Digital non-SLR

  the hick 10:00 30 Nov 2008

Is there such a digital camera which has a large CCD, and longer focal-length lens, like SLR's use? I was thinking, this seems to be the only way to go, to loose the extreme depth of field that 'compacts' seem to have, without bulk of an SLR, which seem too big to me. Any advice much appreciated, thankyou.

  ^wave^ 11:57 30 Nov 2008

look at canon g9 or g10

  BT 16:28 30 Nov 2008

Have a look at the so called 'Bridge' Cameras. They look a bit like SLRs but without the interchangeable lenses.
Some of the FUJI ones like this click here are excellent

  donki 16:32 01 Dec 2008

What do you mean the "extreme depth of field"? You can set up most modern digital cameras using the manual settign to create a deep or shallow depth of field. I bought a DSLR recently and tbh I dont even notice the size issue, If anything I find it alot easier to lose and less fiddly, of course I have a compact camera for nights out and the like.

  hssutton 18:38 01 Dec 2008

"What do you mean the "extreme depth of field"

I think exactly what he says, if you want extreme shallow DOF, you need full frame and an f/2.8 lens or wider, (very expensive).

None of the current crop of compacts will give you what you want. Even a "cropped sensor" on the standard DSLR fails in this department unless you're using such as an f/1.4 lens

  donki 21:54 01 Dec 2008

I have a little lens for my 450d (cropped sensor), the cannon 50mm 1.8 which was only 60quid and produces great quality pictures with great DOF.

  Kemistri 22:41 01 Dec 2008

Quote "look at canon g9 or g10"

How would that fulfil the OP's stated aims? They still have the minute sensors (about 0.6" diagonal in this case) that indirectly result extremely large DoF. The same point applies to bridge cameras.

If an SLR is really too big, even a budget 1.5 or 1.6 crop, then pretty much* your only other avenue is a bit of a compromise: Four Thirds or, if even that is too big for you, there is a much bigger compromise: Micro Four Thirds. That's a bit misleading because the sensor size is the same: the "Micro" refers to the smaller form factor creating by losing the reflex layout. The loss of the mirror box means (obviously) no phase array AF and slower shutter response. Added to that, the first MFT camera to hit the market (The Panasonic G1) is damn expensive for what it offers. Both Panasonic and Olympus believe that MFT has a future, so maybe the prices will get more sensible once the format offers some choices next year. If you want shallow DoF in a smaller-than-APSC body, that's about.

*The other outside bet, albeit as expensive as MFT, is the Sigma DP1 compact with APSC sensor and reasonably fast lens. Or wait for the DP2.

  Kemistri 22:42 01 Dec 2008

I needed to proof-read that.

  hssutton 22:48 01 Dec 2008

The Hick did say "Longer Focal Length Lens" A 70-200mm f/2.8 will cost you around a £1000.

At the moment compacts with large sensors are very thin on the ground, I think there are only two and these are made by Sigma, unfortunately they are 41mm or 28mm fixed focus and also quite expensive click here

  Kemistri 22:52 01 Dec 2008

Well, about £800 actually (Canon, non-IS), but it's still a very valid point.

  the hick 10:18 03 Dec 2008

Thank you for the replies, most interesting. I shall look into these models further. I reckon, what I'd really like is a digital version of my old Zorki 4 (anyone still using one?), which was I believe (very) roughly based on a Leica. Even had a detachable back, as old Leicas.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 review

Halloween Photoshop & Illustrator tutorials: 20 step-by-step guides to creating spook-tacular…

iPhone X news: Release date, price, new features & specs

Comment créer, modifier et réinitialiser un compte Apple ?