I finally figures out what Nikon's new 1 cameras remind me of

The V really reminds me of Kodak's Instamatic Reflex. Even the concept
is the same: give P&S users a step-up camera. But, like the Instamatic
Reflex, the 1 series may never provide the benefits of a "real" camera.
The Instamatic Reflex had the training wheels bolted on.

That said, I like the 1 series cameras, but I wonder who will buy them?
If they're aimed at P&S users looking to step up, why would they spend
that much and NOT get an SLR? Maybe if the price was about 35% lower it
would make sense, but at these levels?

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:02:45 -0400, Bowser wrote:
: The V really reminds me of Kodak's Instamatic Reflex. Even the concept
: is the same: give P&S users a step-up camera. But, like the Instamatic
: Reflex, the 1 series may never provide the benefits of a "real" camera.
: The Instamatic Reflex had the training wheels bolted on.
:
: That said, I like the 1 series cameras, but I wonder who will buy them?
: If they're aimed at P&S users looking to step up, why would they spend
: that much and NOT get an SLR? Maybe if the price was about 35% lower it
: would make sense, but at these levels?

Maybe the market consists of those who insist on being as unobtrusive as
possible or who can't or won't carry anything heavier. I was out at Porter
Square this afternoon, lugging my huge Domke bag and flexing my trigger finger
to ring in the fall Web photography season, and I could see that everyone
around me was watching and wondering what the hell I was up to.

And there's my wife, who refuses to own any camera heavier than a Canon Rebel
and has to be persuaded to carry an external flash or a telephoto lens. If she
weren't married to a DSLR zealot, she might well see a mirrorless or pellicle
camera as a step upwards at a minimal increase (or even a decrease) in weight.

I think the bottom line is that Nikon's line may succeed in spite of itself,
and the degree of that success could surprise us all. Beyond that, it's hard
not to believe that as computing power continues to follow (or exceed) Moore's
Law, both the mirror and the mechanical shutter are doomed in the long run.

Bob

Bowser writes:

That said, I like the 1 series cameras, but I wonder who will buy
them? If they're aimed at P&S users looking to step up, why would they
spend that much and NOT get an SLR? Maybe if the price was about 35%
lower it would make sense, but at these levels?

Because they're afraid of DSLRs.

Because they don't want the size/weight of DSLRs.

Because they see value in the high frame rates and "best shot" mode.

Because they value the quiet operation.

I'm probably missing some, too; but there's quite a set of valid
reasons. If it weren't so new (i.e. if my information on it included a
lot more from people actually using it) it might well be what I
recommended instead to the last person I recommended buy a DSLR (he was
annoyed beyond bounds by the slow response of his P&S trying to get
pictures of his children, a not-uncommon interest of non-enthusiast
photographers).

On 9/27/2011 1:53 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
writes:

That said, I like the 1 series cameras, but I wonder who will buy
them? If they're aimed at P&S users looking to step up, why would they
spend that much and NOT get an SLR? Maybe if the price was about 35%
lower it would make sense, but at these levels?

Because they're afraid of DSLRs.

Because they don't want the size/weight of DSLRs.

Because they see value in the high frame rates and "best shot" mode.

Because they value the quiet operation.

I'm probably missing some, too; but there's quite a set of valid
reasons. If it weren't so new (i.e. if my information on it included a
lot more from people actually using it) it might well be what I
recommended instead to the last person I recommended buy a DSLR (he was
annoyed beyond bounds by the slow response of his P&S trying to get
pictures of his children, a not-uncommon interest of non-enthusiast
photographers).

I guess we'll see how it sells, but Nikon sure priced it high for a P&S
step up cam.

On 9/28/2011 6:52 AM, Bowser wrote:
On 9/27/2011 1:53 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
writes:

That said, I like the 1 series cameras, but I wonder who will buy
them? If they're aimed at P&S users looking to step up, why would they
spend that much and NOT get an SLR? Maybe if the price was about 35%
lower it would make sense, but at these levels?

Because they're afraid of DSLRs.

Because they don't want the size/weight of DSLRs.

Because they see value in the high frame rates and "best shot" mode.

Because they value the quiet operation.

I'm probably missing some, too; but there's quite a set of valid
reasons. If it weren't so new (i.e. if my information on it included a
lot more from people actually using it) it might well be what I
recommended instead to the last person I recommended buy a DSLR (he was
annoyed beyond bounds by the slow response of his P&S trying to get
pictures of his children, a not-uncommon interest of non-enthusiast
photographers).

I guess we'll see how it sells, but Nikon sure priced it high for a P&S
step up cam.

The market will determine the street price.

--
Peter

In article , Bruce
wrote:

We teach users to prefocus with a half press of the shutter release,
wait for the subject to reach the prefocused distance and shoot. The
success rate is surprisingly high. It also makes people think about
what they are shooting, rather than just snap away at random, so the
images are often very good. Small focusing errors don't matter
because of the huge depth of field offered by the small sensor.

that helps with shutter lag on compacts.

A problem with using a DSLR to shoot children is that the larger
sensor means much more limited depth of field. This places a much
greater demand on the AF system. Unfortunately, the continuous AF
modes of entry-level DSLRs can leave a lot to be desired. The result
is that sharply focused images can be an elusive goal for DSLR users.

teach them to use a smaller f/stop for deeper depth of field.

In article , Bruce
wrote:

A problem with using a DSLR to shoot children is that the larger
sensor means much more limited depth of field. This places a much
greater demand on the AF system. Unfortunately, the continuous AF
modes of entry-level DSLRs can leave a lot to be desired. The result
is that sharply focused images can be an elusive goal for DSLR users.

teach them to use a smaller f/stop for deeper depth of field.

At the same time as teaching them to use a fast shutter speed to
freeze motion? If they then crank up the ISO, they will complain
about noisy images. ;-)

it'll match the p&s compact. there is no difference in depth of field
for the same image quality.

On 9/28/2011 1:13 PM, Bruce wrote:
wrote:

In , Bruce
wrote:

A problem with using a DSLR to shoot children is that the larger
sensor means much more limited depth of field. This places a much
greater demand on the AF system. Unfortunately, the continuous AF
modes of entry-level DSLRs can leave a lot to be desired. The result
is that sharply focused images can be an elusive goal for DSLR users.

teach them to use a smaller f/stop for deeper depth of field.

At the same time as teaching them to use a fast shutter speed to
freeze motion? If they then crank up the ISO, they will complain
about noisy images. ;-)

it'll match the p&s compact. there is no difference in depth of field
for the same image quality.


True, but we aren't talking about the same people. One owns a p+s and
not a DSLR, and the other bought a DSLR for reasons of better image
quality and wouldn't be seen dead using a p+s. ;-)



What a snobby thing to say. Many excellent amateur and Professional
photographers who use DSLRs, will also use a P&S when they prefer not to
carry a heavier camera.

--
Peter

"Bruce" wrote in message
news
We teach users to prefocus with a half press of the shutter release,
wait for the subject to reach the prefocused distance and shoot. The
success rate is surprisingly high. It also makes people think about
what they are shooting, rather than just snap away at random, so the
images are often very good. Small focusing errors don't matter
because of the huge depth of field offered by the small sensor.

A problem with using a DSLR to shoot children is that the larger
sensor means much more limited depth of field. This places a much
greater demand on the AF system. Unfortunately, the continuous AF
modes of entry-level DSLRs can leave a lot to be desired. The result
is that sharply focused images can be an elusive goal for DSLR users.

Why do you think the same "half press prefocus" does not work for DSLR
users? And why they can't use smaller apertures if they want more latitude
to focusing error?
The ability of most DSLR's to produce far better pictures at far higher ISO
means you can easily use smaller apertures if you want the same depth of
field as those POS cameras.
Not having the ability to throw backgrounds out of focus is often what makes
those toy camera portraits less than satisfying though.

Trevor.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
teach them to use a smaller f/stop for deeper depth of field.


At the same time as teaching them to use a fast shutter speed to
freeze motion? If they then crank up the ISO, they will complain
about noisy images. ;-)

Not when they compare a good DSLR pic to the POS pics. The ISO could be at
least 4 stops higher for similar noise levels in most cases, often far more
than that!

Trevor.