How long until we see a truly pocketable m4/3+ camera?

[shadowfox]

Would be great indeed, but the size would simply get considerably larger. In particular as the lens wold have to be small as it seems most consider f/2.8 too slow to look at on fixed lenses ...

See, this is coming back to what I posted recently about forgoing the LCD which should give them ample space inside the camera to put a bigger sensor in a small body like the GRD.

What?? No LCD, how am I going to see my pictures then?
Simple, use your phone. With bigger screen, brighter, better editing, and would likely to be with you just as much if not more than the camera.

 

[rxmd]

See, this is coming back to what I posted recently about forgoing the LCD which should give them ample space inside the camera to put a bigger sensor in a small body like the GRD.

What?? No LCD, how am I going to see my pictures then?
Simple, use your phone. With bigger screen, brighter, better editing, and would likely to be with you just as much if not more than the camera.

This sounds like a neat idea, but only until you realize that some people may want to use the LCD while shooting (to check composition, change a setting or whatever).

And then you realize that it is pretty awkward to shoot with a camera in one hand and a phone in another and no free hand, because most users don't look like this:

In other words, forcing users to use multiple different devices simultaneously in this case leads to terrible ergonomics for everyone who isn't a four-armed Indian deity.

 

[seakayaker1]

Cameras like the Leica X2 and Olympus E-PM1 and Panasonic's pancake zoom lead me to believe that we cannot be far away from having a P&S that fits in your pants pocket (somewhere between cargo and skinny jeans) and still has a sensor that delivers depth of field control and better dynamic range (m4/3 or APS-C compared to tiny sensor P&S cameras of today).

How far off are we from this type of camera?

. . . . . The Panasonic GF1 meet the need for me to have a small camera profile that will fit in a pocket. Not a pants pocket since I am not interested in carrying a camera in my pants.

At my age skinny jeans and cargo pants are a reach. 😉

 

[jsrockit]

In other words, forcing users to use multiple different devices simultaneously in this case leads to terrible ergonomics for everyone who isn't a four-armed Indian deity.

Right, I'd rather use one big device then two smaller ones generally. 🙂

 

[cosmonaut]

I think the problem being is the lens and not the camera. The 12-50mm is quite large and those that complain the Sony E mount lenses are to big don't have any better option with the OMD series.
I have the E-M5 and if it gets any smaller than that then I won't be able to operate it.

 

[paulfish4570]

that sony with a fixed 35-40mm equivalent FL at f2.8 or faster would be way killer ...

 

[jsrockit]

that sony with a fixed 35-40mm equivalent FL at f2.8 or faster would be way killer ...

Yes, but Sony doesn't make cameras with photographers in mind... only consumers. We'll have to wait for Ricoh or Leica to do it. 😀

 

[jsrockit]

Panasonic LX6 with 1" sensor?

http://www.43rumors.com/panasonic-lx6-with-1-inch-like-the-just-announced-sony-rx100/

 

[shadowfox]

This sounds like a neat idea, but only until you realize that some people may want to use the LCD while shooting (to check composition, change a setting or whatever).

But who said that you have to check your shot as often?
Yes, we all do it, but that's because the LCD spoiled us.

Have you (not you personally, but 'you' in general) no confidence in your own judgement and shooting ability? Isn't that supposed to be one of the goal for every photographer?

One of the reason I enjoy shooting with film cameras is precisely that.
I have to rely on my own skill, and it's *much* more rewarding when I nailed a shot that way.

And then you realize that it is pretty awkward to shoot with a camera in one hand and a phone in another and no free hand, because most users don't look like this:

In other words, forcing users to use multiple different devices simultaneously in this case leads to terrible ergonomics for everyone who isn't a four-armed Indian deity.

I'm rehashing the other thread.
But again, what you said above is the exact *opposite* of what I had in mind.
I would agree with you if this is the case, it's a horrible idea 🙂

My point is this:
Shoot your photos until you get to a place where you can review them. Benefit? you concentrate on shooting. Get more shots, focus on the surroundings, that's how the masters used to do it, and why is that? because they don't have the darn LCD distracting them at every shot.

 

[jsrockit]

One of the reason I enjoy shooting with film cameras is precisely that.
I have to rely on my own skill, and it's *much* more rewarding when I nailed a shot that way.

Right, because digital takes no skill at all and the LCD takes away any skill one might have had when they were shooting film. 🙂

... that's how the masters used to do it, and why is that? because they don't have the darn LCD distracting them at every shot.

I'm sure some of today's masters use the LCD. They couldn't be used by the masters of the past since they didn't exist.

 

[rxmd]

But who said that you have to check your shot as often?
Yes, we all do it, but that's because the LCD spoiled us.

Have you (not you personally, but 'you' in general) no confidence in your own judgement and shooting ability? Isn't that supposed to be one of the goal for every photographer?

One of the reason I enjoy shooting with film cameras is precisely that.
I have to rely on my own skill, and it's *much* more rewarding when I nailed a shot that way.

I don't know about you, but I use the display for other things than checking after every shot. I shoot in live view a lot nowadays, I check composition before shooting, I look at live histograms, I use the menus to change some settings on the fly.

Shoot your photos until you get to a place where you can review them. Benefit? you concentrate on shooting.

Get more shots, focus on the surroundings, that's how the masters used to do it, and why is that? because they don't have the darn LCD distracting them at every shot.

See above for other uses of a display that your suggestion doesn't cover. I think "the masters" are masterful enough not to get distracted, so your second half sounds like a bit of a non-argument.

There is a small minority of users who come from 35mm film cameras and consider displays wholly unnecessary as long as you have a viewfinder - with wireless connections as some kind of appeasing argument ("if you think you can't do without a display, just use your phone). Myself, I'm a slow shooter and have shot medium format a lot and large format a fair bit, and with those I just like to look at a focusing screen, so a display on a compact camera seems completely natural to me, and so did "the masters" who used a Hasselblad or Rolleiflex or 4x5 or 8x10 who weren't distracted by their focusing screens either.

I don't think displayless cameras are going to fly, simply because the people asking for them again and again are so few in number and among themselves so specific in what they want from their cameras that it's probably impossible to turn that into a market. It's like the people who want advance levers on their digital cameras.

 

[bugmenot]

Why did this discussion turn into a "LCD vs. No LCD" argument again? ._.

Simply put, when OP asks how long before we see a pocketable MFT camera or of similar sensor size, there is no room for discussing if it will have a LCD or not. Every point and shoot camera released in the last 7-8 years has had some sort of LCD. All MFT cameras have LCDs. There is no compact camera system without one right now.

I believe the SONY RX100 is the closest we will get in the next year or so, but bigger sensors in a small compact, pocketable camera cannot be too far off.

 

[jsrockit]

I'd settle for a grd with 1" sensor for now. ;-)