backseat camera dev

>What are you backseat camera dev ideas?

I'd make a contax g2 with a full frame sensor that has a better viewfinder that can still use the godly g-mount lenses

>>2887889
>APS-C and FF sensor cameras can now be as compact as cameras with compact sensors.
Gearfags only looking at body size again, I see. It's all about system size. Body size isn't even a consideration until you look at the big magalloy chassis DSLRs.

>>2887999
So an autofocusing Leica. Leica BTFO when?

File: download.jpg (340KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 1000x667px

>>2888006
>So an autofocusing Leica. Leica BTFO when?

1996, when it was released

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-T1
Camera Software	Digital Camera X-T1 Ver1.00
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	53 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2014:07:24 19:48:24
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Brightness	2.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3456
Image Height	2304
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Sharpness	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Chroma Saturation	Normal
Flash Mode	Off
Macro Mode	Off
Focus Mode	Auto
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
Picture Mode	Manual Exposure
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Blur Status	OK
Focus Status	OK
Auto Exposure Status	OK

>>2888006
Did you even read?

> APS-C and FF will never ever successfully miniaturize their lenses as much as they have with their bodies.

>>2888008
what's the point of an autofocusing rangefinder? isn't that basically a normal autofocusing mirrorless like x-pro?

>>2888011
>what's the point of an autofocusing rangefinder?

snappin photos

>isn't that basically a normal autofocusing mirrorless like x-pro?

you could say that except the g2 is 'full frame'

I haven't used the g2 as I only have a g1 but it's easily one of my favorite cameras to use because of how smooth it is. Even with the inferior g1 autofocus it's just gorgeous

>>2888014
What I'm wondering is if an actual rangefinding mechanism has any advantages for autofocus compared to the current technology.

>>2888018
Well it would probably be easier to produce and more reliable but aside from that the system the g2 uses is already pretty smooth and refined aside from using screw drive for the actual focusing of the lenses

Doesn't work like that. Pick up any of your digital cameras and look where the sensor is. Now pick up a film body and look at the film plane.

Put a mirror in there and it'll never be as small.

>>2888032
the point is that it doesn't need to be the smallest camera body in the market anymore in order to compete with aps-c or ff

>>2888008
Autofocusing digital rangefinder

my bad

>>2888050
Literally Xpro2. Many have already made the Contax G2 comparison as well.

>>2888160
b-b-but not a real rangefinder

>>2888027
Sadly the Contax mechanism is way more complicated and less reliable than what mirrorless cameras use. You're talking about a pretty substantial amount of optics and moving parts to make an RF work

On-sensor focusing is also super simple and works with any lens, while a separate RF requires some kind of linkage to connect the lens to the RF system. The actual AF mechanism of modern mirrorless lenses is shockingly simple compared to screw drives or even ultrasonic focusing, too. (The trend now is for electromagnetic focusing, where the element just slides straight forward and back on a magnet, with no gears or helicoids or anything.)

>>2888179
I'm not denying that it's more complicated and less reliable. I actually said that current technology is definitely more reliable and cheaper

For 1996 technology the autofocus on the g2 is fantastic

>>2887889
i want a mx-1 mirrorless apsc.

>>2888181
Oh gotcha, I read your post the other way around.

Tbh I don't really know why MFT would make sense to me personally. APS-C is pretty much the same size and weight, with better high iso performance.

Full frame mirrorless to me is a lie, the lenses are still fuckhuge so the compactness of the bodies is lost. Unless you only adapt rangefinder lenses or something.

>>2888340
Because you've never picked up a GX85 and 42.5/1.7 or 20/1.7. Asides from a lack of an affordable true wide angle, those two lenses could cover 80% of my needs for a travel camera. That setup is small as fuck and I don't shoot at night.

M43 doesn't make sense as a primary system for most people, of course.

>>2888428
Tfw no Panasonic 10mm f4 for $400
You can still get a shagyang 12 f4.

>>2887889
I would love to have a full frame digital Olympus xa

>>2887889
big sensors still need bigger lenses, if not bigger bodies

File: image.jpg (51KB, 447x346px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 447x346px

>>2888444
Do you double dare me to adapt this lens to my a7?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	447
Image Height	346
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2888446
an f/900 megamacro

>>2888447
(with the appropriate extension tubes for a full frame image circle of course)

actually with such a high f-stop would it not have infinity focus anyway? just essentially a pinhole with some glass in the way

>>2888340
>APS-C is pretty much the same size and weight
Except not really tho

>>2888448
>f=1:1.9

>>2888433
The 12/2 for $320 burgerbux?

>>2887889
>~This kills the MFT~
except not really tho

>>2888428
I had a Panasonic setup for a while. (GX1 + 20mm and kit lens.) It was quite small with that setup, but I found 20mm a pretty awkward focal length for everyday use.

I think the biggest issue with the GX85 setup isn't anything to do with the setup itself, but rather that an X-E2s with one of Fuji's pancakes is only incrementally larger, and that gets you into a much more all-around usable system.

>>2888591
>but I found 20mm a pretty awkward focal length for everyday use.
>can't shoot everyday with a 40-45 eqv
It's literally the everyday snapshit focal length.

>>2887889
I really wanted to like the MX, but no viewfinder was a big issue. You think they could have slapped an evf on top. Hell Olympus did with their OMD and that was around the same time.

>>2888591
>not being able to interchangeably shoot at 35-50mm equiv

git gud

>>2889082
>>2889140
I don't like 50 either, and while I use 35 frequently, it's not for snapshits.

I guess maybe it comes down to personal preference, and how you define "snapshits." "Normal" lenses are great for straight documentary photography for personal use, stuff like taking a picture of your lunch or an interesting sign you saw or something, any photo in which reproducing the subject accurately is the goal of the photo.

I don't really shoot photos like that except when I'm paid to do it, though. Maybe it's a habit left over from working as a photojournalist for a few years, but I only shoot photos when I think they'll be compelling to an audience of strangers, and I find it very difficult to do that with a normal lens. I prefer the "immersion" and ability to take in an entire scene of a wide or ultrawide, or the ability to pick things out and isolate them that a telephoto provides.

To me, a "snapshit" is any photo I take outside the context of a planned photoshoot or event, but I'm still trying to create interesting images when I'm doing them. I suppose that's not the same thing as a "true snapshit."