Cut off point


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
Reactions: BBW
Jan 31, 2011
Newcastle, Australia
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.


Top Veteran
Aug 7, 2010
Cheshire UK
Amin should just change this forum name from 'Serious Compacts' to 'Serious GAS'.
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 )


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).


Super Moderator
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.


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"?:p

Really it's the people here that bring me back time and time again - and everyone's pictures.:drinks:


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:


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.

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.


Super Moderator
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

Latest threads

Top Bottom