Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why no real wide angle P&S cameras?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 9:48:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Was just browsing for wide-angle (<28mm) P&S cameras and there seem to
be none!! Why is that? No demand or high-cost of developing one to fit
a P&S cost profile or both?

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 9:50:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> writes:
> Was just browsing for wide-angle (<28mm) P&S cameras and there seem to
> be none!! Why is that? No demand or high-cost of developing one to fit
> a P&S cost profile or both?

Not much demand, difficulty of making wide-angle lenses for such small
sensors. You can use a video-type wideangle adapter on some digicams
if you don't mind a ton of distortion.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 12:13:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 18 May 2005 05:48:47 -0700, "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Was just browsing for wide-angle (<28mm) P&S cameras and there seem to
>be none!! Why is that? No demand or high-cost of developing one to fit
>a P&S cost profile or both?

Nikon makes an add on FC-E9 Fisheye Converter Len for it's Coolpix
line. 183 degree of field.
******************************************************************

"The past is foreign country: they do things differently there."

_The Go-Between_
L.P. Hartley
1895 - 1972
Related resources
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 5:32:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> Was just browsing for wide-angle (<28mm) P&S cameras and there seem to
> be none!! Why is that? No demand or high-cost of developing one to fit
> a P&S cost profile or both?

Nikon 8400
24mm - 85mm zoom, 8MP, excellent image and optical quality.

Cheers,
David
May 18, 2005 7:12:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116420527.407420.147460@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Was just browsing for wide-angle (<28mm) P&S cameras and there seem to
> be none!! Why is that? No demand or high-cost of developing one to fit
> a P&S cost profile or both?
>
> - Siddhartha
>

Ricoh caplio GX at 28mm
Olympus C-5060 at 27mm-
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 7:39:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"dylan" <no@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:D 6fihl$7o3$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1116420527.407420.147460@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Was just browsing for wide-angle (<28mm) P&S cameras and there
seem to
> > be none!! Why is that? No demand or high-cost of developing one to
fit
> > a P&S cost profile or both?
> >
>
> Ricoh caplio GX at 28mm
> Olympus C-5060 at 27mm-
>
Canon S60 at 28mm.

But I think <28 actually meant *less* than 28mm.
May 19, 2005 2:00:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Baron Sloan" <alan.robsonIGNORALA@DISTUFbaesystems.com> wrote in message
news:428b5191_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
> "dylan" <no@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:D 6fihl$7o3$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1116420527.407420.147460@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Was just browsing for wide-angle (<28mm) P&S cameras and there
> seem to
>> > be none!! Why is that? No demand or high-cost of developing one to
> fit
>> > a P&S cost profile or both?
>> >
>>
>> Ricoh caplio GX at 28mm
>> Olympus C-5060 at 27mm-
>>
> Canon S60 at 28mm.
>
> But I think <28 actually meant *less* than 28mm.
>
>
Hi,

You can't really call 28mm on a P & S Size sensor much of a Wide Angle.
Even at a 1.5 crop they are only equivalent to 42mm on 35 film format.

The OP was asking if there were any under 28mm, and if not, why not.

Roy G
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 2:00:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 18 May 2005 22:00:25 GMT, Roy wrote:

> You can't really call 28mm on a P & S Size sensor much of a Wide Angle.
> Even at a 1.5 crop they are only equivalent to 42mm on 35 film format.
>
> The OP was asking if there were any under 28mm, and if not, why not.

You've got it backwards. The 28mm the OP was talking about was
the 35mm equivalent focal length, which is indeed below the typical
low end of a P&S zoom lens. The actual length of probably ALL P&S
zoom lenses is well below 28mm. For instance, my Fuji lens at its
widest only goes down to 37mm (equiv.), but has a true focal length
of 5.7mm. None of the camera's wide angle focal lengths mentioned
by previous posters (24mm, 27mm, 28mm) were referring to their
actual focal lengths, which were actually much lower than these
numbers.
May 19, 2005 4:11:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 18 May 2005 19:36:32 -0400
In message <4njn81lhq4snfve4ttj972ib3jq7ae5kte@4ax.com>
ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

> <SNIP>

The OP clearly implied the question in terms of 35mm equivalence...

You've been to "L" and back, huh. ;^)

Jeff
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 4:11:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 19 May 2005 00:11:56 GMT, Confused wrote:

> The OP clearly implied the question in terms of 35mm equivalence...

Yes. Exactly what I said.


> You've been to "L" and back, huh. ;^)

You noticed! :) 
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 5:44:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:
> Nikon 8400
> 24mm - 85mm zoom, 8MP, excellent image and optical quality.

24mm is nice but when I said less than 28mm (35mm equivalent) I meant
more like 12-18mm.

Something thats 12-45mm is just what I need but the SLR lenses in that
range are so damn expensive!! :( 

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 5:58:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> writes:
> > Nikon 8400
> > 24mm - 85mm zoom, 8MP, excellent image and optical quality.
>
> 24mm is nice but when I said less than 28mm (35mm equivalent) I meant
> more like 12-18mm.

You know, a big obstacle to SLR zooms of that range is distortion.
But on a P&S, they could use a lens with as much distortion as they
want (i.e. semi-fisheye at the wide end) and simply correct for it
in the digital processing before writing out the JPEG file. I wonder
whether any cameras do that already. They might not admit it.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 1:21:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote:
: Was just browsing for wide-angle (<28mm) P&S cameras and there seem to
: be none!! Why is that? No demand or high-cost of developing one to fit
: a P&S cost profile or both?

One problem that I can see is the placement of the lens on P&S cameras. If
a true wide angle lens is on a small P&S with the front element of the
lens being very close to the front plane of the camera case, you may get
the knuckles of the photographer in the edge of the photo. Some people
have enough trouble holding the camera without puting fingers infront or
along the edge of the lens as it is. With a wider angle lens the safe
finger area around the lens shrinks. This is much less of a problem with
an SLR as the lens extends much further infront of the camera body, and
the body itself is bigger so the fingers wrap around the body. On many P&S
cameras the body is thin enough that the camera is held with finger tips
and the knuckles extend further to the front of the body.

I doubt if this is the entire reason why they don't go too wide, but it
makes some sense to me. It probably is not the only reason, but could be a
contributing factor. :) 

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 1:32:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> Nikon 8400
>> 24mm - 85mm zoom, 8MP, excellent image and optical quality.
>
> 24mm is nice but when I said less than 28mm (35mm equivalent) I meant
> more like 12-18mm.
>
> Something thats 12-45mm is just what I need but the SLR lenses in that
> range are so damn expensive!! :( 
>
> - Siddhartha

You can add a wide-angle adapter that takes you to 18mm rectilinear or 7mm
fisheye.

David
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 5:03:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 19 May 2005 09:21:17 +0000 (UTC), Randy Berbaum wrote:

> I doubt if this is the entire reason why they don't go too wide, but it
> makes some sense to me. It probably is not the only reason, but could be a
> contributing factor. :) 

It makes some sense to me too, but if you rule out using an
ultra-wide lens on P&S cameras that have optical finders, that
should eliminate the problem. Fingers in the FOV would be seen on
LDC displays and EVFs, at least in the ones that don't show less
than 100% of what the sensor sees.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 5:37:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:
> You can add a wide-angle adapter that takes you to 18mm rectilinear
or 7mm
> fisheye.

I thought most wide angle adapters for P&S cameras were fisheye.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 12:44:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> You can add a wide-angle adapter that takes you to 18mm rectilinear
>> or 7mm fisheye.
>
> I thought most wide angle adapters for P&S cameras were fisheye.
>
> - Siddhartha

Not so for the Nikon Coolpix range - both rectilinear and fisheye adapters
are available, and I'm sure that applies to some other manufacturers'
ranges as well. The rectilinear components are often quite "serious"
pieces of glass!

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 12:57:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> writes:

> David J Taylor wrote:
>> You can add a wide-angle adapter that takes you to 18mm rectilinear
> or 7mm
>> fisheye.
>
> I thought most wide angle adapters for P&S cameras were fisheye.

Well, there's the subtle distinction between "fisheye" and "severe barrel
distortion" to consider :-). But seriously, the vast majority I've
seen listed appear to be claiming to be rectilinear.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 3:55:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:
> Not so for the Nikon Coolpix range - both rectilinear and fisheye
adapters
> are available, and I'm sure that applies to some other manufacturers'

> ranges as well. The rectilinear components are often quite "serious"

> pieces of glass!

Do rectilinear wide-angle adapters work for SLRs as well? Or is there
is a substantial difference in the quality wrt to a wide angle lens?

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 12:44:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:
[]
> Do rectilinear wide-angle adapters work for SLRs as well? Or is there
> is a substantial difference in the quality wrt to a wide angle lens?
>
> - Siddhartha

I believe the same principle would work (these adapters generally work in
afocal space like a telescope or binoculars), but if you have the chance
of interchangeable lenses I suspect the manuafacturers would find that a
complete new wide-angle lens would not cost a great deal more to produce
than just an adapter, so the new lens is preferable as the size and weight
would be less than the combination and the performance would be better as
well.

Cheers,
David
!