Here's another instance when I was at the same location with two cameras, and it's always interesting to make comparisons, isn't it? This time, my Trip 35 ($30 from Ebay) is up against my EOS 7D and the EF 40mm STM "Pancake" lens (total somewhere around $1500 brand new.)
To see what I mean, compare the foregrounds of the first and third image. Doesn't the first picture give the impression that you can walk right into it so much more than the third (or second) one? I've been ranting about this since way back here. I know that one single comparison proves nothing, especially with lenses of such different focal lengths, but collectively, from my own limited experience, and also from looking a thousands of pictures by other people, it appears true to me - the SLR camera has a big design flaw that has never been dealt with. So why did I just buy one not too long ago? It's because I need a magnificent optical viewfinder... it's like I buy a viewfinder that happens to take pictures too. Most premium digital compacts are going the route of eliminating the OVF, leaving us to compose with the rear LCD screen and (maybe) an optional Electronic Viewfinder (EVF). Why is this so difficult? It was accomplished almost a century ago with compact film cameras! In fact, my Trip 35 has an amazing viewfinder. I'm still waiting for the right camera to come along - if the Leica M Digital were $1000 instead of $10,000 that might do it for me.
But we all know that'll never happen!