First P&S that may "may" not be a piece of crap?

On 2008-07-23, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> Russell D. wrote:
>> Rich wrote:
>>> Sick of the idiocy of the ultrazoom, itty-bitty sensored junk that
>>> they sell as P&S's today? Maybe this one will be different. An f2
>>> lens! Shades of 2001 and the Olympus C-3040!! A conservative zoom
>>> range and a larger sensor.
>>>
>>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08...clx3.asp#specs
>>
>> It has no viewfinder.
>
> Scroll down for the optional rangefinder attachment.

Without coming over all Harrington, it's a viewfinder.

It is quite an interesting camera for what it is.

--
savvo orig. invib. man

In article <6enniaF7jdlnU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Russell D." <rmd@sfcn.org> wrote:

> Rich wrote:
> > Sick of the idiocy of the ultrazoom, itty-bitty sensored junk that
> > they sell as P&S's today? Maybe this one will be different. An f2
> > lens! Shades of 2001 and the Olympus C-3040!! A conservative zoom
> > range and a larger sensor.
> >
> > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08...clx3.asp#specs
>
> It has no viewfinder.

Yup. No viewfinder is a deal breaker for me. I am; however, very happy
with my Sony WSC-D200. The photos I get out of it are wonderful quality,
even in low light. The Carl Zeis lens offers spectacular clarity for a
camera that can fit in my pocket. To each his own though, but I think
some people define their existence by complaining about nit picky things.

"2SQUID" <2squid@pacific-ocean.com> wrote in message
news:g66cl8$9ot$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Rich wrote:
>> Sick of the idiocy of the ultrazoom, itty-bitty sensored junk that
>> they sell as P&S's today? Maybe this one will be different. An f2
>> lens! Shades of 2001 and the Olympus C-3040!! A conservative zoom
>> range and a larger sensor.
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08...clx3.asp#specs
>
> Panasonic don't have the sensor technology to make a decent 4/3 sensor.
> How are they going to get it right with a FF one?

A 1/1.63" sensor is now considered FF? Huh?

"/dev/null/" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:g664l7$7nu$1@aioe.org...
>
> "Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:082d1eb0-ee11-4fc1-9a71-5ca3eba840db@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> Sick of the idiocy of the ultrazoom, itty-bitty sensored junk that
>> they sell as P&S's today? Maybe this one will be different. An f2
>> lens! Shades of 2001 and the Olympus C-3040!! A conservative zoom
>> range and a larger sensor.
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08...clx3.asp#specs
>
> 1/1.63-inch CCD is still a small sensor!
>

No telephoto? Forget it. Also, I love Panny's consistency; bragging about
their new low-noise LX3 and then producing the FZ28, with 10.1MP on a
1/2.33" sensor? Right...

I'll wait for the results, but a sensor that small with that many pixels
doesn't look good.

Shawn Hirn wrote:
[]
> Yup. No viewfinder is a deal breaker for me.
[]

Shawn,

It has an optical viewfinder, but it is an add-on purchase. It has quite
large sensor for a compact zoom camera.

David

On Jul 22, 8:30*pm, Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sick of the idiocy of the ultrazoom, itty-bitty sensored junk that
> they sell as P&S's today? *Maybe this one will be different. *An f2
> lens! *Shades of 2001 and the Olympus C-3040!! *A conservative zoom
> range and a larger sensor.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08...clx3.asp#specs

They have been making P&S that are not crap for years, it the
photographer that matters.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:15:18 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

> Shawn Hirn wrote:
> []
>> Yup. No viewfinder is a deal breaker for me.
> []
>
> Shawn,
>
> It has an optical viewfinder, but it is an add-on purchase. It has quite
> large sensor for a compact zoom camera.
>
> David

Is the add-on viewfinder coupled to the camera's electronics?
--


---
7/23/2008 2:23:21 PM

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:30:15 -0700, Rich wrote:

> Sick of the idiocy of the ultrazoom, itty-bitty sensored junk that they
> sell as P&S's today? Maybe this one will be different. An f2 lens!
> Shades of 2001 and the Olympus C-3040!! A conservative zoom range and a
> larger sensor.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08...clx3.asp#specs

IMHO - this post is B.S. I have a Kodak P850 - a P&S with long zoom which
I do not consider "a piece of crap". I do quite well with it thank you.

On Jul 23, 5:18*pm, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:30:15 -0700, Rich wrote:
> > Sick of the idiocy of the ultrazoom, itty-bitty sensored junk that they
> > sell as P&S's today? *Maybe this one will be different. *An f2 lens!
> > Shades of 2001 and the Olympus C-3040!! *A conservative zoom range and a
> > larger sensor.
>
> >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08...clx3.asp#specs
>
> IMHO - this post is B.S. I have a Kodak P850 - a P&S with long zoom which
> I do not consider "a piece of crap". I do quite well with it thank you.

And knowing Panasonics noise leading slow as molases sensors I would
not wait in line for this one. But this guy just doesnt know how to
use a camera to get its full potential.

ransley wrote:
> On Jul 22, 8:30 pm, Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sick of the idiocy of the ultrazoom, itty-bitty sensored junk that
>> they sell as P&S's today? Maybe this one will be different. An f2
>> lens! Shades of 2001 and the Olympus C-3040!! A conservative zoom
>> range and a larger sensor.
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08...clx3.asp#specs
>
> They have been making P&S that are not crap for years, it the
> photographer that matters.

The theory is that a good photographer can make good pictures, even with
lousy equipment, but a lousy photographer can make lousy pictures, even
with great equipment.