I republish this post verbatim from July 2013. A little progress has been made, but not much: no full-frame Ricoh GR, a Sony RX1R II with 42 instead of 24 megapixels, Sigma dp Quattro which regresses in some ways (true color pixels not quite, form factor, no EVF). I had hoped for more, much more, including medium format.
Shown below are five fixed-lens cameras (click on each for more info or review link).
Four of these cameras use an APS-C sensor, and the Sony RX1 is full-frame (130% larger in area). All of them are fixed lens cameras, and all restrain lens speed to keep size and weight down, but are versatile enough for shooting at dusk (with the possible exception of the Leica X Vario).
Why a fixed lens?
From my work with these cameras, I can say that all of them set high standards in imaging sharpness that is remarkable (but Leica X Vario I have not tested).
A fixed lens allows:
- A more compact, more lightweight design.
- A lens totally optimized for for the sensor*; the rear of the lens can be 1mm from the sensor if need be**; no constraints on internal space or lens shape or diameter. Field use proves this out.
- No dust intrusion from changing lenses.
- Less expensive to manufacture and simpler to design (no lens mount to design, no planning for some future higher resolution sensor or different sensor type, etc).
- Lower market risk; no commitment to a lens line or lens mount, great way to float a trial balloon (seems to be Sony’s approach with the RX1).
- Very high quality in small size; people want this. Lugging around a DSLR is not something most people want to do or ought to do; DSLRs are bad solutions for most people.
* Based on what I see, no interchangeable lens camera yet offers the high performance one sees in the best fixed-lens cameras. Probably because of design compromises. The only exception being the huge and heavy Olympus SHG lenses.
** Interchangeable lenses in theory could also project all the way into the body cavity, but this would mean a rather awkward rear end “plug” and lens cap and probable risk of damage to lens or camera internals. No digital camera vendor designs lenses this way, at least not yet. However, the long discontinued Mamiya 7 II 6x7 film camera (which I owned for a few years) used rangefinder lenses with a deeply-recessed rear-end. It kept the camera with mounted lens exceedingly compact for its huge film size.
Extra lenses, or fixed lens
A fixed lens restricts choices, and that is a good thing: it focuses the creative aspect by simplifying to the essentials. One learns perspective and composition much better with a fixed lens: a zoom makes most people get lazy: stand there and zoom; this is typically a failure. Not saying it cannot work, but I am saying it is likely more a hindrance to good photography than a help (counterpoint: certain tasks make a zoom lens mandatory).
Carrying extra lenses can be more awkward than carrying two small cameras. And two focal lengths cover the majority of shooting situations. More is less in my experience; 3+ lenses becomes a burden and generates creative confusion too much of the time.
I hope to see the fixed-lens trend continue. In particular, I would like to see other focal lengths with the Ricoh GR, perhaps 19mm and 40mm (equiv). Sigma has done this already with the DP Merrill line with 28mm, 45mm, 75mm (equiv) choices [as of June 2016: 21mm, 28mm, 45mm, 75mm for dp0 Quattro line]. I’d also like to see a 24mm version of the Sony RX1", because 35mm is too narrow a field of view for many of my uses.
Micro Four Thirds
Ironically, the format most suited to the fixed-lens approach (due to the modestly sized sensor)—Micro Four Thirds (M4/3) format—has dropped the ball: the potential exists for fixed-lens M4/3 cameras with perfect image quality at ƒ/2. Will it even survive as a viable format in any mainstream way? I have serious doubts, but the right cameras would allay that concern. Instead, hardly anything interesting happens while APS-C aggressively gets more interesting and raises quality to high levels.
Instead, we get M4/3 lenses that are good but hardly exciting and lag what cameras like the Ricoh GR can deliver—all with a far smaller sensor which itself compromises peak quality. Without compelling fixed-lens offerings (small, lighter, perfect lens performance at ƒ/2, ideally ƒ/1.4), the format loses considerable appeal. The M4/3 format might well wither without this breadth, because the fixed-lens APS-C cameras like the Ricoh GR are compelling in size, weight and image quality. And the build costs do not vary much between formats.
Leica X Vario
What Leica has done with the X Vario is pursue high-grade image quality in a zoom. But to accomplish that quality, the lens speed has been severely compromised, and the camera remains far too large for pocketability.
I would rather see a Bi-Elmarit design with 24mm and 35mm settings (Elmarit = ƒ/2.8); this ought to be achievable in a similar size. The slow speed means that the best light of the day (dusk) is unshootable with the Vario X handheld at ISO 200. And there is greatly reduced opportunity for subject isolation (small aperture), hence creative uses are restricted.
But the real issue is that the X-Vario is essentially a DSLR in awkwardness: cannot be pocketed, on the heavy side and Leica’s idea of usability and features pales compared to a Ricoh GR. And then there is the price: $2850 and that’s before the $500 low-res optional Leica VF-2 EVF.
Which brings us to DSLRs: lens design is compromied by a mirror box. Sony is making strides in this area, but no vendor has comitted to a full-frame design with a new wide diameter lens flange along with lenses that seat deep into the body cavity. Hence lens design remains compromised for that mirror box offset, making them lower performance, larger and heavier, at least for wide angle designs.
A few readers have emailed with the erroneous reaction that my thoughts above imply that a fixed lens camera is for everyone, or that it can substitute for more involved needs, or that I’m someone saying their multi-lens system is to be set aside—that’s obviously not the case, not even for me out in the field. Best tool for the job(s). It it is the case that a Sigma-like triple-focal-length fixed-lens solution could serve the needs of a very wide range of photographers.
And it is a working theory of mine that quality control with a fixed lens camera could be held to much tighter standards than a camera that has to support interchangeable lenses. To date, my use of Sigma, Sony, Leica, Ricoh Nikon fixed-lens cameras strongly supports the idea of “matched quality” free of lens issues (it’s a percentages game, but I’ve used enough of them now to say the odds are good).