therwol Loc: USA

These cameras look interesting, but I've already spent my quota on film equipment this year and for awhile, approximately what that Leica costs, and it's not like I don't have a full frame DSLR (Nikon D810). I just long for something that good that I can put in a pocket.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

There are quite a few good - really good, actually - crop sensor compacts - Canon EOS M10, Sony RX100 III, Ricoh GR, Fuji X100, even a Leica D Lux - that will put a much smaller dent in your budget and still take better shots than the Stylus.

rastokirn Loc: Maribor, Slovenia

[quote=Gene51]Optical. Bigger sensors require bigger, heavier lenses. Your Olympus probably had a fixed 35mm lens...
I am certain that either of these will give you images that far exceed anything you took with the Stylus.[/quote

At ten times the price, it should!

BebuLamar

Image quality of current sensors are so good that for a compact camera I would rather have small sensor. Having small sensor I can have more DOF.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

[quote=rastokirn][quote=Gene51]Optical. Bigger sensors require bigger, heavier lenses. Your Olympus probably had a fixed 35mm lens...
I am certain that either of these will give you images that far exceed anything you took with the Stylus.[/quote

At ten times the price, it should![/quote]

One would think . . .

therwol Loc: USA

No doubt. I just bought the Canon G7X Mark II, which uses the same sensor as the Sony RX100 III. At the same time, none of these hold a candle to my Nikon D810. I was just wondering why, if they could make decent compact film cameras before the digital age, couldn't they just put a full frame sensor where that big film opening was. Some of those cameras had autofocus and zoom lenses that covered that larger area. The space occupied by the motor drive and film cassette could be stuffed with electronics. Just wondering. Only the manufacturers know the technical limitations. I'm sure I'll be perfectly happy with my new camera. It was just a thought.

cthahn

Cost

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

If you are a compact, there is just sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much room.

ELNikkor

I agree! My Olympus XA (35mm rangefinder) or XA4 (28mm one head, 3 heads, mountains) were my "always there" pocket cameras. I got so many "grab shots" just because one was always in a pocket, ready to bring out and shoot. Since I mostly shot BW and processed it myself, I could print any part of the image, so not having a zoom was not a problem, and the lenses were very sharp. Bring that size camera back in digital with the full frame!

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Check out the Sony RX 1 if you really want a small FF sensor camera. It's got one of the highest quality FF sensors going (beats the Canon handily). Of course if you want interchangeable lenses, they are going to be big, since there are certain laws of physics pertaining to lenses and how they cover larger sensors.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

In addition to what several others have said, when the DSLR first came out, sensors were extremely expensive and very difficult to produce. At that time, film was still the dominate game in town. Nikon and Canon (and a couple of the other major players at the time, made crop sensors. They were roughly 1/3 smaller than a 35mm full frame. The reasons were two fold. 1. Expense. Very few photographers would be willing to spend the money on a full frame sensor that would give them (maybe as much as) 10mp of image when they could shoot film and have "great" resolution. 2. Larger sensors were not only expensive but extremely brittle and tended to crack or break in production or inside the camera. The smaller point and shoot cameras became the proving ground for sensor technology and for memory cards. (I once had an Agfa camera that used very large (physically) digital cards that were a whopping 1 or 2 megabytes and were expensive given the size of the card and the lack of quality of the image). My first DSLR was the Nikon D70s (I still have it and the wife uses it). It uses Compact Flash cards and at a maximum of 4gb size. The camera was expensive but used all of my Nikon lenses. The cards at the time would cost $40 or $50 each. Note: My D7100 uses 2 SD cards at a time and use 64 gb cards but have used 128gb.

The major companies finally went to Full Frame DSLR after manufacturing techniques allowed them and as prices for manufacturing came down. Now you can get a Hasselblad Digital (NOTE: it uses 4 overlapping sensors to create the "large format" image.

ephraim Imperio

The Nikon Coolpix A pocket camera has a 16.2 megapixel size sensor- the same sensor as the Nikon D7000 camera.
Effie

philmurfin Loc: Bakewell, Derbyshire UK

OK, I understand all that however, there mus be tens if not hundreds of thousands of "photographers" on this planet who would be willing and able to pay between £1500 - £2000 for such a gem?
Phil

up to £15600

markie1425 Loc: Bryn Mawr, PA

I have both the Canon G9 and the Canon S95. Although the G9 has a larger body and other features such as a hot shoe, both cameras use the same small sensor. They take nice images, albeit limited by their sensor size.

Then, there is my Lumix DMC-LX100, the body of which is not much larger than the G9. But that Lumix packs a four-thirds sensor and is capable of smashing images. I don't feel the need to tote a DSLR with its ungainly lens when I can easily carry the Lumix.
--

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

I think you need to find a broken digital camera - preferably dx or fx, and take it apart and see what is inside, and then try to figure out how to fit all of that into the size camera you would like and then equip it with a battery and internal zoom lens that would cover the full width of the sensor. Earthbound physics still governs the limitations of engineering.