When it comes to mirrorless cameras the battle is not only about image quality but also about “how small” you can make the camera. DC.watch (Click here) compared the size and weight of the tiniest cameras from Pentax, Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus and Sony. You see plenty of graphs and scores on their website. However RiceHigh (Click here) pointed out that the test isn’t perfect.
But my real question is, how small should a mirrorless camera be to be really pocket able? I guess it depends. Amateurs and Mass market want camera with zoom, and i that case the GF3 with the 14-42mm X pancake zoom is the only one that can be seen as very close to common compact cameras. Semi-pro and pro’s may are ok by carrying a pancake with fixed focal length and in that case the Pentax Q is definitely the smallest and lightest cam. But Why get the Pentax Q when the high end compact cameras like the Olympus XZ-1 or Canon S95 have a similar sensor size but do have a bright zoom lens?
16 Responses
For me it is about a balance between size (portability) and function (handling and features). For my liking all these cameras are a bit too small. I like mirrorless for its size, but if I have to sacrifice a viewfinder and a decent size sensor to get shallow DOF, then I am not impressed. I think the NEX-7 has struck the balance, the G3 isn’t too bad either.
Interesting review with outcome that was expected, because the rankings mirror the sensor size. Pentax should not be in the comparison because of the disproportionally smaller sensor. Anyway, the only meaningful conclusion is that Panasonic ( smallest body with flash + smallest 3x zoom lens ) and Sony ( APS-C sensor and many features in only slightly bigger body with the pancake ) have done the best job in making smallest possible camera with good image quality. But, I agree with TR, these bodies are too small for me and anyone who wants to put bigger lenses and needs a proper grip and controls.
BTW, there’s an interesting overview of mirrorless cameras on dpreview: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0344780582/mirrorless-cameras-a-primer .
Smallishness – is that really the most important thing? Maybe for those who upgrade from compacts.
For us “enthusiasts” that no more want to carry heavy DSLR equipment – or to have a lightweight backup – I think the focus now should be on ergonomy and user interface. Today we have mirrorless with good performance and high IQ. When it comes to usability none is free from seriuos flaws in that department. Look at Leica M with its minimalistic, efficient user interface. It is not that part that makes Leica expensive and others should learn from Leica (but NOT it’s price-range)!
Luminous Landscape has showed that using a Leica lens on NEX-7 results in in equal IQ as the lens on an M9! LL also shows that NEX-7 user interface still is unlogical and complex.
LL also has a real world size comparison NEX vs m4/3. It is a video and discussion rather then not so relevant measurements…. (millimeters and grams cannot record images.
In 1990, Canon’s advertising theme was: image is everything.
You can watch the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpuFEpbE0d0
When Sony introduced the NEX system, I thought they had gone to far with size reduction—like many, there seemed to be a dis-proportionality between body and lens. Then I began using the 5N and quickly realized the virtues of a small size.
But in the end, “image is everything.”
> But my real question is, how small should a mirrorless camera be to be really pocket able?
1. I do not carry important stuff in pockets.
2. Canon S95 is my benchmark of the pocketable camera.
3. ILC (and the LX5 and the XZ-1) fails to me pocketability because they lack built-in lens cap.
Overall, cameras were already portable for quite some time. The problem are the lenses. That’s why yes, Q loses to the S95: not only it has a built-in lens cap, the lens also collapses and folds into the body.
IMO ILCs will never be truly pocketable, because the lens mount forces the design where lens has to protrude from the body. (Or one can say: sensor is too large.)
That’s why I’m always eagerly awaiting the time when compacts like Canon Sxxx would finally reach the level of “good enough IQ.” But I gather most manufacturers do not bother pushing the IQ (sensor of Nikon 1 being literally the first) because it might OMG jeopardize the sales of their more expensive DSLRs.
wonder how nikon so utterly failed in making that thing smaller than the competition… it looks like a retarded giant and the q seems like a cheap toy.
It is design by compromise.
Though with a smaller sensor than NEX and m4/3, the Nikon 1 can’t be much smaller because it might interfere w/ Nikon’s P&S. The lenses are big too in relation to the sensor size and when you compare it to m4/3 equivalents.
In addition, V/J1 body is large enough to accomodate a bigger sensor, a real Nikon shotshoe and better controls (at least w/ direct access to PASM), but it won’t as it will interfere w/ Nikon’s DSLR. I mean, why didn’t Nikon package the V1 in a body similar to P7100? They are afraid that it will be too good and displace the D3100/D5100.
The Pentax Q might not made sense to the wider consumer market, but it do made sense to a lot of hobbyist. Not everyone wanting pocketable are wanting zoom , that’s the part. The Q do made it fine for a combo of pocketable but maintain the possibility to tailor for specific occassions.
The like of Sigma Dp series, and Ricoh GR-D do not have zoom lens either, but that do not prevent them from being nice photographers pocktable compacts. The Q can be seen as on par but somewhat different.
The line to be drawn between these mirrorless is really pocktable vs not pocktable. Zoom lens approach vs setup appraoch vs single lens ( and not neccessary zoom ) approach
Canon is correct: Image is that goal and camera is just tool for that just like hammer is for construction worker.
But unlike construction workers who demand right hammer for the particular job and have that selection of different hammers these mirrorless cameras seem to suffer from “designed by marketroids for mass market idiots” -syndrome.
These interchangeable lens cameras can never be as pocketable as compacts with lens retracting into body but still makers have this psychopathic obsession to making every single camera smaller than ergonomic size limit for human hand.
And all the while we now finally have concept allowing building internally fully compatible system with cameras from small to full controls and ergonomy models which wasn’t possible with SLR design because of bulk of mirror chamber and prism viewfinder.
So instead of only looking who makes smallest and the most unergonomic Point&Shoots mirrorless cameras we should be looking for who makes the most diverse system giving best tools for different jobs, including that dominated by DSLRs.
SLR design was necessary for the time but there’s zero reason for why that analog era concept should be dragged along another hundred years in digital technology era.
Display technology keeps developing giving higher resolution and contrast/dynamic range EVFs (OLED already solved response time problem of liquid crystals) and advance in semiconductor tech keeps lowering delay in getting image from sensor to EVF by faster sensor read out speed and image processing.
And Nikon 1 already showed that you can get PDAF’s ability to focus without trial and error and track moving subject without SLR design or mirror chamber’s bulk retaining (and ~2/3 stop light loss causing) SLT-system of Sony.
That’s an interesting photo of the cameras. The 3 cameras in the middle have similar shutter button placement, similar label/brand positioning, af-light and lens release positions. ‘The formula’ perhaps?
One thing Nikon got right was investing in the 2.7x sensor. It’s going to win them the fight against the Powershots (when in a compact body) while having enough image quality to hang with m4/3 cameras. All of this while not cannibalizing their DSLR sales.
nice article. to me, the e-pm1 seems to be the best balance of size, price, and iq. by far.
My pen mini with 14mm 2.5 fits in my jeans pocket and captures images I am more than happy with. The few people I know who own a DSLR are all thinking of getting something smaller. People get muscle strain from the things! 95% of the images I share with people get compressed for the website or email. Range of controls is great and cours are great on the pens.
I guess we already reached the lower size limit for serious cameras, if they ge getting smaller, only children or woman with small hands will be able to use them. NEX_7 is the perfect size for a mirrorless tough. Here is a weight comparison including DSLR and mirrorless cameras, the difference is huge:
http://dslrpassion.com/component/content/article/60-equipment/154-dslr-camera-weight-comparison.html
My Pentax auto 110 was small, had interchangeable lenses and fit in my pocket – it just took lousy pictures. Size may be a selling point, but small sensor digital still has a long way to go to provide anything put snapshot quality “negatives”.