October 3rd, 2012, 10:49 PM
When is a “Serious Compact” not really a compact?
Currently in the compact stable I have a Canon S100, Panasonic LX-5 and an Olympus OM-D E-M5, (can’t even remember that name with all the letters, numbers and dashes).
I love the E-M5, it feels good in my hand, especially with the HLD-6 grip, (more letters and numbers) and has intuitive, tactile controls; an awesome camera, but is it really a compact camera? Quite honestly the footprint is not much smaller than my 1970’s vintage TTL SLR full frame 35mm film camera and funny enough it doesn’t look that much different with the current retro craze.
The S100 and LX-5 both fit comfortably in my pocket or in a belt pouch; the E-M5 though is a different animal. I use both a shoulder and wrist sling with it, but honestly while it’s not like dragging a DSLR around it is definitely not as unobtrusive as the other two cams, (truly compact).
It seems like the latest, greatest mirrorless cameras are all getting bigger and bigger, with lenses that double and triple the size of the camera.
So weigh in, when is a compact, not really a compact? I read the “What is a compact” thread, but I’m curious about what you think.
October 3rd, 2012, 10:57 PM
people's thresholds are all very different. I own the E-M5 (I'm ahead of the curve of dropping the OMD from the name.....soon enough there will be a bunch different OMDs) and while it is certainly bigger than the true compacts you refer to, I almost find it too small sometimes. The grip makes it seem like it's as big as a DSLR, but it's still a long way short of that.
I actually don't feel comfortable holding DSLRs. I have moderately large hands, but the cameras still seem to big. I think that GH3 looks a bit too big. For me, the E-M5 is just about perfect size-wise.
October 3rd, 2012, 11:12 PM
Luke, I like it size-wise as well, in fact it seems close to perfect, very close to some of the best TTL and rangefinder cameras ever produced. The question is....should it really be considered as a compact camera? The other question is....is micro 4/3 going the way of the DSLR, bigger and bigger cameras each cycle to keep the more is better crowd happy?
October 3rd, 2012, 11:15 PM
Before I officially joined this forum, I thought it focused on fixed lens, small sensor compacts that provided more control over the photo process (primarily exposure), hence attracting the use of more"serious" photographers. The epitome of a Serious Compact would be the RX100, but I would throw in the X-Z1 and X10 into the mix as well. Hence my surprise when I noticed my beloved M43s were also featured, as were the NEX, Leica X1 and Fuji X series APS-Cs. I personally think interchangeable lens, M43 and above sensor size cameras are too big and complicated to be considered "Serious Compacts", but if many members are refugees (even if intermittently) from DSLR boat anchors, then I guess even the bulky X- Pro 1 is a compact!
October 3rd, 2012, 11:32 PM
when I first got the X-Pro1 I thought it was big....it's a fair bit bigger than the X100, but in use it is easy to hold all day.
I hate to define my being here as a negative, but I'm here because I dislike the DSLR form factor. I hate it. It's too big and chunky. I feel like an idiot when I hold one. They are great for professionals who need crazy speed and are getting paid enough to carry all that weight.
Micro43s is interesting in that we are seeing the full range all with the same sized sensor. The big ones are nearly the same size as the crop sensor DSLRs and the smaller ones are truly compact......barely bigger than their counterparts with smaller sensors.
Something for everyone.
October 4th, 2012, 12:04 AM
I think that µ4/3 is between a serious compact and a dSLR ... so perhaps it should be labeled a greater-than-serious compact or maybe an almost-serious-compact or even a not-quite-a-serious-compact.
Coming from a world of FF 1Ds, I find the OM-D to be seriously compact. The size and weight of 1Ds/1DS's with a bag full of L lenses never bothered me. My personal expectations for my images dictated my equipment and the size and weight was just part of the package ... it is was it is.
I purchased a GF1 as a fun, tiny camera for non-serious snaps. The quality of the GF1 with the 20mm was equal to my FF cameras (@ ISO 400 or less and up to an 8x10). Now armed with OM-Ds, I am very impressed and actually appreciate the diminutive size and significantly less weight with near equal capabilities.
In summary, when compared to pro dSLRs, the OM-D w/grip is not only compact, but also delivers a very serious image.
"Everywhere you look there are photographs, it is up to us photogs to see them."- Gary Ayala
My Snaps are Here: Unsharp At Any Speed
October 4th, 2012, 12:10 AM
Us CSC/EVIL/MILC loving hippies have got to hang out somehwere.
Nic (Canonite, Olympian, Panasonian, Samsunite) ~flickr~
October 4th, 2012, 11:17 AM
I am here, because of the inclusive, family, neighborhood. When that is gone, so will I be. When we become to size divided, we will be so much weaker. There is so much to be gleaned, from folks using such a wide cross section of equipment. When each camera model has to have it's own "sub community" of discussion, there is not much activity, and becomes boring, and eventually dies. Too much focus on "correct labeling" of the tools, takes away from the real purpose of the forum. Photography!
Just me thinking out loud.
October 4th, 2012, 12:20 PM
Weston used a hand held serious compact. It made a 4X5" negative which he would then produce contact prints from.
October 12th, 2012, 07:09 PM
I will wait for the day this 20x24 get considered as a serious compact too:
-source: K. B. Canham Cameras 20x24 - all metal 20x24
Or how about those awesome camera obscura? Legacy Photo Project
This site uses affiliate programs and referral links for monetization.