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

ray 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.

See my previous post. Grin.

On Jul 23, 12:39*am, 2SQUID <2sq...@pacific-ocean.com> 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
>
> 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?

Their cameras (like Sony's DSLRs) have always lead the pack when it
comes to resolution, and not megapixel count, real resolution.

On Jul 23, 7:56*am, "Jufi" <bow...@work.com> wrote:
> "/dev/null/" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
>
> news:g664l7$7nu$1@aioe.org...
>
>
>
> > "Rich" <rander3...@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...

Superzooms are in their own class, and that class is LOW!

Pixel counts can't be helped, it's lots or die on the marketing vine.

On Jul 23, 5:23*pm, Irwell <h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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

Probably not. Nor does it have a built-in MP3 player and phone...

On Jul 23, 7:49*pm, ransley <Mark_Rans...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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

Noise leading because they don't heap on the NR at 100 ISO like nearly
every other camera that doesn't do raw, I frigging HATE that in P&Ss,
it renders their images completely useless.

"Russell D." <rmd@sfcn.org> wrote in message
news:6enniaF7jdlnU1@mid.individual.net...
> 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.

That was my first thought too. All that money and no optical viewfinder.

So it's a nifty camera that you can't use in bright sunlight. Great.

Neil

"Don Wiss" <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote in message
news:mjud845vsr4rei55ashabp2hbmk4g3qam9@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Rich <rander3127@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
>
> Well, it appears to be the first since the Nikon 8400 to have a 24 mm
> equivalent wide angle. This camera, after it comes out, could very easily
> depress the high used prices that the Nikon 8400 gets (due to its
> desirability among real estate appraisers and the like).

Maybe. Personally I'd never swap my 8400 for one, and I'm not even a real
estate guy.

Neil

On Jul 23, 10:05*pm, Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 7:49*pm, ransley <Mark_Rans...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> Noise leading because they don't heap on the NR at 100 ISO like nearly
> every other camera that doesn't do raw, I frigging HATE that in P&Ss,
> it renders their images completely useless.

I dont know what camera you use, it must be some 35$ toy, my 2 old 5
and 7 mp sonys dont have that issue, Panasonic is known for excessive
noise and NR with all but Iso 100 being their only usable settings,
and if I remember dpreviews Panasonic reviews at Iso 100 their NR was
visable. Still if you cant get a good photo its you not understanding
a cameras optimal settings.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:05:56 -0700, Rich wrote:

> On Jul 23, 7:49Â*pm, ransley <Mark_Rans...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 23, 5:18Â*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? Â*Maybe this one will be different. Â*An f2
>> > > lens! Shades of 2001 and the Olympus C-3040!! Â*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
>
> Noise leading because they don't heap on the NR at 100 ISO like nearly
> every other camera that doesn't do raw, I frigging HATE that in P&Ss, it
> renders their images completely useless.

I generally shoot RAW with my P850.

"Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6aa7b0f8-e789-43e1-87a4-582f3620761b@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 23, 7:49 pm, ransley <Mark_Rans...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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

Noise leading because they don't heap on the NR at 100 ISO like nearly
every other camera that doesn't do raw, I frigging HATE that in P&Ss,
it renders their images completely useless.


While the noise level in my Canon A720 is a bit higher than I'd like, I
wouldn't go so far as to say the images are completely useless.

I've done some fairly severe cropping on the images of this 8meg sensor and
produced 11 X 14 pics that rival or surpass shots taken with my old Canon A2
using fine grain films.

To me, that's quite nice, not useless...

Take Care,
Dudley