mirrorbox, and smaller but still fast lenses, essentially the optics of my current lenses without the bulk that AF adds <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />.



I would like for someone to establish some kind of standard lens mount for this as well. And other than that, I would also like other manufacturers to adopt the m43 standard, so we would have two standards for CSCs. I think an APS-C CSC is a waste of time, as lenses are not going to be (much) smaller than lenses for a FF CSC, and going smaller than m43 impacts just too much on IQ, IMO.



My 2 cents <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />.



Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#3
Thanks for your valuable inputs
#4
I agree with you wim. I bought the Pan GH2 last fall. Since then, I use it far more then my 5dII, because of the size and weight. But if Canon, or somebody, could bring out a FF sensor camera the size and weight of a Rebel, I'd probably go back that direction.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)