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?

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.

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?

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.