[Seymour]

Why would you want a lens with 2 focal length settings, rather than a lens with 2 focal length extremes and the freedom to use all focal lengths in between? What is your rationale for that, exactly?

 

Because I find a dark, short telephoto a bit pointless. At any rate, not worth a trade-off at the wide end.

 

What do you need a light telephoto for? Selective depth-of-field. At the long zoom end of a compact, there is hardly any depth-of-field control - the stereotypical 'portrait' with a more or less blurry background. But for serious tele work, where you just can't get any closer and still want a picture, it's much too short anyway. So why bother?

 

When contemplating my next always-carry, shirt pocket camera, I therefore dared myself to go for a Coolpix A / Ricoh GR II this time. Maybe I'm deluding myself here but there is the feeling I could have gotten all the worthwhile shots I ever got with my Fuji f100fd without zooming, at 28mm equivalent, even if some of the pictures might have needed some cropping. Not an issue at 20 MP.

 

The main reason I was even contemplating the the likes of the Sony RX100 is that the prime lens compacts lack a focusing ring. Now that is something I very much like to have in any camera, being one of those 'autofocus is waaaay overrated' people.

 

This is where the Canon G7 X comes in, whose bright zoom promises at least a semblance of depth-of-field control at the long end, although the smallish sensor cancels out a lot of the use you get from that. But still:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-po...uiv_Ap.png

 

And that got me thinking. That trend toward those really good, large sensor compacts for which I'd have traded fingers in 2004 hopefully isn't over soon. The basic problem is here to stay (competition from cell phones). Manufacturers seem finally to be forced to make at least some niche products that make photographic sense again.