tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16327517.post845920097870651743..comments2024-03-26T19:19:35.144+00:00Comments on Eolake Stobblehouse thoughts: Zoom compacts are newEolake Stobblehousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07126147415891586345noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16327517.post-52651562216348440902013-08-17T18:15:09.317+00:002013-08-17T18:15:09.317+00:00"even say an Olympus XA or µ(mju:) II would b..."even say an Olympus XA or µ(mju:) II would be a stretch for a shirt pocket."<br /><br />Weeell, my fave, the Konica Big Mini, or a Minox 35, both could fit in shirt pockets. At least *my* shirt pockets. <br /><br />In fact it's those camera which made me impatient with how digital cameras were so big for their sensor size. Even now the sensor needs to be a quarter of the size. I guess the electronics and battery take up more space than I realize. Eolake Stobblehousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07126147415891586345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16327517.post-20415110040317610922013-08-17T18:07:01.919+00:002013-08-17T18:07:01.919+00:00Well, the race for the longest zoom clearly was mi...Well, the race for the longest zoom clearly was misguided. And the aperture at the long end always was the Achilles heel of these cameras.<br />Of course even fixed lens compacts never were as small as the camera module in your phone, even say an Olympus XA or µ(mju:) II would be a stretch for a shirt pocket.<br />A Pentax Espio 115 with 38-115 mm f/3.9-10.5 zoom was the smallest of its time at 111 x 61 x 40.5mm and 215 g (without the CR-2 battery).<br />Btw., the first zoom compact from 1986 was a Pentax as well - as was the 200 mm monster.Andreas Weberhttp://www.zauber-allenthalben.denoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16327517.post-9019550227181940422013-08-17T17:14:03.941+00:002013-08-17T17:14:03.941+00:00If they were *called* "compacts" though,...If they were *called* "compacts" though, that must have been more of tradition. They can't have been much smaller than a small SLR. Eolake Stobblehousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07126147415891586345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16327517.post-76307681444183703502013-08-17T17:04:22.506+00:002013-08-17T17:04:22.506+00:00Huh, OK. I guess that was a period where I was not...Huh, OK. I guess that was a period where I was not looking at cameras much. Thanks. <br /><br />A 200mm 12.0 film camera will be real useful on dull days. Eolake Stobblehousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07126147415891586345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16327517.post-61998180918916935802013-08-17T09:38:08.623+00:002013-08-17T09:38:08.623+00:00Sorry, but that's nonsense.
Have you really fo...Sorry, but that's nonsense.<br />Have you really forgotten the late nineties / early naughties when it became hard to find a compact camera with a fixed focal length lens of decent quality and speed? It seemed like all the manufacturers were competing for the longest zoom in a compact, boasting specs like "4.5-12.0/48-200 mm" (you can tell how they managed to keep that thing compact?)Andreas Weberhttp://www.zauber-allenthalben.denoreply@blogger.com