Why no digital camera like my Oly XA?

[Cholentpot]

That's part of it, but you might notice I gave three detailed reasons. Tech isn't all of it and solving the technical problems alone will not make it happen.


I wish you the best (I'd love to see something like this too) but I'd pick up an X100 or GR of some kind and not hold your breath. There are pictures to be had out there!

I'll stick with the XA for now

 

[jtk]

Full frame is mostly marketing hype. APSC has long rivaled any kind of film (e.g. the old Pentax K20).

Full frame might make sense if you mainly print murals, but APSC easily exceeds capability of moderate-size inkjet printers, such as Canon's Pro-10 and Pro-100.

Lots of incredibly good APSC cameras are available from KEH and similar for $300-400.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Full frame is mostly marketing hype. APSC has long rivaled any kind of film (e.g. the old Pentax K20).

Full frame might make sense if you mainly print murals, but APSC easily exceeds capability of moderate-size inkjet printers, such as Canon's Pro-10 and Pro-100...

I use a Canon PRO-100. The largest I print is approximately 11x14 on 13x19 paper. Files are either from my Nikon D810 with Sigma Art lenses or Epson V-850 scans from 8x10 negatives.

Full frame is not marketing hype if one seeks optimum print detail. At my largest print size, the 105 MP scans are visibly better than the 36 MP D810 captures. APSC can't hold a candle to even the full frame files.

 

[jtk]

I use a Canon PRO-100. The largest I print is approximately 11x14 on 13x19 paper. Files are either from my Nikon D810 with Sigma Art lenses or Epson V-850 scans from 8x10 negatives.

Full frame is not marketing hype if one seeks optimum print detail. At my largest print size, the 105 MP scans are visibly better than the 36 MP D810 captures. APSC can't hold a candle to even the full frame files.

I would like to see your prints.

I don't think Sigma Art whups average good DSLR lenses...various reviews fwiw confirm that Sigma Art are another marketing ploy.

I don't know what you mean when you say "even holds a candle to even the full frame files." What "full frame files" are you talking about? Have you compared files from your 810 to any of the better APS DSLRs?

Your introduction of 8X10 negatives into the discussion means something is wrong with that D810...maybe it's the Sigma lens.

11X14 is far from the largest print from Pro-100, you should be able to get almost 13X19, which is vastly larger.

Maybe you're using very soft paper? That's important. I think you'd be happier with something more like Canon's Fibre paper, which isn't expensive.

 

[reddesert]

Full frame digital is unnecessary if the goal is to make a camera like the Olympus XA that you can put in your pocket and use for the type of photography that most people do with a pocket-size camera. Full frame digital has a place for people who want to extract the maximum detail (and are probably carrying a largish lens and a tripod). But demanding full frame for the "XA equivalent" is just painting oneself into a corner in the design space of optics-detector-electronics-ergonomics and cost that a buildable camera has to exist in.

It would be easier to ask the question "is there a digital camera with the size of the XA, easy to use controls, that produces images that satisfy me as the XA, and that I can afford?" Rather than making the detector size the most important criterion.

 

[xkaes]

It would be easier to ask the question "is there a digital camera with the size of the XA, easy to use controls, that produces images that satisfy me as the XA, and that I can afford?" Rather than making the detector size the most important criterion.

Someone COULD make a digital XA (model 1, of course) with the exact same features -- rangefinder focusing, 35mm f2.8 lens, add-on flash, etc. -- but would enough people buy it in this auto-everything world?

Dream on. That's one reason we still have film.

But there are some digital cameras as small as the XA -- but they have smaller sensors and are auto-everything (but usually somewhat adjustable).

I have an Olympus XA and a Nikon CoolPix 5600. They are both the same size, and sometimes it's hard to choose which to bring along -- but I have that problem with other cameras as well

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...I don't think Sigma Art whups average good DSLR lenses...various reviews fwiw confirm that Sigma Art are another marketing ploy...

Your opinion is of no consequence compared to actual measurements. My Sigma Art 35mm, 50mm, 85mm and 105mm lenses' performance far exceed what "average good DSLR lenses" achieve. Do some research at reputable, objective testing Web sites. Various squishy, subjective "reviews" you might have seen from Internet trolls mean nothing.

...I don't know what you mean when you say "even holds a candle to even the full frame files." What "full frame files" are you talking about?...

The full frame files from my D810+Sigma Art lenses, of course. Most APSC files are much smaller and less detailed, simply due to their substantially lower pixel content.

...Have you compared files from your 810 to any of the better APS DSLRs?...

Why bother when the difference in pixel density between full frame files and 8x10 scans is plainly obvious? I don't waste time on downgrades. Also, why would I investigate replacing an entire camera/lens ecosystem when only the most recent APSC DSLRs (introduced after my Nikon/Sigma kit was established) included sensors with more than 2/3 the pixels of my current equipment?

...Your introduction of 8X10 negatives into the discussion means something is wrong with that D810...maybe it's the Sigma lens...

There's not a thing wrong with either of my D810s or any of the Sigma lenses used with them. Apparently, some people are less sensitive to visual differences than are others.

...11X14 is far from the largest print from Pro-100, you should be able to get almost 13X19, which is vastly larger...

I've no desire to print larger than approximately 11x14 with my PRO-100, my Epson P600 or any other printer. Also, 11x14 is more than large enough to see the limitations of full frame sensors, just as it was the size where 4x5 negatives' limits became apparent in darkroom printing.

...Maybe you're using very soft paper? That's important. I think you'd be happier with something more like Canon's Fibre paper, which isn't expensive...

I've tried and rejected quite a range of papers with both printers. My current standard, with which I'm extremely happy, is Hahnemuhle FineArt Baryta Satin on the PRO-100. It's far from "very soft."

 

[jtk]

Sal, you're obviously a very "sensitive" person even though you claim to live in San Clemente.