Larger sensors for small digital cameras - NY Times review

[DQE]

Perhaps this recent NYTimes article is of interest to some:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/tech ... wanted=all

One wonders if someone will (mostly accidentally?) make a small, more portable camera that would have good performance for field macro photography.

Perhaps the Raynox filter-type close-up lenses would bring additional macro capability to these new cameras.

I'm not sure this article gets all the factors correct related to lens design re moving from a small sensor to a larger sensor camera.

In the meantime, I'm glad I have a full-size and full-frame DSLR, but portability is not one of its features! The vast majority of the fancy features in a DSLR just aren't too useful for most macro work, IMO, but they can be helpful for general photography.
_________________
-Phil

[elf]

There's actually quite a few members here using the micro 4/3rds cameras. I'd say they're very capable of capturing macros The native lens are not at the pro(sumer) level yet, but rumors abound around Olympus releasing a pro level body within the year.

I don't have one because the jump from 7.5 megapixels to 12 megapixels isn't large enough to see a significant difference in IQ.

The only real advantage Canon has is the electronic first curtain shutter. I don't think any other camera has a natural advantage over m4/3. The mirrorless m4/3rd camera has the advantage of no mirror slapping.

p.s. All of the above statements are unsubstantiated opinions except for the first sentence

edit: The NYTimes writer doesn't know much about photography