SmithAir747 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1527 posts, RR: 38 Posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2221 times:
In all my 21 years of photography, I have used equipment ranging from my first 35mm camera (Kodak Star 335) to 35mm film DSLRs (Nikon FM10 and F-65) to "near-DSLRs" like the Fujifilm Finepix S5600, to my one (and only) DSLR, the Canon Digital Rebel (which I had for a year). However, I have never seen a DSLR that has a built-in lens like the "near-DSLR" types.
All the DSLRs I have seen require removable, interchangeable lenses of all sizes. Many lenses even cost more than the body itself! Due to the separate lenses and their costs, as well as costly bodies, DSLRs are currently too expensive for so many people (including me).
As I previously mentioned, I have used "near-DSLR" cameras (eg, my old Fujifilm Finepix S5600), and played with new ones like the Nikon Coolpix p500 (I love its 36X zoom lens), and I have gotten very good quality photos with them. For example, my Fuji S5600 even got me my first 4 photos accepted on the A.net database back in 2006, at LHR! I have also used that same camera to get beautiful nature photos (Mom has them framed on her walls at home). I am interested in getting one of the new "near-DSLRs" like the Nikon Coolpix p500 (36X zoom) or one of the Canon or Fuji models. I love super-zoom lenses, but do not want to pay through the nose for those required by DSLRs (I am a struggling PhD student).
So, I wonder, why do they not make DSLR cameras with built-in, zoomable lenses? Is there a technical hurdle in mating the single-lens-reflex principle with an integral lens? Like my aforementioned examples of "near-DSLRs", one all-inclusive, zoomable lens would make for a more compact DSLR and eliminate removal and switching of lenses (and the attendant costs of such lenses).
Is it possible to make such a DSLR with an integral zoomable lens (soon, if not now)?
SmithAir747
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made... (Psalm 139:14)
AlexC From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 26 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2188 times:
OK, I'll bite! Whilst it may be possible to make a DSLR with a integral zoom, that would defeat the whole object of a DSLR (and SLR's before that) which is that they can take interchangeable lenses, ie they are so versatile and have been successful ever since the beginning of the 60's when SLR's first became available. Incidentally your FM10 and F65 were SLR's not DSLR's.
SmithAir747 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1527 posts, RR: 38 Reply 2, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2176 times:
Quoting AlexC (Reply 1): OK, I'll bite! Whilst it may be possible to make a DSLR with a integral zoom, that would defeat the whole object of a DSLR (and SLR's before that) which is that they can take interchangeable lenses, ie they are so versatile and have been successful ever since the beginning of the 60's when SLR's first became available. Incidentally your FM10 and F65 were SLR's not DSLR's.
Thanks for your knowledgeable answer!
Well, there could be a base "integral-zoom DSLR" model with a zoom range from 20+mm up to 800+mm (like the lens on the Nikon Coolpix p500, whose 36X zoom is equivalent to 22-810mm on a 35mm). Then, if you wanted greater zoom or a fisheye or other special ability, there could be lens converters or extensions to provide those abilities to the base lens. This is just an idea that came to my mind. Such a setup could make a more economical DSLR, with the desired extras (lens converters, fisheye and other lens extensions) offered at an extra price (instead of having to stock up on multiple costly lenses).
Perhaps this could be a more economical entry-level DSLR for those who are starting out in the DSLR world. In other words, this could bridge between the top "near-DSLR" models and the cheaper standard DSLR kits + lenses.
By the way, I meant to say "SLR" instead of "DSLR" for the FM10 and F65 film cameras; it was just a typo.
SmithAir747
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made... (Psalm 139:14)
SmithAir747 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1527 posts, RR: 38 Reply 4, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2160 times:
Quoting MWHCVT (Reply 3): A DSLR is a DSLR by virtue of the fact that it has separate lens, the camera your describing already exists it's called a "Bridge Camera"
Can you give me examples of bridge cameras?
Would the Nikon Coolpix p500, or Canon Powershot SX10 or 30 or 40, or Fuji Finepix S5600 or HS20EXR count? These look somewhat like DSLRs, but are not (hence the term "near-SLR").
SmithAir747
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made... (Psalm 139:14)
dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2084 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2155 times:
Quoting SmithAir747 (Reply 2): Well, there could be a base "integral-zoom DSLR" model with a zoom range from 20+mm up to 800+mm
Have you ever seen the size of an 800mm lens? They weigh many kg's and isn't something you can fit in your pocket. The largest zoom range of any SLR lens are the Sigma 50-500 at 10x and Canon 28-300 L at 10.3x. These are both very expensive and about the limit of quality for an SLR super-zoom lens. A lens is only good at a particular focal length range, it's not perfect all the way through and requires compromise. Not only would a 36x lens be too large, too heavy and too expensive, it would probably have quality issues and wouldn't be good at both the 20 and 800mm end. The advantage of an SLR, and why it's not commonplace to have fixed lenses with large zoom ranges, is you can swap and change them for the quality and focal lengths you need at the time. Bridge cameras fill the void you describe quite nicely as they can get away with smaller lenses due to the smaller sensors.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 5150 posts, RR: 36 Reply 6, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2155 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting MWHCVT (Reply 3): A DSLR is a DSLR by virtue of the fact that it has separate lens, the camera your describing already exists it's called a "Bridge Camera"
Uh...no. While bridge cameras do typically have a fixed lens that covers a wide focal range, that is not what technically differentiates them from (D)SLRs. A (D)SLR is different in that it features a mirror that reflects (reflex) into an optical viewfinder.
Quoting SmithAir747 (Reply 2): Well, there could be a base "integral-zoom DSLR" model with a zoom range from 20+mm up to 800+mm
I think you're leaving out an important part of the question. Are you asking why no such camera exists with a larger (at least APS-C size) sensor? The Nikon P500 you mentioned above fits the bill, but it has a much smaller sensor. The reason no such camera exists with a larger sensor is pretty much physics - an 800mm lens alone that would cover the image circle of an APS-C sized sensor or larger would be huge, one that incorporated a zoom to the wide end of the focal range would be bigger still, and one that had any sort of quality (i.e. wider aperture), would make it unmanageably large. If you want to fit a zoom range of ~22-800mm in one lens, and make it something you can actually hold in your hand, the image circle it covers is going to need to be pretty small, and thus the sensor will need to be small as well - which is what you have in something like the P500.
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 324 posts, RR: 19 Reply 7, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2142 times:
A fixed lens DSLR is actually quite pointless. The defining feature of a DSLR is the reflex mirror system which ensures you see in the viewfinder what the lens sees. This is required primarily because you can change lenses.
If you couldn't change the lens, then the reflex mirror wouldn't be needed, as the viewfinder could be built to match the builtin lens without the complexity and bulk of the mirror system.
Anyway, an entry level DSLR with a kit lens could be used as if the lens were built in (you don't have to take it off!), and I can;t see that making it 'built in' would make any difference to the cost. The laws of physics dicate the size and materials required for any lens of a given focal length, format and quality.
If you want to go with a permenant kit lens approach, cheap wideangle and telephoto attachments are available now - but, the quality isn't (and never can be) as good as separate, purpose designed lenses.
It would certainly be possible to produce a DSLR with a built in lens, but why would anyone buy one - certainly no signifcant cost or size saving, but a huge reduction in flexibility and options for growth in years to come.
SmithAir747 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1527 posts, RR: 38 Reply 8, posted (3 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1935 times:
Thanks everyone for the valuable information! Now I know more about the necessity for interchangeable lenses on SLRs, sensor size requirements, etc.
I have another question--this time, relating to the aforementioned "bridge" or "near-DSLR" cameras:
Since the largest zoom lens I have seen (ie, on the Nikon p500) currently stands at 36X zoom (35mm equivalent: 22mm-810mm), is there a maximum limit to the size of zoom lenses for these cameras? How big can such lenses get? 40X, or even 50X zoom? How about a supergiant 100X, sometime in the future? Is there a point where a "bridge" camera's zoom lens would get too big for the sensor or for the camera's abilities, or just too bulky for the camera itself?
SmithAir747
[Edited 2012-02-07 10:41:33]
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made... (Psalm 139:14)
dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2084 posts, RR: 5 Reply 10, posted (3 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1925 times:
Quoting SmithAir747 (Reply 8): is there a maximum limit to the size of zoom lenses for these cameras?
Technically, probably at some stage but I would question the need for such lenses. The problem with long lenses is that of keeping the camera still enough, having sufficient light and air quality. Even the slightest haze or heat distortion at extremes severely effects image quality. Then there's the question of cost, size and weight. A £1,000 bridge camera weighing 3kg and needing a suitcase to carry it in isn't going to sell particularly well. I know that's extreme, but you get the point. Of the superzooms I've had experience with, I'd not own one personally as image quality is way below that of SLR's. I know there's a big difference in cost, but they just don't deliver.
Darren
Equipment: Canon EOS 50D & 350D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
SmithAir747 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1527 posts, RR: 38 Reply 12, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1875 times:
Quoting SmithAir747 (Reply 8): Since the largest zoom lens I have seen (ie, on the Nikon p500) currently stands at 36X zoom (35mm equivalent: 22mm-810mm), is there a maximum limit to the size of zoom lenses for these cameras? How big can such lenses get? 40X, or even 50X zoom? How about a supergiant 100X, sometime in the future? Is there a point where a "bridge" camera's zoom lens would get too big for the sensor or for the camera's abilities, or just too bulky for the camera itself?
It appears that there are indeed larger bridge-camera zoom lenses than I realised...I thought the Nikon Coolpix p500 had the biggest lens at 36X (35mm equivalent: 22-810mm). However I have just stumbled on the next (upcoming) Nikon Coolpix model...
Nikon has upped the ante (in superzoom lens size) with their Coolpix p510, soon to be released, with a 42X zoom lens (35mm equivalent: 24-1000mm) (!) and a 16.1MP resolution.
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 324 posts, RR: 19 Reply 15, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1776 times:
Quoting SmithAir747 (Reply 12): Nikon has upped the ante (in superzoom lens size) with their Coolpix p510, soon to be released, with a 42X zoom lens (35mm equivalent: 24-1000mm) (!) and a 16.1MP resolution.
Yes, well there is always an incentive to be able to advertise 'the biggest', 'longest', 'fastest' etc. - and this will certainly sell a few copies. The megapixel race seems to have reached practical limits (for now) on digicams, but there is still scope for lenses.
Traditionally, complex extreme zooms brought with them all kinds of optical aberrations, and good ones were expensive to produce. Now the game has changed because in-camera software can be used to help correct these problems making usable extreme zooms much less expensive to produce. I would not be surprised to see the range stretch out to, say 1200 or 1500 at f8.
How useable this will be is another matter altogether - and I'd suggest not very. But the fact is that many digicams sold are seldom used - more items of jewellry than anything else, and of course the longer the lens, the greater the bragging rights!
For an example of lenses taken to the extreme, have a look at this
Soaring1972 From Germany, joined Jan 2011, 64 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1739 times:
One other aspect lies in the traditional advantage of a SLR (not DSLR). You are able to change the objective although a film is loaded because the mirror protects the film!
In nowerdays you do not have the problem with the film anymore. So thats why you now find new cameras like the Pentax Q without a mirror.
It´s happy hour! You recieve two landings for the price of one!
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 6497 posts, RR: 29 Reply 17, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1716 times:
Quoting ckw (Reply 15): The megapixel race seems to have reached practical limits (for now) on digicams, but there is still scope for lenses.
Perhaps you missed the new Nikon D800, with a modest 36.3 megapixels!
Quoting ckw (Reply 15):
Yes, well there is always an incentive to be able to advertise 'the biggest', 'longest', 'fastest' etc
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 324 posts, RR: 19 Reply 20, posted (3 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1549 times:
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 17): Perhaps you missed the new Nikon D800, with a modest 36.3 megapixels!
Oh no, waiting to see output with interest ... even more so the projected Canon 50mp sensor! But these are full frame sensors ... I was refering to the tiny sensors found in digicams/point n shoots/bridge cameras (whatever you want to call them).
Certainly Canon and Lumix - maybe others - have actually reduced the pixel count a bit in more recent models to gain on image quality (esp. high ISO).
Of course what will be interesting is just how well the new full frame sensors work with current lenses. I believe 36 + megapixels well exceeds 35mm film resolution, so users of these cameras may find their lenses somewhat lacking. It has been suggested that recently announced Canon wide angle lens updates are in preparation for new supersize sensor.
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 6497 posts, RR: 29 Reply 21, posted (3 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1546 times:
Quoting ckw (Reply 20): Oh no, waiting to see output with interest ... even more so the projected Canon 50mp sensor! But these are full frame sensors ... I was refering to the tiny sensors found in digicams/point n shoots/bridge cameras (whatever you want to call them).
Ah I gotcha - missed that.
To be honest, 36 megapixels just sounds crazy - at least for anything I would use it for. I saw the sample images that were posted in the thread about it, and while they were incredibly detailed, I can't really see where that detail would be put to practical use for most scenarios. Perhaps on murals or something....
(I certainly did not think you'd actually missed that camera....was just joking around).
Of course, as far as point-and-shoots go, I'm still on my 5 MP Canon A530.
The spirit of Massachusetts is the spirit of America!
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 324 posts, RR: 19 Reply 23, posted (3 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1506 times:
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 21): I can't really see where that detail would be put to practical use for most scenarios. Perhaps on murals or something....
We'll have to wait for 'real world' examples to know the truth, but thinking back to film days, if all you ever printed was 8x10s, why would you ever need a medium format camera? However, the difference between an 8x10 from 35mm and medium (or larger) format is quite marked. I would hope that the additional resolution of the next generation of sensors will result in a visible improvement in quality in even quite small prints/files.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1527 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 26 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 5150 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 324 posts, 
From Belgium, joined May 2011, 262 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2011, 64 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
