Cut off point

Discussion in 'Open Gear Talk' started by Ripleysbaby, Dec 30, 2013.

  1. Ripleysbaby

    Ripleysbaby supernatural anesthetist

    Sep 9, 2011
    Cumbria UK
    What size camera should not qualify for the description of compact ?
    With the release of the Nikon DF and the other larger models . And images posted taken with 5x4 field cameras (compact compared to an 8x10)
    At what point should we all agree that size matters and there should be a limit. My own view is anything without a mirror , or with a mirror, smaller than the latest Pentax or any 4/3 dslr.
    Or does it really matter as long as the site stays the nice place it is ?
    • Like Like x 1
  2. I'd say it probably doesn't matter, but when people started banging on about the Df I made the very foolish assumption that it was a small DSLR. I should have known better. I'm not that interested in it or its output but clearly some are.
  3. Chris2500dk

    Chris2500dk Top Veteran

    Dec 22, 2011
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    It's hard to set a firm limit. For me it stops being "compact" around Sony A7/Panasonic GH3/Nikon D3xxx-5xxx series/other similar sized DSL size.
    But then again I come here for the community and it wouldn't bother me at all if there was a forum section for "big gear".
    • Like Like x 3
  4. Likewise.
  5. pdh

    pdh Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    Phew. I was worried for a moment there but fortunately my 5x4 pinhole camera doesn't have a mirror, so I can still post ...
    • Like Like x 5
  6. TraamisVOS

    TraamisVOS Hall of Famer

    Nov 29, 2010
    Melboune, Australia
    Amin should just change this forum name from 'Serious Compacts' to 'Serious GAS'.
    • Like Like x 7
  7. nippa

    nippa Top Veteran

    Aug 7, 2010
    Cheshire UK
    OT , I could imagine that a Serious GAS Forum would quickly acquire a loyal following with help pages from the Medical Profession and a confession corner.
    I had a mate back in the film days of 1990 that kept two identical Olympus cameras in his bag - one for B+W and one for Colour.
    His wife thought that he had one camera as he'd only remove one camera at a time from his bag.

    ( If it doesn't fit a walking jacket pocket it ain't compact )
    • Like Like x 4
  8. Luckypenguin

    Luckypenguin Hall of Famer

    Dec 24, 2010
    Brisbane, Australia
    I don't feel that the name of this site accurately identifies the content that is discussed here at present. From the outside looking in and even from the inside looking out it is more of a site for camera hobbyists who generally prefer a smaller camera (as opposed to adhering to any strict definition of what constitutes a compact camera).
    • Like Like x 5
  9. stillshunter

    stillshunter Super Moderator Emeritus

    Nov 5, 2010
    Down Under
    …maybe we, the users, are actually the Serious Compacts? :tomato2:
    • Like Like x 3
  10. Luckypenguin

    Luckypenguin Hall of Famer

    Dec 24, 2010
    Brisbane, Australia
    Dunno, Mark. What's your fighting weight? :smile:
    • Like Like x 2
  11. stillshunter

    stillshunter Super Moderator Emeritus

    Nov 5, 2010
    Down Under
    :hmmm:….hey what are ya saying'? I'm still 'compact'….well vertically and mentally. Anyway I'd like to think of myself less as a noun and more an adjective:
    "kəmˈpakt/ 1. closely and neatly packed together; 2. dense" :blush:
    • Like Like x 4
  12. Gotta tellya Mark, there is *nothing* compact about me. I wish.
  13. Luke

    Luke Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Nov 11, 2011
    Milwaukee, WI USA
    I came here initially because I was interested in a high quality camera that didn't look like the big black blobs (DSLR ugly Canikons). Even when I switched a lot of photography over from a "compact" to a Pentax DSLR, I kept sharing images here. I like the community here, and feel like camera size has little effect on how or what I shoot.

    I like Amin's original description that each person decide for him/her self. If you feel like it's compact, then it is.

    I am also considerably less compact after all the seasonal over-eating.
    • Like Like x 3
  14. Armanius

    Armanius Bring Jack back!

    Jan 11, 2011
    Houston, Texas
    We can place an asterisk next to the name SeriousCompacts that leads to a fine print with terms and conditions of usage that discusses "other non-serious and/or non-compact" gear, and/or the height/weight distribution for the user of the gear (for Mark).
    • Like Like x 4
  15. Ripleysbaby

    Ripleysbaby supernatural anesthetist

    Sep 9, 2011
    Cumbria UK
    As long as you promise to stick with a roll film back (excluding 6x120) :biggrin:
    Then again a 5x4dds is probably more compact.
    • Like Like x 2
  16. BBW

    BBW Administrator Emeritus

    Jul 7, 2010
    betwixt and between
    I'm glad you brought this perennial topic back up, Garry, because I'd gotten a PM a week or so from another member asking me what "compact" meant and they were talking about that Nikon Df, as well.

    I, too, feel that Amin's original premise is a good one. Maybe we could add - "If it's smaller than a breadbox"?:tongue:

    Really it's the people here that bring me back time and time again - and everyone's pictures.:drinks:
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Ripleysbaby

    Ripleysbaby supernatural anesthetist

    Sep 9, 2011
    Cumbria UK
    I personally fall into the "don't care as long as I like the pictures" camp.
    Lets face it How can really tell anyway. tilman paulin's MX1 shots or Nuskyn and stratocastor EX1 They are all great for smaller sensor, along with the excellent FZ200 (even smaller) images posted.
    Every time a good image gets posted from one of these cameras I question wether I really do need anything bigger.
    I recently had one of these new fangled photo books done. Nothing special, just more of a test to see what they are like. One of the shots I included was from my iPhone4. It looked great.
    I'm even lusting over an auto everything not so serious compact. :biggrin:
    • Like Like x 2
  18. retow

    retow All-Pro

    Jul 24, 2010
    A Df with a Nikkor 85 f2 or Noct Nikkor 58 f1.2 weights less than a Leica M, digital or film, with a Summicron 90 or Noctilux 50 f0.95 respectively. So it all depends. And a E-M1 with one of the fast Voigtlanders weights about the same, if not more, than a Df with the 1.8/50mm.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Lawrence A.

    Lawrence A. Hall of Famer

    Nov 8, 2012
    New Mexico
    I don't think the mirror test will do. An 11x14 view camera has no mirror, but very few would consider it compact.

    I always considered anything I hand held to be a compact. Thus some days the Hasselblad qualified, in spite of a large and loud mirror, but usually not, as I most often put it on a tripod. The Fuji GS645S, however, though largish, seems to me pretty compact for a medium format rig.

    The friendliness and helpfulness of the place are the most important thing. Better one of our regular friends, enthusiastically singing the praises of his 16x20 view camera than some troll insulting everyone while trumpeting the virtues of his digital nano-camera that he fits onto an eyelash and triggers by blinking.

    I know a film thread once provoked the ire of someone because of the large cameras included in the postings, but the storm passed pretty quickly when Amin, who had started the thread, indicated it was OK with him.

    Having (regretfully) sold my 4x5 view camera, I consider everything I now have compact enough.
  20. Lightmancer

    Lightmancer Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Aug 13, 2011
    Sunny Frimley
    Bill Palmer
    Suggestion #1: it's Serious because the quality of the camera and it's output is greater than average in it's class, be that mirrorless, DSLR, bridge or fixed lens.
    Suggestion #2: it's Compact because it is smaller than average in it's class, be that mirrorless, DSLR, bridge or fixed lens.

    If it mets both criteria simultaneously, it's a Serious Compact.

    Simples :)

    Sent from another Galaxy