If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Finally a bridge camera with a 2/3" sensor
On 27/11/2011 5:03 a.m., RichA wrote:
I say finally since it's been some time since any bridge camera sported one, years in fact. The others have little in the way of zooms on them, including Fuji's new X10 which is kind of a faux rangefinder or a pocket camera with an optical viewfinder. Of course we know the lens will suffer from all kinds of aberrations typically found on only the worst DSLR lenses, but if at the long end all you want is centre of the field for some animal or bird, this camera could potentially turn out some good low ISO shots. How it focuses, etc., remains to be seen. http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/11/24/fujifilmxs1 Weren't you posting all sorts of negative comments about Nikon's new small sensor (compared to dslrs) ILC cameras? So what makes this camera so potentially good, when you think the Nikons are so bad? Does having the possibility to change lenses make a "bridge" camera inferior in some way? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Finally a bridge camera with a 2/3" sensor
On 28/11/2011 5:30 a.m., RichA wrote:
On Nov 27, 12:16 am, wrote: On 27/11/2011 5:03 a.m., RichA wrote: I say finally since it's been some time since any bridge camera sported one, years in fact. The others have little in the way of zooms on them, including Fuji's new X10 which is kind of a faux rangefinder or a pocket camera with an optical viewfinder. Of course we know the lens will suffer from all kinds of aberrations typically found on only the worst DSLR lenses, but if at the long end all you want is centre of the field for some animal or bird, this camera could potentially turn out some good low ISO shots. How it focuses, etc., remains to be seen. http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/11/24/fujifilmxs1 Weren't you posting all sorts of negative comments about Nikon's new small sensor (compared to dslrs) ILC cameras? So what makes this camera so potentially good, when you think the Nikons are so bad? Does having the possibility to change lenses make a "bridge" camera inferior in some way? From what I've seen, the Nikon is not as good as current interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras like the m4/3rds and APS cameras. snip Superzoom's three major weak points have been: -Poor image quality due to small, cheap sensors. -Poor AF in-terms of speed. -Poor lens quality in-terms of aberration control. The sensor should take care of providing decent, low ISO images, provided the lens isn't awful. So, from what I've seen, the small nikon IL system /nails/ the "weak points" that you claim to have identified in "superzooms". IQ at lower ISO/RAW seems excellent. AF is fast - extremely so in good/normal lighting. Lens quality is pretty good, and interchangeable. It's also (system) only about the size of a superzoom. But according to your posts on the subject, despite having more in common (format/size) with (at least high end) "bridge" cameras, the Nikon is a POS, as you compare it only on sensor performance with larger sensor IL cameras with a lineage from dslrs. Then a non-interchangeable lens "superzoom" of similar format comes along with a sensor which might or might not be as good as the Nikon "1" system, you seem quite happy to accept the flaws which you've listed - and will probably come with such a camera. It's very irrational reasoning, and smacks of emotional interference. So you were "disappointed" that Nikon's "1" system didn't meet your wishes, and you got angry with Nikon. I think you're stuck in a measurebating paradigm where you seem to need to put things in boxes, then compare boxes with each other, rather than assessing something against functional requirements a user may have. When something appears which doesn't fit in to one of your little boxes, you spit the dummy. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Finally a bridge camera with a 2/3" sensor
Me wrote in :
On 28/11/2011 5:30 a.m., RichA wrote: On Nov 27, 12:16 am, wrote: On 27/11/2011 5:03 a.m., RichA wrote: I say finally since it's been some time since any bridge camera sported one, years in fact. The others have little in the way of zooms on them, including Fuji's new X10 which is kind of a faux rangefinder or a pocket camera with an optical viewfinder. Of course we know the lens will suffer from all kinds of aberrations typically found on only the worst DSLR lenses, but if at the long end all you want is centre of the field for some animal or bird, this camera could potentially turn out some good low ISO shots. How it focuses, etc., remains to be seen. http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/11/24/fujifilmxs1 Weren't you posting all sorts of negative comments about Nikon's new small sensor (compared to dslrs) ILC cameras? So what makes this camera so potentially good, when you think the Nikons are so bad? Does having the possibility to change lenses make a "bridge" camera inferior in some way? From what I've seen, the Nikon is not as good as current interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras like the m4/3rds and APS cameras. snip Superzoom's three major weak points have been: -Poor image quality due to small, cheap sensors. -Poor AF in-terms of speed. -Poor lens quality in-terms of aberration control. The sensor should take care of providing decent, low ISO images, provided the lens isn't awful. So, from what I've seen, the small nikon IL system /nails/ the "weak points" that you claim to have identified in "superzooms". IQ at lower ISO/RAW seems excellent. AF is fast - extremely so in good/normal lighting. Lens quality is pretty good, and interchangeable. It's also (system) only about the size of a superzoom. But according to your posts on the subject, despite having more in common (format/size) with (at least high end) "bridge" cameras, the Nikon is a POS, Do shades of grey elude you? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Finally a bridge camera with a 2/3" sensor
On 28/11/2011 1:31 p.m., Rich wrote:
wrote in : On 28/11/2011 5:30 a.m., RichA wrote: On Nov 27, 12:16 am, wrote: On 27/11/2011 5:03 a.m., RichA wrote: I say finally since it's been some time since any bridge camera sported one, years in fact. The others have little in the way of zooms on them, including Fuji's new X10 which is kind of a faux rangefinder or a pocket camera with an optical viewfinder. Of course we know the lens will suffer from all kinds of aberrations typically found on only the worst DSLR lenses, but if at the long end all you want is centre of the field for some animal or bird, this camera could potentially turn out some good low ISO shots. How it focuses, etc., remains to be seen. http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/11/24/fujifilmxs1 Weren't you posting all sorts of negative comments about Nikon's new small sensor (compared to dslrs) ILC cameras? So what makes this camera so potentially good, when you think the Nikons are so bad? Does having the possibility to change lenses make a "bridge" camera inferior in some way? From what I've seen, the Nikon is not as good as current interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras like the m4/3rds and APS cameras.snip Superzoom's three major weak points have been: -Poor image quality due to small, cheap sensors. -Poor AF in-terms of speed. -Poor lens quality in-terms of aberration control. The sensor should take care of providing decent, low ISO images, provided the lens isn't awful. So, from what I've seen, the small nikon IL system /nails/ the "weak points" that you claim to have identified in "superzooms". IQ at lower ISO/RAW seems excellent. AF is fast - extremely so in good/normal lighting. Lens quality is pretty good, and interchangeable. It's also (system) only about the size of a superzoom. But according to your posts on the subject, despite having more in common (format/size) with (at least high end) "bridge" cameras, the Nikon is a POS, snip restored ....as you compare it only on sensor performance with larger sensor IL cameras with a lineage from dslrs. Then a non-interchangeable lens "superzoom" of similar format comes along with a sensor which might or might not be as good as the Nikon "1" system, you seem quite happy to accept the flaws which you've listed - and will probably come with such a camera. It's very irrational reasoning, and smacks of emotional interference. So you were "disappointed" that Nikon's "1" system didn't meet your wishes, and you got angry with Nikon. I think you're stuck in a measurebating paradigm where you seem to need to put things in boxes, then compare boxes with each other, rather than assessing something against functional requirements a user may have. When something appears which doesn't fit in to one of your little boxes, you spit the dummy. Do shades of grey elude you? A rational response clearly eludes you. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Finally a bridge camera with a 2/3" sensor | Rich[_6_] | Digital Photography | 0 | November 27th 11 04:25 AM |
Nov Foveon wants the..."pill" camera sensor market.....no jokes! | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | November 17th 07 06:02 PM |
Finally! Glass film holders for the 8000/9000 at B&H are "in stock" | Alan Browne | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 0 | May 1st 07 02:07 AM |