1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Would you buy a fixed lens m43 camera?

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by WT21, Dec 22, 2011.

  1. WT21

    WT21 Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Feb 19, 2010
    Reading on CanonRumors.com some speculation that Canon will enter mirrorless with a fixed lens offering. Basically a G series with a bigger sensor.

    I still think m43 is a sweet spot, but it got me thinking:

    Would I buy a fixed lens m43 camera? I REALLY like my primes, but I could use a zoom from time to time. So, for me, I think I would keep my m43 with primes, and buy a fixed lens m43 compact with a zoom.

    I'm figuring if they did a build-in lens, they could keep even a bright zoom fairly compact, if they didn't reach too much for zoom range. Maybe a 14-40mm lens that's f/2.8-3.5?

    What do you think? Would you buy something like this and, if you did, would it replace your camera with removable lenses, or just complement it?

    Would you prefer a camera with a FIXED fast lens (ala the X100)?

    You are free to imagine it has all the other bells and whistles you want (built-in EVF, flash, etc.) just wondering about the lens idea.
  2. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Apr 17, 2010
    Near Philadephila
    Nope. Don't see what it would add.

  3. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, USA
    Maybe a fixed lens fast aperture zoom if they can keep it compact.
  4. KVG

    KVG Banned User

    May 10, 2011
    yyc(Calgary, AB)
    Kelly Gibbons
    M43 is a very compact format already and is size was my main concern the gf3 with a x14-42 or with a 14mm or a 20mm I think most people would be good.
  5. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    If it had a fixed lens it wouldn't be a Micro Four-Thirds, which is a SYSTEM standard.

    The better question would be, would you buy a Leica X1 or Fuji X100? I think many have already answered that question for themselves. ;) 
  6. grantb

    grantb Mu-43 Veteran

    I would prefer the X100 with the larger sensor over a fixed MFT.
  7. Art

    Art Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 13, 2011
    San Francisco, CA
    Aren't all P&S cameras mirrorless??
    • Like Like x 1
  8. RichDesmond

    RichDesmond Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Nov 18, 2011
    United States
    Don't see the point of it. The lenses can't be smaller, the interchangable mount adds very little size, weight or cost, so what's the advantage. :confused: 
  9. Luke

    Luke Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Jul 30, 2010
    Milwaukee, WI
    there is room for fixed lens cameras with high IQ, but the sensor would need to be a minimum of APS-C size, like the X100.
  10. I don't think there is any reason to make a retrograde step like this, unless someone can come up with a slim-bodied, large sensor camera where the lens retracts completely into the body.

    Fuji can talk themselves up about creating a perfect mesh between lens and sensor for optimum IQ in a fixed-lens camera, but if that were true then where are all the high-end fixed-lens cameras for professional use? I think that particular claim came straight out of the marketing department.
  11. KVG

    KVG Banned User

    May 10, 2011
    yyc(Calgary, AB)
    Kelly Gibbons
    If the price and/or quality is right it could be a seller, but most people on this forum would stick to the system as is.
  12. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    What would be wrong with a Four-Thirds size sensor on a fixed lens body? APS-C is just wider than Four-Thirds, meaning that the lenses have to be larger to cover the width of the sensor, but there will be no improvement in pixel density in the center portion over Four-Thirds. Four-Thirds sensor size essentially offers the same image quality within the 4:3 aspect portion of the sensor, while reducing lens size dramatically. So why APS-C? That doesn't make sense to me... APS-C is based on a double-frame format which is inappropriately wasteful for the image circle of a lens which is... you guessed it, circular and not oblong. It's also inappropriately wasteful for those of us who shoot for paper stock and don't have the freedom to publish wide photos just for the sake of it.

    That said, I don't see a Micro Four-Thirds sized sensor in a fixed lens camera as being a significant advantage over anything that we have in the market right now, from APS-C cameras with fixed lens to Micro Four-Thirds cameras with interchangeable lenses. I just don't understand why anybody would think the APS-C is somehow "better" or a "minimum requirement" because of the size of the sensor.
    • Like Like x 2
  13. stillshunter

    stillshunter Mu-43 Regular

    Sep 27, 2011
    Well said Ned. Very well said!!! :bravo-009:

  14. It's not so much the format but the overall dimension of the sensor. Within a given image circle a 4:3 sensor has an advantage of only about 4-5% in total surface area over a 3:2 sensor.
  15. grantb

    grantb Mu-43 Veteran

    Ok but where's my MFT with X100 iso/DR performance then? GX1 looks like it's getting closer, but not quite. I am almost getting the low light handheld shots I want from e-p3... just a couple more stops.
  16. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    12-40/2.8-3.5 or 12-50/2.8-4.0 I would take in an instant, assuming the optics were good and the camera were reasonably sized.

    I think the odds of such a camera a less than none, despite the fact that they'd likely be more profitable than interchangeable bodies.

    The closest thing to a large-sensored compact with a zoom lens today is the Ricoh GXR's newest module, and while it's a nice idea, it's quite expensive, and quite large.

  17. WT21

    WT21 Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Feb 19, 2010
    Not sure I agree. Look at the X100. The lens is much more compact than, say a NEX 24mm, and as good. Building them together helps you keep them compact, at least as a prime. Not sure about a zoom, though.
  18. drewbot

    drewbot Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Oct 21, 2011
    Toronto, ON
    If they can get the price and size to be in the LX5/XZ-1 range, it would be a good DSLR companion for many users that are married to their full frame sensors and their mammoth 70-200's.
  19. pawzitiv

    pawzitiv Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 28, 2010
    I'd love to have a :43: equivalent of a Rollei 35S. Heck, it could even have manual zone focusing just like the original.
  20. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    They can be made smaller. Firstly, you can use a collapsing lens design that retracts fully - there's no issues with the bayonet. Secondly, you can use more symmetric lens designs without losing performance, because having a fixed lens makes designing offset microlenses for the sensor quite straightforward.

    The Leica X1 for instance is not designed specifically for size savings, but it is nonetheless significantly thinner than the E-PM1 + 17/2.8, despite having a much better lens, and sensor that's 40% larger. This is due precisely to the retracting design and microlenses.

    With zoom lenses the gains are potentially much more significant.

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.