I'm looking for a camera that I think might not exist, but if one does I hope someone here knows about it.
I get great shots with an SLR with a prime lens. I regularly take out my GF1 micro 4/3 and that's a lot more portable.
However it's still a bit big to have with me all the time.
When I look into compact cameras they appear to be universally obsessed with two stats where bigger is definitely not better:
- They always have zoom, as if higher the better.
- They always have high megapixels, as if higher the better.
I think these are misconceptions. I've never seen a compact zoom lens that didn't sacrifice a whole lot of image quality for the zoom functionality. More megapixels in a small sensor just means poorer quality pictures.
What I'd really want is:
- Small size (small enough to carry most of the time, smaller than a m4/3).
- Prime lens, no zoom, not less than f/2 at max aperture.
- No more than 10MP, unless also with a large sensor.
- Decent high ISO for low light use would be a big plus.
Such a camera doesn't seem like it would be hard to build, but the closest I can find are m4/3rds (which I already use) or APS-C fixed lens cameras (which are a similar size).
Does anyone know why camera companies don't build anything like this? I get that the majority of the market reads numbers and picks the biggest, but surely this isn't that niche a market?
Can anyone recommend how to find a good compromise camera (or range of cameras) here? Is there a way to get a super-portable camera that doesn't sacrifice image quality chasing times-zoom and MP?