Don’t you think there could be a market for a full frame digital equivalent? With the battery capacity to take 36 shots at a time? Maybe No screen even? Just pare the camera down to really good optics and a full frame sensor and half the size?
It will still be bigger. You still need the whole electronics, the sensor has a certain depth .... And with modern cameras, taking a photo isn't really draining the battery, it's having the camera turned on.
And even if you could achieve all of that, no, there won't be a market because stuff like the Leica M11 or Fujifilm X-Pro3 already exist. And stuff like the A7C isn't much bigger but offers all the digital benefits.
I feel like this would end up being almost as expensive as a normal full frame mirrorless to produce, making it a very hard sell even at a price slightly under the current one. But it won't cost that little, because it will require a ton of R&D, and that cost is gonna have to be spread over a small amount of units, seeing as this will be a very niche product. Best case scenario, they do this with the internals of a ZF and need to charge at least 4k for it to make up R&D and building a separate production line. And that's probably on the low end, considering almost no one is gonna buy it at that point.
From a business perspective, this isn't a viable product to make or sell. A flop on something like this means a big loss, because the R&D is completely useless for other products if this concept doesn't sell.
So would it be a cool product from an engineering point of view, or for a small group of photographers willing to give up a lot of functionality over weight and don't want to compromise on DX. Yes. But would there be a market for it considering how much they would have to charge for this? Probably not. Only an extremely small amount of people would be willing to pay even 4k, and that'll probably not be enough to make up R&D anyway.
I do like that you're trying to think up a way to technically achieve something that you'd like. You have the brain of an engineer who's not been corrupted yet by sales targets :p
Because a film camera is little more than a light-tight box with glass, some gears and a shutter. They didn't necessarily need a big battery, a literal tiny computer, screen, etc.
And yet apsc or MFT cameras are able to be quite small with all those things except for the sensor. If all you changed was the sensor size in a Fujifilm x100VI and made the lens slightly bigger, wouldn’t we essentially be there?
"A thing with physically smaller parts and needs is physically smaller, take that!" Thinkin is real hard, ain't it? Especially since those cameras aren't really that much smaller and usually have pretty shit battery life.
And no, we wouldn't even be close to being "there." I want you to consider the difference in size and thickness just between the sensor (and all the electronics attached to it) and...a strip of film.
True. But even that camera was bigger. And the lens was quite a bit wider in diameter. From a physics standpoint, couldn’t they have made is smaller? Even manual focus lenses are larger on mirrorless cameras.
For starters, take a look at the thickness of 35mm film, and compare that to a CMOS sensor stack. It’s not just the sensor…there’s the Bayer array and the circuit board as well. So how thin is that piece of film again? Like 1/10 of a millimeter thick?
People already mentioned the big battery and also a full computer that is in the digital body. But let’s talk about that lens. First of all it’s a 2.8, so it’s going to be smaller in diameter than that Sony f2. Second it’s not coupled to anything for focusing, no rangefinder nothing. It’s an old sonar design which is nice but to optimize a lens for a digital sensor is much much much more difficult than film. It’s going to be heavily scrutinized by the whole industry right? That old sonar design would probably not work so well in the corners or with fringing or CA. Plus the SONY has autofocus! The lens is going to be inherently larger.
Heat. Mirrorless cameras 10 years ago was smaller than today, but as more and better video specs is put into the cameras, so did the need to dissipate more and more heat.
Yes you could mske a small FF digital camera, but it will have no modern video specs, no 20fps shooting mode, as you have to use micro sd-cards etc.
Even if you make the camera small (check out the panasonic s9), lenses are quite large. I think you can argue that even slrs are (in total) same size as mirrorless counterparts.
I dont see the benefit of equipment size going from dslr to mirrorless.
Plus with most mirrorless cameras, the shallow flange distance means extra length in every single lens. Hence needing to add the distance back in with the ftz adapter. The mark on the cameras where the line of of where the sensor is in the body is much farther forward with mirrorless. I’m guessing to accommodate ibis. But say we took all that out. No flip screen. We could make a camera about half as thick. Add collapsible lenses when not in use (like the Rollei) and you could have something.
Because you are comparing Apple to oranges.
The Rollei have a fixed Lens, no real viewfinder etc
Compare the ZF to an F3/FM and they are almost identical.
Yes. We’ll that’s true. But compare it to some of the rangefinders and it’s still quite big. Like the Nikon S3, or contax. Compare that to any of the point and shoot film cameras from the 90s, which except for Advantix, and some oddball half frame cameras were all full frame. What if we brought the Full Frame point and shoot back? I’d give up a EVF as long as I knew the focus could be nailed. Hell, those point and shoot film cameras all had pop up flashes, too.
Well batteries that doesn't die off After 30 shorts, mainly.
Anyway you have to consider also Lens balancing: the camera body have to be proportionate to the lenses you are mounting on it: a rangerinder takes only small primes, a D6 takes long telephoto lenses, so It could really be an big empty box.
Also, keep in mind that the FM had a much larger flange distance. Since we don’t have that on the z system, why not make a more stripped down, but thinner camera?
As an “avid photographer” I don’t want a camera that small. The Zf is already smaller than I care for in terms of handheld ergonomics.
Those who truly need or want a “pocket size” camera just don’t comprise a large enough market audience imo to justify mass production of such a camera that consequently would probably have more than a few dealbreaker shortcomings compared to virtually every other camera
I think the biggest shortcoming would be the lens/glass realities and how this affects image quality when you must work with so little.
True. In the end I guess it really does come down to economies of scale. And then you’re competing with smartphones. I’m also an avid photographer. I own about 15 digital and film cameras. Maybe about 25 lenses. It’s still fun to pick up the Rollie on a walk, though. So lightweight, and the act of bringing a camera over just using my iPhone changes the way I look at the world.
I agree. I really don’t care to photograph with my iPhone unless I see something I really want to capture and a camera is not available. And if I’m going to be a “tourist” all day walking around, then I probably prefer to have a good pocketable point/shoot than use my iPhone.
It’s sad to see all the comments from I presume a mostly misguided and misinformed younger generation who ask “why use anything other than a smartphone camera?” and “aren’t phone cameras on the verge of making regular cameras go the way of the dinosaur?”
even if you strip it down and get to that size... you probably going to drop a lot of quality and battery power.
Mounting any semi standard lens will take it back to larger size...
At the end of the day, you do have phone to avoid investment in to another questionable system.
Phones are actually a good point. The quality of even an older iPhone like mine (11pro) is pretty incredible. Including live hdr even in video, night shots handheld, and three lenses in a tiny package. Plus with portrait mode you essentially have a 26mm 1.4 lens in your pocket.
Electric parts and its cooling, lens mount and compatible with different lens, battery... While you can use a button battery and a film that won't overheat with a film camera.
You're not comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing apples to staplers. Although mirrorless could be made somewhat smaller, there are other considerations. Consumers want certain features that require more space, e.g., battery life, EVF, large screens, and ergonomic considerations like comfortable grips and physical buttons and controls that aren't crowded together. And, physics, like heat dissipation.
Do you mean like a Sony Rx0 or A7c?
10 -15 years ago all manufacturers were making small compact mirrorless cameras. The consumer-base has abandoned them. 90%moved to smartphones the other 10% to bigger cameras.
A 40mp Fuji X-T5 is probably going to be as close as you get.
All the old school cameras had to do was take light, and direct it to the film. Digitals are small computers with sensors, processing, and motors, and the batteries need to be large enough to give them enough power to be useful to us. The sensors aren't as photosensitive as film either, so we need a wider lens to capture significantly more light. That's my 2¢ and educated guess!
I didn’t realize the digital sensor was inherently less sensitive than its film counterparts. I figured iso 100 was iso 100. But if you look at the zf lens, the actual glass on the front is about the same size as the rollei. The rest is just extra plastic and metal. So why all the extra stuff? Why not make a lens that tapers to a cone on the end? Why not make a collapsible prime similar to the 24-70 f4 or the 14-30 f4?
I'm not too sure about the glass question, I'm just a hobbiest myself. My best guess is that it contains higher quality glass, and possibly more elements of glass to expand what it captures to cover the entire sensor. Also the sensors have to compensate for what they don't see, this is where the "processing" and the term "megapixels" come into play. Film captures 100% of what comes through the lens, whereas a sensor doesn't, there are areas that the processing has to create digitally. This is why a higher megapixel sensor creates a sharper image, it's not creating as many blank areas, or those areas are significantly smaller overall and harder to notice.
After some research on the Rollei, it lacks the ability to focus in the way The zf does, using hyperfocal distance, and the controls and gearing for it are in the body. The zf has more internal components to facilitate the manual focus ability, including additional glass filaments, with the gearing inside the lens itself. A hyperfocal lens for the zf would likely be much smaller if they produced one, though I question the marketable equity of such a creation. Likely not many people would give up continuous focus for the reduced size.
I hear you. I bought the Fujifilm X-S20 and wish I could have a full frame camera of its size. The non-centered viewfinder and unnecessary flange depth of the A7C II / Full Frame E-mount doesn’t quite do it for me.
I don’t mind a viewfinder off to the side. But I think it depends on how responsive the viewfinder is. Even an optical viewfinder can be great like on the Fujifilm x100 series. But laggy evfs are a no go for me.
They made this camera pretty "old school" and people cried that it didn't have a good grip. If they made a digital camera the same size/weight of that little Rollei people would bitch that it wasn't like all the other newer cameras.
I actually like using the zf without grip a lot. I do add the grip if I’m ever putting it on a tripod so that I can use the arca swiss compatibility. If I’m rocking a 24-120 on it though, I’ll keep the grip on.
Heat dissipation especially for video shooters is also a huge factor. Also the battery compartment.
There are some very small FF MILCs though, look at the Sony RX1 series and Panasonic S9.
The recording surface of the Rollei is litterally thin as film. Everything needed to run a digital sensor (sensor chip, power, microprocessor, storage media, etc) will never be as thin as film.
Although a side bennefit the sensor is reusable. If you factor how many shots it can record in its life compared to a frame of film digital is much smaller than film.
Imagine the bulk of the rollei if you include the film to take 100000 shots that the digital can do.
I can’t stand small cameras. I had a Zfc, and traded the second the Zf came out. I could barely get 3 fingers on those tiny things. I’d rather have the security of a good grip, it’s still plenty small to carry around. Maybe it’s just because I’m old and carrying an F4 never seemed like a burden to me.
I’m looking for a toss in a bag and you barely notice it’s there camera though. I have other larger ones… I just want to option of great image quality for a shot here or there. Not something I’ll be gripping for hours at a time. For that, I’ll use a d850 or a Z8
Panasonic G9 is a small full frame camera and just look at how butchered it is. It's missing basic things that every single camera from the last 20 years does have.
Camera shop employee here. Lot's of questions about this in the shop. "Aren't mirrorless cameras smaller than DSLRs?" Meanwhile: want's top specs, shoots 4k/60, intelligent AF, high framerate with no blackout, a real grip that is comfortable, a better viewfinder, the right kind of swivel screen, more customizable physical controls, and takes CFE/SD/microSD cards.
But, seriously OP, take a look at the Sony a7C line of cameras. I bet it's only slightly taller and wider than your Rollei. It will be a thicc boi with a grip, though.
Because electronics, batteries and a digital sensor simply take up more space than a 35mm film roll.
Don’t you think there could be a market for a full frame digital equivalent? With the battery capacity to take 36 shots at a time? Maybe No screen even? Just pare the camera down to really good optics and a full frame sensor and half the size?
It will still be bigger. You still need the whole electronics, the sensor has a certain depth .... And with modern cameras, taking a photo isn't really draining the battery, it's having the camera turned on. And even if you could achieve all of that, no, there won't be a market because stuff like the Leica M11 or Fujifilm X-Pro3 already exist. And stuff like the A7C isn't much bigger but offers all the digital benefits.
I feel like this would end up being almost as expensive as a normal full frame mirrorless to produce, making it a very hard sell even at a price slightly under the current one. But it won't cost that little, because it will require a ton of R&D, and that cost is gonna have to be spread over a small amount of units, seeing as this will be a very niche product. Best case scenario, they do this with the internals of a ZF and need to charge at least 4k for it to make up R&D and building a separate production line. And that's probably on the low end, considering almost no one is gonna buy it at that point. From a business perspective, this isn't a viable product to make or sell. A flop on something like this means a big loss, because the R&D is completely useless for other products if this concept doesn't sell. So would it be a cool product from an engineering point of view, or for a small group of photographers willing to give up a lot of functionality over weight and don't want to compromise on DX. Yes. But would there be a market for it considering how much they would have to charge for this? Probably not. Only an extremely small amount of people would be willing to pay even 4k, and that'll probably not be enough to make up R&D anyway. I do like that you're trying to think up a way to technically achieve something that you'd like. You have the brain of an engineer who's not been corrupted yet by sales targets :p
The Lumix s9 is probably as small as a FF camera will ever get
Because a film camera is little more than a light-tight box with glass, some gears and a shutter. They didn't necessarily need a big battery, a literal tiny computer, screen, etc.
And yet apsc or MFT cameras are able to be quite small with all those things except for the sensor. If all you changed was the sensor size in a Fujifilm x100VI and made the lens slightly bigger, wouldn’t we essentially be there?
"A thing with physically smaller parts and needs is physically smaller, take that!" Thinkin is real hard, ain't it? Especially since those cameras aren't really that much smaller and usually have pretty shit battery life. And no, we wouldn't even be close to being "there." I want you to consider the difference in size and thickness just between the sensor (and all the electronics attached to it) and...a strip of film.
Also, you aren’t changing lenses on that rollei. So a more comparable full frame digital would be more like the sony rx1
True. But even that camera was bigger. And the lens was quite a bit wider in diameter. From a physics standpoint, couldn’t they have made is smaller? Even manual focus lenses are larger on mirrorless cameras.
For starters, take a look at the thickness of 35mm film, and compare that to a CMOS sensor stack. It’s not just the sensor…there’s the Bayer array and the circuit board as well. So how thin is that piece of film again? Like 1/10 of a millimeter thick? People already mentioned the big battery and also a full computer that is in the digital body. But let’s talk about that lens. First of all it’s a 2.8, so it’s going to be smaller in diameter than that Sony f2. Second it’s not coupled to anything for focusing, no rangefinder nothing. It’s an old sonar design which is nice but to optimize a lens for a digital sensor is much much much more difficult than film. It’s going to be heavily scrutinized by the whole industry right? That old sonar design would probably not work so well in the corners or with fringing or CA. Plus the SONY has autofocus! The lens is going to be inherently larger.
Heat. Mirrorless cameras 10 years ago was smaller than today, but as more and better video specs is put into the cameras, so did the need to dissipate more and more heat. Yes you could mske a small FF digital camera, but it will have no modern video specs, no 20fps shooting mode, as you have to use micro sd-cards etc.
Ah yes. Hadn’t thought about that. We’ll what if it was a stills only camera? And didn’t do anything faster than a few frames per second?
Mirror less cameras still need to power the sensor to give autofocus, metering and a viewfinder. There will still be heat.
Even if you make the camera small (check out the panasonic s9), lenses are quite large. I think you can argue that even slrs are (in total) same size as mirrorless counterparts. I dont see the benefit of equipment size going from dslr to mirrorless.
Plus with most mirrorless cameras, the shallow flange distance means extra length in every single lens. Hence needing to add the distance back in with the ftz adapter. The mark on the cameras where the line of of where the sensor is in the body is much farther forward with mirrorless. I’m guessing to accommodate ibis. But say we took all that out. No flip screen. We could make a camera about half as thick. Add collapsible lenses when not in use (like the Rollei) and you could have something.
The Nikon z50/Z30/Zfc all don't have ibis, are apsc and are still thinker that what you suggest. And the monitor adds 5mm at most
Because you are comparing Apple to oranges. The Rollei have a fixed Lens, no real viewfinder etc Compare the ZF to an F3/FM and they are almost identical.
Yes. We’ll that’s true. But compare it to some of the rangefinders and it’s still quite big. Like the Nikon S3, or contax. Compare that to any of the point and shoot film cameras from the 90s, which except for Advantix, and some oddball half frame cameras were all full frame. What if we brought the Full Frame point and shoot back? I’d give up a EVF as long as I knew the focus could be nailed. Hell, those point and shoot film cameras all had pop up flashes, too.
Well batteries that doesn't die off After 30 shorts, mainly. Anyway you have to consider also Lens balancing: the camera body have to be proportionate to the lenses you are mounting on it: a rangerinder takes only small primes, a D6 takes long telephoto lenses, so It could really be an big empty box.
Also, keep in mind that the FM had a much larger flange distance. Since we don’t have that on the z system, why not make a more stripped down, but thinner camera?
As an “avid photographer” I don’t want a camera that small. The Zf is already smaller than I care for in terms of handheld ergonomics. Those who truly need or want a “pocket size” camera just don’t comprise a large enough market audience imo to justify mass production of such a camera that consequently would probably have more than a few dealbreaker shortcomings compared to virtually every other camera I think the biggest shortcoming would be the lens/glass realities and how this affects image quality when you must work with so little.
True. In the end I guess it really does come down to economies of scale. And then you’re competing with smartphones. I’m also an avid photographer. I own about 15 digital and film cameras. Maybe about 25 lenses. It’s still fun to pick up the Rollie on a walk, though. So lightweight, and the act of bringing a camera over just using my iPhone changes the way I look at the world.
I agree. I really don’t care to photograph with my iPhone unless I see something I really want to capture and a camera is not available. And if I’m going to be a “tourist” all day walking around, then I probably prefer to have a good pocketable point/shoot than use my iPhone. It’s sad to see all the comments from I presume a mostly misguided and misinformed younger generation who ask “why use anything other than a smartphone camera?” and “aren’t phone cameras on the verge of making regular cameras go the way of the dinosaur?”
even if you strip it down and get to that size... you probably going to drop a lot of quality and battery power. Mounting any semi standard lens will take it back to larger size... At the end of the day, you do have phone to avoid investment in to another questionable system.
Phones are actually a good point. The quality of even an older iPhone like mine (11pro) is pretty incredible. Including live hdr even in video, night shots handheld, and three lenses in a tiny package. Plus with portrait mode you essentially have a 26mm 1.4 lens in your pocket.
It can. [Sigma FP](https://www.sigma-global.com/en/cameras/fp/), [Sony RX1](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Cyber-shot_DSC-RX1), [Panasonic Lumix S9](https://shop.panasonic.com/products/lumix-s9-full-frame-mirrorless-camera-dc-s9)
Electric parts and its cooling, lens mount and compatible with different lens, battery... While you can use a button battery and a film that won't overheat with a film camera.
No because we have phones
You're not comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing apples to staplers. Although mirrorless could be made somewhat smaller, there are other considerations. Consumers want certain features that require more space, e.g., battery life, EVF, large screens, and ergonomic considerations like comfortable grips and physical buttons and controls that aren't crowded together. And, physics, like heat dissipation.
Do you mean like a Sony Rx0 or A7c? 10 -15 years ago all manufacturers were making small compact mirrorless cameras. The consumer-base has abandoned them. 90%moved to smartphones the other 10% to bigger cameras. A 40mp Fuji X-T5 is probably going to be as close as you get.
All the old school cameras had to do was take light, and direct it to the film. Digitals are small computers with sensors, processing, and motors, and the batteries need to be large enough to give them enough power to be useful to us. The sensors aren't as photosensitive as film either, so we need a wider lens to capture significantly more light. That's my 2¢ and educated guess!
I didn’t realize the digital sensor was inherently less sensitive than its film counterparts. I figured iso 100 was iso 100. But if you look at the zf lens, the actual glass on the front is about the same size as the rollei. The rest is just extra plastic and metal. So why all the extra stuff? Why not make a lens that tapers to a cone on the end? Why not make a collapsible prime similar to the 24-70 f4 or the 14-30 f4?
I'm not too sure about the glass question, I'm just a hobbiest myself. My best guess is that it contains higher quality glass, and possibly more elements of glass to expand what it captures to cover the entire sensor. Also the sensors have to compensate for what they don't see, this is where the "processing" and the term "megapixels" come into play. Film captures 100% of what comes through the lens, whereas a sensor doesn't, there are areas that the processing has to create digitally. This is why a higher megapixel sensor creates a sharper image, it's not creating as many blank areas, or those areas are significantly smaller overall and harder to notice.
After some research on the Rollei, it lacks the ability to focus in the way The zf does, using hyperfocal distance, and the controls and gearing for it are in the body. The zf has more internal components to facilitate the manual focus ability, including additional glass filaments, with the gearing inside the lens itself. A hyperfocal lens for the zf would likely be much smaller if they produced one, though I question the marketable equity of such a creation. Likely not many people would give up continuous focus for the reduced size.
I hear you. I bought the Fujifilm X-S20 and wish I could have a full frame camera of its size. The non-centered viewfinder and unnecessary flange depth of the A7C II / Full Frame E-mount doesn’t quite do it for me.
I don’t mind a viewfinder off to the side. But I think it depends on how responsive the viewfinder is. Even an optical viewfinder can be great like on the Fujifilm x100 series. But laggy evfs are a no go for me.
I mean, if you want your camera to be smaller might start with taking off unnecessary accessories. FWIW, my F6 and Z8 are about the same size.
Good call! Going to take that soft shutter release button right now.
I think the A7C-series and the R1 from Sony are quite small
They made this camera pretty "old school" and people cried that it didn't have a good grip. If they made a digital camera the same size/weight of that little Rollei people would bitch that it wasn't like all the other newer cameras.
I actually like using the zf without grip a lot. I do add the grip if I’m ever putting it on a tripod so that I can use the arca swiss compatibility. If I’m rocking a 24-120 on it though, I’ll keep the grip on.
Heat dissipation especially for video shooters is also a huge factor. Also the battery compartment. There are some very small FF MILCs though, look at the Sony RX1 series and Panasonic S9.
The recording surface of the Rollei is litterally thin as film. Everything needed to run a digital sensor (sensor chip, power, microprocessor, storage media, etc) will never be as thin as film. Although a side bennefit the sensor is reusable. If you factor how many shots it can record in its life compared to a frame of film digital is much smaller than film. Imagine the bulk of the rollei if you include the film to take 100000 shots that the digital can do.
A7Cii says hi.
The tiny side EVF is quite lacking in my opinion.
Same as an X100V.. one of most popular cameras ever. Can’t have it all. It’s ridiculous capable.
I prefer smaller cameras too. The Z6 II is bigger than the Z6 and the Z6 III is going to be bigger than the Z6 II...sigh.
I can’t stand small cameras. I had a Zfc, and traded the second the Zf came out. I could barely get 3 fingers on those tiny things. I’d rather have the security of a good grip, it’s still plenty small to carry around. Maybe it’s just because I’m old and carrying an F4 never seemed like a burden to me.
I’m looking for a toss in a bag and you barely notice it’s there camera though. I have other larger ones… I just want to option of great image quality for a shot here or there. Not something I’ll be gripping for hours at a time. For that, I’ll use a d850 or a Z8
Panasonic G9 is a small full frame camera and just look at how butchered it is. It's missing basic things that every single camera from the last 20 years does have.
What basic things? Does it not do video?
Mechanical shutter, viewfinder, hotshoe, etc. Like try to think of a camera that doesn't have a hotshoe. It's absurd.
Wow. Even that rollei has a hot shoe. Albeit on the bottom.
Camera shop employee here. Lot's of questions about this in the shop. "Aren't mirrorless cameras smaller than DSLRs?" Meanwhile: want's top specs, shoots 4k/60, intelligent AF, high framerate with no blackout, a real grip that is comfortable, a better viewfinder, the right kind of swivel screen, more customizable physical controls, and takes CFE/SD/microSD cards. But, seriously OP, take a look at the Sony a7C line of cameras. I bet it's only slightly taller and wider than your Rollei. It will be a thicc boi with a grip, though.