[regor]

I don't understand why in today's micro electronics and cameras the size of a credit card, can't they make a camera like this with a full frame sensor:

[RawheaD]

They did. It's called a Leica M9.


If you're talking about something cheap like that Minox, then the answer is simple; an FF sensor still is prohibitively expensive by itself.

[regor]

They did. It's called a Leica M9.


If you're talking about something cheap like that Minox, then the answer is simple; an FF sensor still is prohibitively expensive by itself.

Well not really, the M9 is about 4 times the size of the Minox, which is still a FF film camera. Regardless of the cost of the Sensor, what's stopping the manufacturers to make a small FF camera ?

[arpaagent]

The market segment for that type of product is very small. Considering that it would be expensive to make, it would be expensive to purchase. And if people are going to drop a wad of cash on a camera, they will most likely want more features, lenses, nicer grip and useability.

Now if they could produce something like this for a small amount more than a small sensor compact, then that would be great. But as it stands right now, unless someone is filthy rich with money to burn, they would rather buy a Canon 5D MkII or Nikon D700 than drop $2K on a limited system such as this.

[Peter Zack]

exactly. FF users would want more than could ever be packed in a camera this size.
Plus don't forget that theres more to a digital camera than a sensor. The body is packed with a small computer and thus is going to be larger. This camera (which was a peice of junk Btw - I had 2 of them that broke quickly) only needs enough room to fit a thin roll of film. So it would be tough to pack a FF sensor inside a body close to this size.

[ChrisPlatt]

The Minox pictured has a full frame "sensor"!
I love my Minox 35ML...

Chris

[regor]

The Minox pictured has a full frame "sensor"!
I love my Minox 35ML...

Chris

I loved mine too. I simply can't understand that a simple camera such as that, no gadget, no onboard flash, Aperture priprity with good old fashion aperture ring, FF sensor, optical viewfinder, 28-35mm fast lens, small wouldn't appeal to serious photographers.

[ChrisPlatt]

Sadly gadgets are what sells today, the more tiny buttons the better.
So many features of questionable value have been added it is difficult to use today's electronics for their original purpose.
Have you had a look at cellphones lately?

Chris

[regor]

Sadly gadgets are what sells today, the more tiny buttons the better.
So many features of questionable value have been added it is difficult to use today's electronics for their original purpose.
Have you had a look at cellphones lately?

Chris

I couldn't agree more. I couldn't believe it when they came out with pet face detection ! All the gizmos and gadgets only detracts from simplicity and better picture taking. I guess I won't see the day when a small and optimized camera will be available... what a pitty.

[Prairie Dog]

exactly. FF users would want more than could ever be packed in a camera this size.
Plus don't forget that theres more to a digital camera than a sensor. The body is packed with a small computer and thus is going to be larger. This camera (which was a peice of junk Btw - I had 2 of them that broke quickly) only needs enough room to fit a thin roll of film. So it would be tough to pack a FF sensor inside a body close to this size.

I, also, had 2 Minox cameras, first a 35GL, I believe, if I remember the model number correctly, which I used for several years and enjoyed very much. I also had the dedicated Minox flashes for each camera along with the nice real leather cases, and, oh yes, the Minox filters and lens hoods. They had a complete system. I sold the 35 GL to get the new 35GT which I used for probably 15 years. Neither of mine were pieces of junk, rather precision German miniature cameras with great optics that provided me with amazing pictures. Carried both cameras all over the world and never had a failure. They were awesome gadgets of the time and were a lot easier to carry than my bags full of slrs and lenses and assorted gizmos.

I agree that it would more than likely be a huge task to engineer a large sensor and the supporting electronics into a tiny package such as the Minox and also reach a price point where end users would purchase enough to make it worthwhile to the manufacturer.

[monochrome]

Sadly gadgets are what sells today, the more tiny buttons the better.
So many features of questionable value have been added it is difficult to use today's electronics for their original purpose.
Have you had a look at cellphones lately?

Chris

The unending quest for the single, "do everything" device.

[Blue]

The unending quest for the single, "do everything" device.

When they get one that can do laundry while imaging, I'll be good to go.

[ChrisPlatt]

The unending quest for the single, "do everything" device.

A Swiss Army knife does lots of things, but doesn't work especially well as a knife.

Chris

[Blue]

A Swiss Army knife does lots of things, but doesn't work especially well as a knife.

Chris

Its still legendary!

[raz-0]

A Swiss Army knife does lots of things, but doesn't work especially well as a knife.

Chris

The swiss army kinife is a non locking pen knife. It works very well at being that. Poor example.

The reason nobody makes a camera like the OP posted is because you likely wouldn't sell more than 10k of them. Even if you used someone else's aps-c sensor, and someone else's electronics, it'd still be prohibitively expensive to appeal to more than a hard core audience.

Half (or more) of that hard core audience would whine about how it doesn't have the charm/warmth/simplicity/art/smell of real film.