Pocket cameras of the past had the exact same "sensor"

It took a long, long time for pocketable 35mm cameras to become good. It will take less time for pocketable full frame cameras to come to fruition, but you're placing unreasonable demands given the newness of the technology.

Having said that, the RX1r2 comes pretty damn close to being pocketable, and would be if they didn't worry about ergonomic factors like having a lens barrel large enough to comfortably focus with, etc.

The Ricoh GR is absolutely pocketable and has a terrific aps-c sensor that blows most 35mm out of the water, so there's that.

35mm SLRs were not 'top of the line.' Some were made to very high quality, and rather expensively so. This however was mostly either for the purpose of personal luxury, or for photojournalists who preferred 35mm for the high shot-to-shot speed and number of shots per roll. Top of the line SLRs were typically 6x6 or 6x7 format, quadrupling the potential resolution compared to 35mm film.

35mm compacts also had very bad lenses most of the time - the few that had acceptably sharp lenses are cult classics which are very overpriced today due to popularity.

I can tell that this is going to become a meme if someone isn't clear right now why you can't design digital cameras with current sensor technology and the kinds of lenses that were put in these cameras.

Effectively, unlike film, which you can treat as "flat", digital has something called wells which the light has to get into.

These lens designs have light coming in at such a grazing angle in the corners that it actually causes the image to smear and you get a phenomenon known as colour vignetting where the corners go super purple or green.

Anyone that's used the Sigma DP2 Merrill raw to dng converter (SPP digitally fixes the problem before you notice it), or used the wide angle compact leica M or Contax G lenses on mirorless cameras will have seen this first hand.

>>2906785

Meh...the lenses and micro lenses can be designed to work around this. The problem is that a 36x24mm silicon chip is expensive to manufacture, and will be for some time.

>>2906777
35mm digital sensor is not really equivalent in quality to scanned 35mm film. You could at best says that 35mm film gives quality on par with an APS-C sensor or smaller.

Full frame compacts could definitely be more of a thing but they keep making big dopey lenses to go along with it

>>2906887
>>2906889

lol, amazing timing.

>>2906887
People would be up in arms over a FF compact with the lens quality of even the best 35mm compacts. People value them these days for their "look," but the pixel peepers would flip shit over soft corners and color fringing and shit. 35 compacts were never really meant for anything bigger than an 8x10 print, while looking at a 100% crop on a 24mp digital is like sticking a loupe on a 24x36.

Anyway, though, APS-C compacts have done a damn good job of replacing high-end 35s, and the only real issue is that most of them are due for a major refresh.

>>2906889
Why is the selector on f/2 but the blades are stopped down?

>>2906955

It's probably off and it's a mirrorless design.

File: 10692436833_53c17fe018_z.jpg (127KB, 640x424px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 640x424px

>>2906777
And this is why.

>>2906993
So big and full of slots, buttons, and switches for a myriad of features. Absolutely disgusting for something claiming to be ``pure photography''. Very soulless.

Ricoh GR with the APS-C sensor is definitely not shitty compared to DSLR's.

>>2906996
The point I was trying to make: digital cameras are a lot bigger than film cameras.

There is just no way you can fit all those electronics into a pocketable compact.
You end up with something like >>2906889 becasue you can't collapse the lens into the body.

>>2907008
But a film GR was "full frame".

If the modern GR had an f/1.8 lens it would have been a true equivalent.
But it's only f/2.8

>>2906777
you can produce 35mm digital camera with such size. You can also put same lens to see how shit it was and why new lenses are so big - because they need to reslove >24mpx instead of being murky soft shit like in your pic

>>2907008
If you like cropbabby BS. Nikon D810...

>>2907013
>There is just no way you can fit all those electronics into a pocketable compact.

EOS M or any of a number of other m43 MILCs. And don't reply with "they're not fool frame!" because the electronics are identical outside of the sensor itself.

>You end up with something like >>2906889 becasue you can't collapse the lens into the body.

See >>2907030

Old 35mm P&S lenses were generally shit. Nobody paying for a FF sensor is going to accept that, especially when they can't change the lens out. Any FF sensor, even a 12 MP original 5D sensor, will reveal their flaws. The EF 40mm f/2.8 pancake is about the smallest you can go and still have acceptable IQ.

>>2907351
>EOS M or any of a number of other m43 MILCs

That should have read: "EOS M or any of a number of other MILCs."

The M is APS-C. But when I started typing I was going to give another specific example that was m43, then said fuck it because there are plenty of APS-C bodies that are small as well.

Well think about it, what are the bare-minimum requirements of a digital camera? A digital sensor, a memory card slot to write files to, a processing unit to run the whole operation, and a battery to power it.

This takes up more space than just a film canister and take-up spool.

And the digital sensor requires housing that takes up even more space than just the area that the sensor captures.

Then for DSLR we add an auto-focus sensor module and now it's considerably bigger than manual focus SLR.

>>2907351
>>2907030

This.
I once converted an allegedly 'super sharp' Olympus Zuiko 35mm f3.5 (from a Mju I) so it'll work on my Fuji. I even made some 'aperture rings' out of very thin plastic that have a perfectly round hole in the middle. So even at the lens' sweetspot, around f8, it was kind of okay in the center part of the center (see what I did there :^D) but once you go to the corners.. well technically you are not even right next to the corner in the slightest, there will be nothing but a blurry, busy, muddy looking mess. It's that horrible.

>>2907370
> Takes a lens made to sit super close to the film plane, through which the light hits the edges of the frame at a sharp angle
> Puts it in front of a digital sensor, of which it is well known they handle this situation terribly and need light to come in (preferably) perpendicularly
> "The lens is horrible, see!"

Can't blame Olympus that the lens doesn't preform well in a situation it wasn't designed for, anon. If you had done any research beforehand you would've already known what the result would be.

>>2907674
>muh angled light meme

A) This meme is dramatized. Especially with modern micro lenses over the sensor. There are some old lenses that show it when adapted to, say, a body in the Sony A7 series. But it's not the problem it is made out to be.

B) He adapted it to a Fuji. Fuji doesn't make a FF MILC. If the lens couldn't perform out to the corners on an APS-C sensor then it really was shit.

>>2907745
Could be this issue, too:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/sensor-stack-thickness-part-iii-the-summary/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/sensor-stack-thickness-when-does-it-matter/

Or then simply of course just a shit lens. But I wouldn't straight discount it could be an amalgamation of other factors too.

>>2907370
Share some pics? I've seen some cool XA lens conversions but never a Mju.

>>2907745
>A) This meme is dramatized. Especially with modern micro lenses over the sensor. There are some old lenses that show it when adapted to, say, a body in the Sony A7 series. But it's not the problem it is made out to be.

Yes, micro lenses may improve the situation somewhat, but they're not made to correct the extreme angles of a lens made to sit right in front of the film plane, like that of the Mju-I.

>B) He adapted it to a Fuji. Fuji doesn't make a FF MILC. If the lens couldn't perform out to the corners on an APS-C sensor then it really was shit.
Or his adapter is just shit and the focus plane isn't parallel to the sensor.
Or he knocked the lenses out of alignment/spacing.
Or it was just a bad copy in the first place.

I'm not saying the lens on the Mju-I is a miracle, but if it's half as much of a shitstain as you guys pretend it is, people would've definitely noticed it on film already.

File: 100cropsooc.jpg (1MB, 2515x1469px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2515x1469px

>>2907766
Just took this shot for you.
100% crop sooc, no sharpening.

It's that horrible. I'll upload a couple more samples in a few minutes.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2016-08-21T17:33:21+02:00
Flash	No Flash, Red-Eye Reduce
Image Width	2515
Image Height	1469

File: _AYY1783sooc.jpg (2MB, 4446x2964px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4446x2964px

>>2907851
another one; this time a full image

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro1
Camera Software	Digital Camera X-Pro1 Ver3.30
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	53 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016-08-21T17:37:55+02:00
Exposure Time	1/800 sec
F-Number	f/1.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	5.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Image Width	4446
Image Height	2964
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2907851
Dude where do u live wtf

File: _AYY1780sooc.jpg (3MB, 4896x3264px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4896x3264px

>>2907853
Btw- All images were taken on a steady tripod.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro1
Camera Software	Digital Camera X-Pro1 Ver3.30
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	53 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016-08-21T17:40:49+02:00
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/1.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	-1.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Image Width	4896
Image Height	3264
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: _AYY1781sooc.jpg (3MB, 4323x2882px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4323x2882px

>>2907854
Germany

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro1
Camera Software	Digital Camera X-Pro1 Ver3.30
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	53 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016-08-21T17:40:13+02:00
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/1.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	-1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Image Width	4323
Image Height	2882
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2907851
Thank you anon. I wasn't looking to fight, just genuinely curious because I like my Mju 1.

>>2907856
>>2907858
Apart from the smearing in the corners these two look fine.

My Mju doesn't look like this at all...are you sure your conversion is good?

>>2907370
The Mju I lens isn't that special though, even with film it has pretty terrible corners. It's quite a simple triplet lens really. I really like the camera though, just bought one this week actually, but e.g. the Mju II lens is technically better.

I mostly agree with your point still. I tried all of my film lenses on digital and the results were pretty underwhelming. Granted, most of them are nothing special. The Zuiko 50mm f1.8 made in Japan was pretty good and I've used it for some portraits.

>>2907805
>I'm not saying the lens on the Mju-I is a miracle, but if it's half as much of a shitstain as you guys pretend it is, people would've definitely noticed it on film already.

35mm film was never critiqued at the same level as modern digital files. Looking at an 18 MP 2:3 file at 100% in Photoshop is like looking at a 36x54" print. Back when compact 35mm P&S cameras were popular the average print size for 35mm film was 4x6. It was rarely printed to 8x10 or 11x14, and almost never to 16x20. Shots from a compact P&S might sometimes be enlarged to 8x10, but the people who were printing to 16x20 were using SLRs or high end rangefinders.

Even today, 35mm film is often scanned on a flatbed or at low rez by the developer. Most people who own a Mju have never critiqued the IQ the way someone with a FF body regular critiques their equipment.

By the standards of the time period, printing 4x6 with the occasional enlargement, the lens might have been just fine. By today's standards? No.

>>2908131
>I tried all of my film lenses on digital and the results were pretty underwhelming.

Digital has forced lens design to a new level. There are some very good lenses from the film era. But a lot of lenses that were respectable in the 70s, 80s, and 90s can't hold a candle to what we have today.

This isn't just at the high end. Some of Canon's cheap/kit glass is now scary good considering the price. I was one of the people who bought the original EOS M during the fireside sale. The 22mm f/2 and 18-55 IS zoom kick the shit out of some of the old 35mm zooms I had in the film days. Granted they only have to cover an APS-C sensor and they're assisted by lens profiles in ACR. But they also cost nothing.

>>2908161
>35mm film was never critiqued at the same level as modern digital files. Looking at an 18 MP 2:3 file at 100% in Photoshop is like looking at a 36x54" print.

PC displays, tables, and tiny phone screens have killed the salon. Friends used to come to my house to view 35mm and 6x6 slides. I repainted a wall in my living room with titanium white paint. With a Leica projector/lens on the far wall we could sit mid-room on a sofa and easily differentiate film by looking at the grain structure and color reproduction.

Kodachrome 25 vs Kodachrome 64 - look for subtle browns vs blacks. Ektachrome 400 - look at the blues. Agfachrome - red clumps. And so on. Kodachrome 64 was the most popular, by far.

Besides guessing slide film type we could sometimes guess which compact camera or full-size lens had shot a particular image. Sometimes there was obvious color purple color fringing and out of focus corners (Olympus Mju aka Olympus XA comes to mind), or night-time diffraction star patterns from overly simple diaphragm designs (Minox 35 EL/GL/GT).

Ultimately we learned the same lesson that's true today. The best camera is the one you have with you. If you're going to carry around a Lecia M6 or M9 all the time then great, otherwise you can get pretty good results from a Rollei 35 SE compact camera or a LG G4 smartphone.

>>2908171
>But a lot of lenses that were respectable in the 70s, 80s, and 90s can't hold a candle to what we have today.

>>2908663
(continued...)
Most people in the 70s, 80s, and 90s shot with plastic lens 110-film or disc-film cameras. SLRs generally came with prime lenses, e.g. 50mm f2, that were very high quality.

What changed SLRs is:

Autofocus - reduced the need for the user to focus, so lenses didn't need to be fast/bright to work with a focusing screen.

Computer-aided manufacturing - allowed the economical manufacturing of exotic zoom lens designs.

Now consumer SLR (DSLR) cameras generally ship with compact zoom lenses (e.g. 28-85mm for FF/film cameras, and later 15-55mm for APS-C cameras). These lenses are slow, e.g. F3.5-F5.6. and when used properly create usable images.

ECONOMICAL - I think is the key. As consumers we get a lot more from computer designs, optical materials, and manufacturing methods, than we did forty years ago.

IMHO the only loss is that shrinking sensor size means shorter lens focal length the corresponding optical effects. I don't know the right terms to explain, but shooting a 6x6 camera with a 200mm f4 lens produces images (e.g. portraiture) that is very different than an 85mm f4 lens on an APS-C. The angle of view is about the same (9-degrees) but the "look" is very different, and I don't just mean depth of field.

>>2908684
>I don't know the right terms to explain, but shooting a 6x6 camera with a 200mm f4 lens produces images (e.g. portraiture) that is very different than an 85mm f4 lens on an APS-C. The angle of view is about the same (9-degrees) but the "look" is very different, and I don't just mean depth of field.

Most of the qualities that people believe change with format do not actually change with format. Identical FoV / distance to subject / physical aperture size is going to produce virtually identical images.

I say virtually because no two lenses in different formats are perfectly matched in all respects down to the last fraction of measurement. But if the match up is close then no one would be able to tell the format given unlabeled prints, assuming the prints were cropped to the view. (Otherwise you could tell because one would be 2:3 and the other 1:1.)

Note that FoV is not focal length, and physical aperture size is not relative aperture. 85mm APS-C is equivalent to something like 240mm in 6x6. A 240mm lens at f/4 has a 60mm opening, which is the same as an 85mm at f/1.4.

Thank You!
FOV understood.
Physical Aperture Size - I am interested. Is the formula simple?
What would the APS-C equivalent of a 6x6cm 80mm f2.8?
Can software simulate physical aperture size on a smartphone?

>>2907897
>are you sure your conversion is good
Yes, absolutely. I took good care of the alignment of the lens when fitting it into the selfmade adapter.
The Mju I 35mm f3.5 is definitely a worse performer than, for example, the Canon 38mm f3.5 which came from an old Canon Prima P+S.

I really don't wanna sacrifice my beloved OG Olympus XA but I am somewhat curious about the performance of its 35mm f2.8 Zuiko lens when being converted and adapted to my Fuji.

>>2908747
>What would the APS-C equivalent of a 6x6cm 80mm f2.8?

Not the guy above, but the crop factor from 6x6 to APS-C is about 2.8

So you'll need a 28mm f/1 lens to get a similar field of view and depth of field.
To my knowledge no such lens exists.

>>2908759
If you do adapt it, do make it with square aperture too. I love/hate that about the XA. It definitely ruins images, but it also looks really really cool sometimes.

Speaking of P&S lens quality, definitely not all of them were shit even back then. The Ricoh GR 28mm and 21mm's were made in a (limited) run for the Leica mount because they were so good, for example. The Contax T3 and Minolta TC-1 lenses are also supposedly really good, and we all know Terry loved his Yashicas. Of course, they were expensive cameras.

>>2908747
>Physical Aperture Size - I am interested. Is the formula simple?

Divide the focal length by the f-number. A 200mm f/4 lens has a physical aperture size of 200/4 = 50mm.

>What would the APS-C equivalent of a 6x6cm 80mm f2.8?

This sounds about right: >>2908785

>Can software simulate physical aperture size on a smartphone?

There's an online bokeh simulator at: http://dofsimulator.net/en/

>>2908869

No, a 200 f/4 lens has an entrance pupil of 50mm. An entrance pupil does not necessarily correlate with the physical aperture.

However, for all intents and purposes, you never really need to know the physical aperture.

>>2908870
>No, a 200 f/4 lens has an entrance pupil of 50mm. An entrance pupil does not necessarily correlate with the physical aperture.

For the purpose of computing the blurring of detail at long distances from the plane of focus, you can treat them as one and the same. But you are correct that depending on the lens design the actual aperture diaphragm may not be the size of the entrance pupil.

>However, for all intents and purposes, you never really need to know the physical aperture.

It's helpful to keep in mind that blur near the plane of focus (formal DoF) and blur at distance (what people typically include when they say "DoF") are governed by different things.

friendly reminder that until the focal plane moves back to the rear of the camera this will always be a problem.

>>2906777
Pocket cameras of today have fast, high quality zoom lenses though. Any time you wanted a zoom lens on a film compact, you ended up with a soft f/13 piece of shit. And even primes were rarely faster than f/4 - that Natura is a one-of-a-kind thing from the very end of the film era (plus it wasn't really pocketable)

>>2908863
>Terry loved his Yashicas
I agree. I've seen a nice T4 conversion on 35mmc a while ago which turned out to perform really well on a Leica.

http://www.35mmc.com/06/06/2016/3d-printed-yashica-t4-lens-conversion/

I guess it's time to look out for some broken T4s/XAs then.

>>2909206
>And even primes were rarely faster than f/4
Nikon 35Ti / 28Ti
Leica Mini / Mini II / Mini 3 / Minilux / CM
Contax T2 / T3
Yashika T2 / T3 / T4 / T5
Minolta TC-1
Olympus Trip 35 / Mju / Mju II / XA / XA2 / XA4
Ricoh GR1 / GR 21
Rollei 35S

>>2909417
Sure, but for every one of these there was a hundred Sureshots and Easyloads.

File: canonsureshot.jpg (30KB, 414x270px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 414x270px

>>2909452
>my second camera

God bless my parents, they saw I was interested in photography as a kid and wanted me to have a nice camera. If I could go back I would nudge them towards a cheap, fully manual, K-mount SLR with a 50mm f/2. (I was a total nerd so even as a little kid I would have appreciated, cared for, and learned how to use an SLR.)

But I still appreciate their effort.

I wish I had that camera today....

>>2906777
can someone ID this camera?

>>2909563
Yes I can, and you can too!

Image search very much a thing anon!

File: fuji_natura.jpg (61KB, 800x640px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 800x640px

>>2909563
Fuji Natura S

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 7.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	360 dpi
Vertical Resolution	360 dpi
Image Created	2005:02:05 08:37:58
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1200

>>2909566
It looks different from OP's pic

>>2909660
How many times were you held back in school