Real Pocket Cameras

I recently saw a youtube review of the new Sony RX 100 VI and was darn ready to click "buy" (but I didn't). It got a rave review from the reviewer who went so far as to call it professional grade or some thing like that. It certainly has , on paper lots to recommend it. But I've learned (the hard way) to become skeptical. Some years ago I bought a Panasonic Lumix LF-1 primarily because it was the camera Leica chose to market under it's own name. I thought if Leica liked it it ought to be good. Sadly however the image quality (at least focus) was not so hot. The images looked fine as long as you didn't try to crop. If you did things went south fast. As a result of my experience with that highly lauded camera I view with great suspicion the ability to produce sharp pictures from miniature lenses on "pocket" cameras albeit licensed by the likes of Leica and Zeiss. And much more so if they are zooms.

That said, in the early 'eighties I took up backpacking in the mountains of the American West and Mexico and purchased a Minox GT 35 for it's small size and weight, it would definitely qualify as a "pocket camera". It was a 35mm film camera with an excellent, very sharp Minotar lens. The electronics of that camera were excellent too. I took many mountain / landscape photos with it that I had printed at 11x14. All sharp as a tack. I sure wish I could put that lens on one of the current point and shoots! Despite what was considered by some it's "awkward" fold out lens the camera was an utter jewel and I'm so sorry I don't remember what happened to mine.

Yes, that’s a real pocket camera! My heart warms at it’s sight!

Wasn’t there a very similar Rollei?

The equivalent today, slightly larger would be the GRII but at 28mm focal length with an amazing 21mm addon lens.

Or else it would be the Sony digicam with the 35mm lens and the sensor from A7RII. It’s very expensive! But it is pocketable!

42MP Full-Frame Exmor R BSI CMOS Sensor
Zeiss Sonnar T* 35mm f/2 Lens
Full HD 1080p60 Video & XAVC S Format


Asher

Maybe but that Sony RX 100 VI looks to be smaller. Then of course are we talking shirt pocket or cargo pants pocket? I was thinking shirt pocket.

Peter Dexter said:

Maybe but that Sony RX 100 VI looks to be smaller. Then of course are we talking shirt pocket or cargo pants pocket? I was thinking shirt pocket.

Click to expand...

I routinely carry a Canon 70-200 f4.0 L in my pants pocket! So almost anyone of these cameras seems fine!

The GRII is the most convenient and all around winner if one can be happy with 28mm! That’s just 16 MP but the GRIII is out now or soon, (first quarter 2019 or earlier), and with 24.24 MP, cropping and enargemt is very feasible!

What is so surprising is the superfine 21mm addon lens. It’s simple amazing.

Asher

Let me add the Rollei 35 when your Minox is no longer focusing and Leica won’t service it for you!

Asher

I have a Sony RX 100 (I think version III) and still have a Minox (also slightly different model: MB) and would say that the Sony beats the Minox hands down. But if you want a Minox, they are still plenty around to buy used. About 50€.

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Minox_35

Eventually, I go a Ricoh GR1 to replace the Minox. Very nice camera:
http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Ricoh_GR1
(but I looked at used prices and realise I should sell mine...)

also the Olympus µ2:
http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Olympus_mju_II
(also surprisingly expensive)

The lens was always great on the GRI and II. now with the upcoming GRIII they have reengineered the lens for the 24MP.

So I think it will be a gem!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

The lens was always great on the GRI and II.

Click to expand...

The Ricoh GR I I was talking about is an analog 35mm camera. The name was later reused for a digital camera.

Ricoh GRI analog, 1996:


Ricoh GR digital from 2013 (the one with the large sensor you are probably thinking about):


There was an earlier model (2005) with a smaller sensor (and still the same name...):

Jerome,

Thanks for adding this history and the pictures. The reputation and “design DNA” of the original GR with its avid followers, was what was expected was built into the digital successor.

I think a lot of that was the controls and the stellar lens. So did they succeed?

Asher

I still have one of these (although this is not a picture of it):


Just a week after I bought it, I was setting off on a trip to Nigeria with this my only camera along. At the inspection table at JFK I slipped and it went to the terrazzo floor. It bounced like a Ping-Pong ball. It worked fine on the trip, and afterwards.

Today my main pocket camera is my Panasonic DMC-ZS100 (please excuse the overwidth image):


The jury is still out on it.

Best regards,

Doug

Doug,

My problem would be at the Customs in Lagos, I was asked for a bribe and didn’t follow the fellows signals of an open-cupped horizontal palm: thought it was like a local “fist bump” greeting, LOL!

In what we is the status of the princely “Leica”-Panasonic questionable?

Asher

Doug Kerr said:

Today my main pocket camera is my Panasonic DMC-ZS100
The jury is still out on it.

Click to expand...

The problem with that camera and with all cameras of the kind is that the long range of the lens is limited by diffraction. The limitation is not a problem if all you need are pictures for the web or small prints of course.

The Minox 35 series and the Rollei 35 before them got their reputation because they were as good as 35mm SLRs, in a smaller package. Actually, they were almost as good, their simple optics needed to be stopped down a bit for best results and their lack of focussing aids meant that out of focus prints were the norm. But they could be as good as SLRs under ideal conditions.

Jerome,

What do you mean by “the long range of the lens”? Do you perhaps suggest/mean that reducing the aperture overstepped some acceptable limit, (for the blurring “ripple effect” caused by wave interference from the edges of the diaphragm at smaller apertures), being more pronounced for objects further away?

Or is it something else you are implying?

.and why would it apply more to these cameras with lack of focus aids?

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

What do you mean by “the long range of the lens”? Do you perhaps suggest/mean that reducing the aperture overstepped some acceptable limit, (for the blurring “ripple effect” caused by wave interference from the edges of the diaphragm at smaller apertures), being more pronounced for objects further away?

Click to expand...

No, the limit is at the long range of the zoom lens. That particular camera, the Panasonic DMC-ZS100 has pixels of 2.4 µm. That implies that resolution will start to be reduced at apertures around f/4. Its lens is f/5.9 at 91mm (the telephoto position).

All cameras of the kind are similar.

Asher Kelman said:

J.and why would it apply more to these cameras with lack of focus aids?

Click to expand...

I did not write that. I wrote that the Minox 35 series and the Rollei 35 are limited, in practice, by the lack of focussing aids. They are not really limited by diffraction in practical use.

Hi, Jerome,

Jerome Marot said:

No, the limit is at the long range of the zoom lens. That particular camera, the Panasonic DMC-ZS100 has pixels of 2.4 µm. That implies that resolution will start to be reduced at apertures around f/4. Its lens is f/5.9 at 91mm (the telephoto position).

Click to expand...

Indeed.

In my Panasonic DMC-FZ-1000 I have the same sensor and processing chain, but the lens there at 91 mm (and from there out to its telephoto limit, 146 mm) has an available aperture of f/4.0.

That makes for a much bigger lens, and Panasonic has provided it with a much bigger body! But its performance is much better (including with regard to contrast and image "sharpness" over much of the focal length range).

But the overall "pocketablility" is much different (not even close for the FZ1000):


Best regards,

Doug

Jerome,

Jerome,

Thanks for clarifying the matter. It all fits in! With the truly pocketable Rollei 35, part of the art of picture-taking was to really evaluate whether or not taking that particular frame was worthy of the few shots available in a roll of 35 mm film. The =/- focus was pretty acceptable and notes important as today, for a picture's success or failure.

Of course, the GRIII will have not only excellent autofocus but also 3 axis image stabilization. We expect sharpness and perfect focus as part of any decent snap.

Most folk have no concept of degradation due to tiny apertures compared to ever smaller apertures. I would hope that the new GRIII does not become diffraction limited as the pixel pitch is going to be smaller! But the camera has a great open aperture and there may be no need to go beyond f5.6 anyway. I hardly ever use anything beyond f5.6 on a 35mm camera today.

[On my Fuji GFX MF monster, I do venture into the unfathomable zones of f16 to even f22. But I have not critically looked for degradation. That is likely too far!]

Asher

I would recommend folk to get at least one handy film camera to force a change of pace and consideration of the value of decision making in photography.

Film by its scarsity in shot number available, can force us to put more thought and planning into what not to shoot and how to compose with the precious few frames available.

Exact focus might then not be as important as what is being chosen!

Asher

How about a twin-lens reflex with 12 shots to the roll?

Peter Dexter said:

How about a twin-lens reflex with 12 shots to the roll?

Click to expand...

Perfect! I can recommend the Mamiya C330 as being easilly as good as any Hasselblad and so easy to use with a top view screen!

Of course a Rollei is fabulous and a Yashicamat is a bargain of fab quality. The latter is the lightest as the lenses are fixed.

People have far more patience for youvas a photographer withva Twin Lens Reflex as it speaks skill and investment in effort. Each camera comes packed with joy. One needs a large trench coat pocket!

Alternatively, the Hasselblad SWC wife angle film camera is an amazing pocketable camera once one gets the correct jacket!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

I would recommend folk to get at least one handy film camera to force a change of pace and consideration of the value of decision making in photography.

Film by its scarcity in shot number available, can force us to put more thought and planning into what not to shoot and how to compose with the precious few frames available.

Click to expand...

Jerome Marot said:

Click to expand...

Proud of you! Is that a giant pano back or for using movie film of Long lengths!

In any case, it seems impressive!

What did you use it for and when did it last see action. I think we should have a month of shooting film!

No pocket cameras but I do have a Spotmatic, a Nikon and a Canon Eos 3 35 film cameras as well as MF and LF!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Proud of you! Is that a giant pano back or for using movie film of Long lengths!

Click to expand...

That is not mine. It is a film back for 30m reels or about 750 pictures. It had quick-change chargers which could be swapped if more pictures were needed, there are 3 here for a total of over 2000 pictures.

I just wanted to show that "scarcity in shot number available" is not necessarily a feature of film and that some photographers found it useful to shoot hundreds of pictures in the 70s.

Conversely, one does not need a film camera to take few pictures. Just don't press the shutter button that often on the digital one.

Jerome,,of course you are correct in this proven specific example. When someone needs a 40 ft ladder one can order it from somewhere. But it’s rare.

Most photographers have never seen this!

It still was a feature of the time to only get 12 shots on one’s Kodak box camera or 20 or 36 on the amazing 35 mm cameras that follows!

One fellow hand-built a 14”x17” camera for an assignment hundreds of miles away. Also 4 coated glass plates. He drove there and exposed 2 of the plates. On arriving back he processed the first plate and it was perfect so he threw away the other exposed plate!

Those were the times of intense respect for the planning and attention to every detail of the actual exposure.

Yes, one could show discipline with a digital camera, as a few of us learn to do from good teachers. But it’s like having “friends with benefits”, there is no barrier to our whims! So we can be taking hundreds of frames at will, with no need for expensive complex contraptions attached to ones slick, compact autofocus image stabilized auto ISO camera!

But yes, you are still absolutely correct. In art, the tools don’t often limit the true artist long ago or now!

Asher

Doug Kerr said:

In my Panasonic DMC-FZ-1000 I have the same sensor and processing chain, but the lens there at 91 mm (and from there out to its telephoto limit, 146 mm) has an available aperture of f/4.0.

That makes for a much bigger lens, and Panasonic has provided it with a much bigger body! But its performance is much better (including with regard to contrast and image "sharpness" over much of the focal length range).

Click to expand...

The limitations of diffractions is one of the reasons I chose the Sony RX100 III. While pocketable, its lens is f/2.8 at the long end. Of course the "long end" is a lot shorter than the one of your Panasonic, but I prefer that particular compromise. If one uses a long telephoto more often and only publishes on the web, the other compromises makes more sense.

Interestingly, the RX100 does not have a variable aperture. Here again the reason is diffraction. You can vary the "f stop number" in the camera menus, but the camera will use internal ND filters and not a physical aperture. That solution is common in small sensor cameras and camcorders.

Jerome,

Thanks for the enlightenment! I had no idea that the ND filters were routinely used in place of aperture control!

I thought built-in ND filters were just to allow flash to light folk backlit at the beach! That would serve to cut down ambient light! It never occurred to me that the aperture was fixed!

Asher

Hi, Jerome,

Jerome Marot said:

The limitations of diffractions is one of the reasons I chose the Sony RX100 III. While pocketable, its lens is f/2.8 at the long end. Of course the "long end" is a lot shorter than the one of your Panasonic, but I prefer that particular compromise. If one uses a long telephoto more often and only publishes on the web, the other compromises makes more sense.

Click to expand...

Yes, and that was essentially my rationale in choosing this camera for my present-day "regular usage". But I'm not sure that was a wholly good move.

Interestingly, the RX100 does not have a variable aperture. Here again the reason is diffraction. You can vary the "f stop number" in the camera menus, but the camera will use internal ND filters and not a physical aperture. That solution is common in small sensor cameras and camcorders.

Click to expand...

Well, I had no idea that was the case on the RX100!

What is the range of actual f-numbers?

Best regards,

Doug

Hi, Jerome,

In the "Help Guide" for the Sony DCS-RX100 III camera, there is this passage:


That doesn't sound to me as if the "effective f-number" is being set with an ND filter.

Then there is this passage, which sounds like the familiar use of a (fixed) ND filter:


The three settings for this menu item are OFF, ON, and OFF/ON automatically.

I have seen reference to a "three-stop ND filter".

Are these two different ND filter activities?

What am I missing here?

Best regards,

Doug

Hi, Jerome,

On the Panasonic ZS100 (and FZ1000), both of which are reputed to use essentially the same sensor as the Sony RX100, the smallest aperture available at any focal length is f/8.

At that aperture, the diameter of the Airy circle produced by diffraction (to the first minimum) would be about 9.76 um, which would be:

• about 4.0 times the sensel pitch (2.4 um). That about twice what is often considered to be the point at which the blurring due to diffraction becomes "significant" if the outlook is in terms of degradation of the camera's potential ("geometric") resolution.

• about 1/1600 of the sensor diagonal dimension (15.9 mm). This would represent a blurring due to diffraction of about what would be considered "just perceptible" if the outlook is in terms of visual perception of blurring on a viewed image (using the same admittedly-arbitrary model of image viewing used in classical depth of field reckoning).

Best regards,

Doug

Hi, Asher,

Asher Kelman said:

Doug,

My problem would be at the Customs in Lagos, I was asked for a bribe and didn’t follow the fellows signals of an open-cupped horizontal palm: thought it was like a local “fist bump” greeting, LOL!

Click to expand...

From my only trip to Lagos (ca. 1978).

At the Lagos airport, when departing, at the currency control station:

Officer: Mr. Kerr, I see that on this currency control form you list 325 Naira that you planned to take out of the country.

Me: Yes

O: But on this departure form you show that you will be taking out 250 Naira. Why the discrepancy?

Me: I filled out the first form last night, and the second one at the airport. In between I bought breakfast and paid taxi fare to get to the airport.

O: Ah, yes. Well, this is a very serious discrepancy. It could put you in a lot of trouble. How much Nigerian currency do you have now on your person?

Me: Well, 250 Naira.

O: Put it in your passport and hand it to me.

I did. He put the passport on the lower shelf on his podium and I heard it being stamped. He handed it back to me and said, cheerily, "Have a nice trip."

On my expense report: Lagos airport: 250 Naira: Airport service fee.

Best regards,

Doug

Doug Kerr said:

Hi, Jerome,

In the "Help Guide" for the Sony DCS-RX100 III camera, there is this passage:

Aperture Priority

You can shoot by adjusting the aperture and changing the range in focus, or by defocusing the background.

The aperture value can be changed while recording movies.

1. Set the mode dial to A (Aperture Priority).
2. Select the desired value by turning the control wheel.

Smaller F-value: The subject is in focus, but objects in front of and beyond the subject are blurred.
Larger F-value: The subject and its foreground and background are all in focus.​

That doesn't sound to me as if the "effective f-number" is being set with an ND filter.

Then there is this passage, which sounds like the familiar use of a (fixed) ND filter:

ND Filter

If you use an ND filter, the amount of light entering the camera is reduced. You can slow down the shutter speed and decrease the aperture value for a better exposure.1. MENU → (Camera Settings) → [ND Filter] → desired setting.​

The three settings for this menu item are OFF, ON, and OFF/ON automatically.

I have seen reference to a "three-stop ND filter".

Are these two different ND filter activities?

What am I missing here?

Best regards,

Doug

Click to expand...

After checking, I would need to correct my post. The RX-100 has a classical controllable aperture and an internal ND filter. The filter is used so that the aperture does not need to be closed beyond a value where diffraction would be noticeable.