Looks really nice! "large" sensor, great zoom range, just a little heavy. If
it only had IR...
"Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8209cecf-3b17-4271-92c2-272d4ae262fb@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> 2/3rd sensor. Are the "good old days" back for P&S??
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08...ujifS100FS.asp
I don't understand the appeal. The advantage of most point and shoots
is that they can be carried in a pocket or purse and can be taken
where photographic opportunities are not planned, but might come up.
I have one in my car at all times "just in case".
The advantage of a dslr is that, in the hands of a competent
photographer, they can produce better pictures than a P&S and that
special purpose lenses can be used when needed.
The new Fuji may take better pictures, in the hands of a competent
photographer, than other P&Ss, but it's as bulky as a dslr. The
convenience factor is lost without the gain of lens
interchangeability.
If I'm going to carry a carry so bulky that it can't be carried in my
pocket, I'm going to carry a dslr. If I'm going to keep a camera in
my car for the "just in case" opportunities, I want one small enough
to be concealed so it doesn't tempt thieves.
Perhaps the Fuji will be priced enough below a dslr to make buying a
better P&S feasible for some, but it seems to be a false economy to
me.
On Jan 24, 11:45 am, "David J Taylor" <david-tay...@blueyonder.neither-
this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
> Kinon O'Cann wrote:
> > Looks really nice! "large" sensor, great zoom range, just a little
> > heavy. If it only had IR...
>
> It weighs rather more than a DSLR and kit lens (such as the Nikon D40 and
> 18-55mm)...
>
> David
Or the Olympus E410. But it likely has nearly the control features of
a DSLR and the lens is fixed, which at least removes some of the risk
of dust contamination. My point would hinge on the re-implementation
of the larger sensor, something that has been missing from the P&S
category since the Samsung 815 left production.
Rich wrote:
[]
> Or the Olympus E410. But it likely has nearly the control features of
> a DSLR and the lens is fixed, which at least removes some of the risk
> of dust contamination. My point would hinge on the re-implementation
> of the larger sensor, something that has been missing from the P&S
> category since the Samsung 815 left production.
With 11MP, I rather doubt it. The previous 2/3-inch sensors with just 8MP
were emergency-use-only at ISO 400. This camera claims ISO 6400 at 6MP.
Let's see the images to prove just how usable that actually is.
Rather like the Sony DSC-R1 (albeit at a different focal length range),
using a larger sensor with a long zoom results in a camera which is bigger
and heavier (and maybe more expensive) than a DSLR but lacking its
versatility. Yes, perhaps there are a few extremely dusty environments
where the more sealed (but not completely sealed) assembly may help, but I
suspect that people buying it for any improved image quality it /may/ have
would be better served by the significantly better image quality of a
DSLR. Those wanting a superzoom camera may be better served by more
compact models other than this.
Having said all that, I do welcome moves towards better image quality in
small-sensor cameras, and if previous reports are to be believed (and I
remain unconvinced), Fuji may the manufacturer to produce those
improvements.
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:40:21 -0500, tony cooper wrote:
> I don't understand the appeal. The advantage of most point and shoots
> is that they can be carried in a pocket or purse and can be taken where
> photographic opportunities are not planned, but might come up. I have
> one in my car at all times "just in case".
>
> The advantage of a dslr is that, in the hands of a competent
> photographer, they can produce better pictures than a P&S and that
> special purpose lenses can be used when needed.
>
> The new Fuji may take better pictures, in the hands of a competent
> photographer, than other P&Ss, but it's as bulky as a dslr. The
> convenience factor is lost without the gain of lens interchangeability.
Agree completely. This Fuji weighs 800g, and costs $800.
For $586 I got my Pentax K10D DSLR with a kit lens, and for another $140 I
got a cheap but well-reviewed Tamron 70-300mm zoom lens. Now I have
18-300mm range (17X zoom), unlimited continuous shooting, a reflex
viewfinder, and enormous options for high-quality optics upgrades. It
weighs about 1400g with both lenses and batteries, but there are other
DSLRs that are lighter.
Above all, the sensor of the Fuji is still much smaller than a DSLR... it
has a crop factor of 3.93, while a Nikon or Pentax DSLR with an APS-C
sensor has a crop factor of 1.52. That means that, for an equal megapixel
resolution, there's going to be about 2.5X more noise in the Fuji.
(Detailed analysis here: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/
digital.sensor.performance.summary/index.html)
David J Taylor wrote:
> Rich wrote:
> []
>> Or the Olympus E410. But it likely has nearly the control features of
>> a DSLR and the lens is fixed, which at least removes some of the risk
>> of dust contamination. My point would hinge on the re-implementation
>> of the larger sensor, something that has been missing from the P&S
>> category since the Samsung 815 left production.
>
> With 11MP, I rather doubt it. The previous 2/3-inch sensors with just 8MP
> were emergency-use-only at ISO 400. This camera claims ISO 6400 at 6MP.
> Let's see the images to prove just how usable that actually is.
>
> Rather like the Sony DSC-R1 (albeit at a different focal length range),
> using a larger sensor with a long zoom results in a camera which is bigger
> and heavier (and maybe more expensive) than a DSLR but lacking its
> versatility. Yes, perhaps there are a few extremely dusty environments
> where the more sealed (but not completely sealed) assembly may help, but I
> suspect that people buying it for any improved image quality it /may/ have
> would be better served by the significantly better image quality of a
> DSLR. Those wanting a superzoom camera may be better served by more
> compact models other than this.
>
> Having said all that, I do welcome moves towards better image quality in
> small-sensor cameras, and if previous reports are to be believed (and I
> remain unconvinced), Fuji may the manufacturer to produce those
> improvements.
>
> David
>
>
Let's hope for some sample images on dpreview so we can judge for
ourselves whether this thing is any better than its predecessors or not.
Ron
On Jan 24, 12:59 pm, "David J Taylor" <david-tay...@blueyonder.neither-
this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
> Rich wrote:
>
> []
>
> > Or the Olympus E410. But it likely has nearly the control features of
> > a DSLR and the lens is fixed, which at least removes some of the risk
> > of dust contamination. My point would hinge on the re-implementation
> > of the larger sensor, something that has been missing from the P&S
> > category since the Samsung 815 left production.
>
> With 11MP, I rather doubt it. The previous 2/3-inch sensors with just 8MP
> were emergency-use-only at ISO 400. This camera claims ISO 6400 at 6MP.
> Let's see the images to prove just how usable that actually is.
Maybe the audience who uses them likes that "shot through jello" look
those shots will have?
Finally, a decent P&S?? 
Linear Mode
