Size does matter

Pictured are some cameras for size comparison.

Top (L to R):
-Canon Canonet, 40mm F1.7 about the size of the GF1 and E-P1
-Canon Rebel, 50mm F1.8 Slightly bigger than the G1/GH1
-Canon 5D, 50mm F1.8, What I've been carrying around

Bottom (L to R)
-Yashica T4, 12mm F1.4*, slightly bigger than a Canon S90
-Canon SD200, 12mm F1.2*
-Fujifilm F20, 8mm F1.4*

* It might not be apparent on the Yashica but the F1.2 and F1.4 on the silver point and shoots should be a clue something is up.

The fastest lens I have on my point and shoots is the F1.8 on my Olympus C-5050Z. I can control everything on it. Shutter, aperture, ISO, manual or auto focus...it has a spot meter, real time metering and the list goes on. It's an older camera so the interface is a little clunky and slow. The sensor is on the bigger size for a compact at 1.8". A similar camera I own is the Canon G5, also with a faster lens at F2, 1.8" sensor and lots of freedom in the controls.

Years ago these cameras were incredibly expensive. I'll have to research it some more but at introduction I think these were both north of what an entry level DSLR sells for today (~600-700 US). The current incarnation of the G5 is the recently introduced G11 which sports a slower F2.8 lens although a slightly bigger 1.7" sensor, image stabilization and faster computing in a slimmer package. I'll admit bang for the buck in electronics seems to be improving as the G11 today is $500. Factor in the present value of say $800 for what these older cameras went for...yikes. Fortunately my Oly and Canon were picked up in good condition for $120 each last year. I've seen them sell for 90-120 on ebay recently so when I want to unload them I won't take a major loss.

Max ISO on these two cameras is 400. They are very noisy at that speed but are still useful for black and white conversions and I'd say it's comparable to similar speed black and white film. The fast lenses are helpful to pull in more light (most p&s cameras start at F2.8-3.3 today). One advantage given to rangefinder cameras is that they don't have a mirror slapping around like a SLR. As a benefit the general rule of shooting 1/focal for shutter speed can be eeked out at an extra stop. I tried this on my cameras and it seems to be a reasonable gamble. Take a stop with the shutter and carefully push another stop out of processing can justify keeping these as social cameras for a little longer.

The current crop of super compacts is tempting but spend $400 plus for a new Panasonic LX3, Canon S90, Ricoh GRD3 etc. With refined noise reduction and processing the images of these updated bodies looks quite good at ISO 400 and 800. Perhaps I'll treat myself at Christmas.

As a poster on serious compacts shared this link when he considered upgrading. I've read it before but it's good to read again to see what a point and shoot can really do. A search through flickr groups reveals Alex is talented but not alone. Amazing work done with just about any camera out there whether it be point and shoot, LF or even homemade pinholes!

www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844

Alright, pushing that artist stuff and adaptation aside I'm also an engineer. I can appreciate when a product provides something superior like handling or noise performance etc. Like many others I wondered why a full frame or even APS-C sized sensor could not be crammed into a compact body. They did it with film after all? I'm told it has to do something with the angle of reflectance which allows for less light collection at the sensor. This entails making larger lenses than with film. This issues is not as big a problem with the larger SLR cameras. I briefly flirted with the idea of cracking open an SLR and cramming the guts into a compact body of my own design. The cost and complexity however soon dissuaded me.

Thankfully some smart people at Sigma, Leica, Olympus and Panasonic came up with compact...ish cameras in the form of the DP1/DP2, micro 4/3rds and X1. Ricoh, Sony and Nikon are rumoured to be entering the spat in a few days and then Samsung at Christmas. Expensive and tempting toys...

Lately I've reading more on the G1, GH1, GF1 and EP-1. With the short flange distance you can mount pretty much any legacy lens on m4/3. Reading through some postings something caught my eye -C mount lenses.

static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00S/00SzZ6-122671684.jpg
cm.media.cn/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/R0015721.jpg

Designed for 16mm film today the mount is retained for machine vision, security cameras and other applications. It's a screwmount at 25mm (I think). 16mm film however is smaller than m4/3 sensors. This leads to mild to heavy vignetting although the build quality, fast apertures and inexpensive findings new and old are very tempting. Some lenses exhibit a strange swirling bokeh which I find unsettling and has turned some m4/3 users away from c mount.

More reading on C mount found a large supply of makers. Small zooms and primes with both electric and manual iris control. Further more they had primes with manual focus. These lenses are fast! F.95 is openly available but expensive. Most lenses are in the F1.3-F2 range and made for 1", 1.5, 1.8, 2, 3, 4 sensors.

A few years ago the 1.5" sensor (2/3) was considered pretty large (I don't know of any general photography cameras with 1" sensor). It was put into bridge cameras like the Olympus C-8080, Sony 707/717/828, Canon Pro1 as well as other entries from Pentax, Nikon etc. Hmmm, 1.5" sensor and a large selection of inexpensive fast lenses in C mount...Again, after studying disassembly diagrams, service repair manuals and pictures I came to the conclusion these cameras were a little more complex than I thought. Also they were quite chunky and crammed into those shells! Working cameras on ebay were around 200 bucks. The thought of possibly destroying even a 200 dollar camera was not that attractive.

What else is floating around? There are tonnes more 1.8" sensor cameras to be had and at much more affordable prices. Again all the major camera makers have 1.8" sensor cameras. The question is: How do I fix a C mount lens onto a point and shoot camera? This is how

www.astrosanjusto.net63.net/taller/a60focoprimario/index.htm

Also, a suitable donor camera would need aperture priority as I would be controlling that from the lens. Better yet a manual setting so I can fiddle with the shutter. A challenge to that is if I don't have live metering or histogram making exposure decisions would be a more drawn out process. I'm sure most cameras have them now but reading through a Canon hacking forum CHDK turns out you can enable that function on any Digic II camera or newer. So this has me leaning more in favour of the Canon cameras as a test bed. The A series which the guy in the link hacked has manual controls. Bodies with stuck lens assemblies are usually bought for their parts. However I'll be chucking that and fooling the computer. These can be bought off ebay for a few dollars (just got one for disassembly practice for $6.50).

Also for experimentation I brought in 3 2/3 lenses bought off ebay for 5-15 dollars. The Computars new are 100-160 bucks!
-Computar 8mm F1.4 M0814-MP
-Computar 12mm F1.4 M1214-MP
-Unknown 12mm F1.2

So after this endless spiel, what's the point? I'm not sure. I think:

Some issues that exist with point and shoots can be improved on by mounting a fast manual focus lens
-slow or unable to lock focus. User controls this. With large dof of small sensors this issue is not super critical
-fragile lens assembly is replaced with robust prime or zoom and can customize for focal needs
-high iso noise...F1.4 is an extra stop which helps. F1.3 1-1/3, F1.2 1-1/2.

I think the whole high ISO issue is what keeps me carrying my 5D to social events. Let's say ISO 400 of a point and shoot from a 1.8" sensor is passable.
-1 stop advantage for not having a mirror slapping so shutter can be opened up
-1 to 1.5 stop advantage in the lens. DOF will still be larger than a full frame too (good and bad).

I shoot my 5D at 50mm F2 1/30-1/50 at ISO 1600-3200 all the time at social gatherings. How does this potential C mount compact stack up?

ISO 400. Half the shutter speed (+1 stop) -note I consider 1/25-30 around the limit for capturing people otherwise their movement is problematic so image stabilization would not help further by slowing down another stop or 2. Add another 1.5 stops for F1.2 lens...So that would be like shooting iso 2400? I think I can get another stop out of a push in photoshop. Shooting native at ISO 400 with the equivalent exposure of 3200 with a full frame is theoretically possible. I'm quite familiar with the ISO 3200 on my 5D and I'd wager it would still kick the crap out of a point and shoot. When's the last time I fit a 5D in my pocket however...yeah thought so.

As a really bad procrastinator I see this as more of a brainstorming exercise. Still, the economics of franken camering something together might prove attractive.

Guesstamit
-$10-30 for a nice F1.2 c mount lens suitable for 2/3 sensor
-$10-30 for a donor body with a broken lens
-$10-30 for another donor when the first one cannot be resurrected
-$10-150 for some spare metal and machining*

So a franken c mount camera I think could be built for under 100 bucks best case. Maybe 200 worst case. This does not include time to research, disassemble, fiddle, draw up plans, documentation etc. I figure I could discount most of that time instead of watching a movie or partying.

For the time being I think it would be worth the trouble instead of buying the $400-500 super compact. Actually if I figure this out I can just franken one of those int he coming years. Again with their better senor or noise reduction or both they do look like an improvement over cameras of past by 1/2-1 stop.

*This could get expensive charming someone into letting you use some tools. The m25 is a simple thread and the flange distance has to be maintained at 17.52mm. Not a complex machining for someone competent but getting into a shop is another thing. Could probably get a private individual or try a tech college etc.