"Instead of lugging around a DSLR camera and a stack of lenses, you can stick a massive zoom onto a camera that’s a little smaller than your average DSLR and simply carry that around."
Because doing that will give you comparable picture quality as buying the DSLR and the lenses, right? They've managed to make just one, cheap, lens which is not only practically free of distortion and chromatic aberration, it's also incredibly sharp and super fast, meaning that the amazing AF sensor has to do little work.
I'll take two, plus whatever the reviewer's smoking.
"Because doing that will give you comparable picture quality as buying the DSLR and the lenses, right?"
Uh, no.
There's a very good reason why the Canon 1Ds MkIII body only costs $7k. And why the professionals stay the hell away from superzoom lenses.
And it's not free of distortion or chromatic aberration, read the review and look at the pics. It's also not particularly sharp, and the reviewer commented specifically on a sluggish response.
First, it is no big leap in portability compared with a DSLR like the D40, just to stay with Nikon, apparently.
Second, the quality of the shots presented here is dubious... The crops seemed a little soft (not sharp) and many of them noisy too. If the captions had the ISO and zoom level in them it might help us figure out why...
Nobody with any experience of taking good quality photos would ever specify a camera like this. It is riddled with compromises - the sensor is too small and the zoom range is too big.
I have a 300mm (450mm equivalent) zoom on my APS-C SLR camera and have a job getting steady shots with that. You have to have a tripod. At 624mm you would need to cement it into the foundations to get a steady shot.
With this camera you end up paying twice for each "feature". You pay extra to have a 12MP sensor but it's so small you have to pay extra for the all the noise reduction tech that blurs out much of the detail that is "captured" by the high resolution sensor.
I defy anyone to get a decent shot at the maximum zoom without spending more on the tripod than the camera itself cost.
This is a camera designed by a marketing department not a photographer.
I pity anyone who wastes their money on this device.
Do things ever get <50% these days? If not, we must assume 50% as the new zero, meaning this camera comes in at what, 30%? Sounds round about right from the pictures.
Alex said "I have a 300mm (450mm equivalent) zoom on my APS-C SLR camera and have a job getting steady shots with that. You have to have a tripod."
Thankfully, Nikon are now quite good at vibration-reduction - it's the really big advance in lens technology in the last decade, you no longer need to hold the camera still. One of the pictures in the article is taken hand-held at 624mm equivalent and looks pretty sharp; even the pocket Canon camera I have can take sharp macro shots of coins in poorly-lit museums with a quarter-second exposure.
here I have a good place that is Tradestead there are many kinds of beautiful and powerful consumer electronics with very cheap price that I like it very much!
Canon EOS Rebel T1i Black SLR Digital Camera Kit w/ 18-55mm Lens (15.1MP, SD/SDHC Card Slot)
Nikon D90 Black SLR Digital Camera Kit (12.3MP, 18-105mm, 4288x2848, SD/SDHC Card Slot)
Nikon D3000 SLR Digital Camera Kit w/ 18-55mm Lens (10.2MP, 3x Opt, SDHC Card Slot)
Canon EOS Rebel XSi Black SLR Digital Camera Kit (12.2MP, 4272x2848, SD/SDHC Card Slot)
Canon PowerShot SD1200 IS Grey Digital Camera (10MP, 3x Opt, MMC/MMCplus/SD/SDHC Card Slot)
Nikon Coolpix P90 bridge camera
Rik Hemsley
Do what? #
Posted Friday 1st May 2009 16:51 GMT
"Instead of lugging around a DSLR camera and a stack of lenses, you can stick a massive zoom onto a camera that’s a little smaller than your average DSLR and simply carry that around."
Because doing that will give you comparable picture quality as buying the DSLR and the lenses, right? They've managed to make just one, cheap, lens which is not only practically free of distortion and chromatic aberration, it's also incredibly sharp and super fast, meaning that the amazing AF sensor has to do little work.
I'll take two, plus whatever the reviewer's smoking.
Daniel
@Rik #
Posted Friday 1st May 2009 19:27 GMT
"Because doing that will give you comparable picture quality as buying the DSLR and the lenses, right?"
Uh, no.
There's a very good reason why the Canon 1Ds MkIII body only costs $7k. And why the professionals stay the hell away from superzoom lenses.
And it's not free of distortion or chromatic aberration, read the review and look at the pics. It's also not particularly sharp, and the reviewer commented specifically on a sluggish response.
Apart from that your comment was spot on.
Ah dangnit, I think I just fed the troll.
J
Not worth it... #
Posted Friday 1st May 2009 20:07 GMT
I suspect this camera is not worth the price.
First, it is no big leap in portability compared with a DSLR like the D40, just to stay with Nikon, apparently.
Second, the quality of the shots presented here is dubious... The crops seemed a little soft (not sharp) and many of them noisy too. If the captions had the ISO and zoom level in them it might help us figure out why...
Alex
Pointless waste of money. #
Posted Friday 1st May 2009 22:29 GMT
Nobody with any experience of taking good quality photos would ever specify a camera like this. It is riddled with compromises - the sensor is too small and the zoom range is too big.
I have a 300mm (450mm equivalent) zoom on my APS-C SLR camera and have a job getting steady shots with that. You have to have a tripod. At 624mm you would need to cement it into the foundations to get a steady shot.
With this camera you end up paying twice for each "feature". You pay extra to have a 12MP sensor but it's so small you have to pay extra for the all the noise reduction tech that blurs out much of the detail that is "captured" by the high resolution sensor.
I defy anyone to get a decent shot at the maximum zoom without spending more on the tripod than the camera itself cost.
This is a camera designed by a marketing department not a photographer.
I pity anyone who wastes their money on this device.
Bad Beaver
65%, what does it actually mean? #
Posted Sunday 3rd May 2009 09:40 GMT
Do things ever get <50% these days? If not, we must assume 50% as the new zero, meaning this camera comes in at what, 30%? Sounds round about right from the pictures.
Dex
P90 #
Posted Sunday 3rd May 2009 09:40 GMT
Does it strip down into 3 parts for easy cleaning? where's the 50 rounds of 5.7mm kept? a P90 remodelled for the toruist/terrorist market? i'll take 2
Tom Womack
Image stabilisation FTW #
Posted Sunday 3rd May 2009 18:22 GMT
Alex said "I have a 300mm (450mm equivalent) zoom on my APS-C SLR camera and have a job getting steady shots with that. You have to have a tripod."
Thankfully, Nikon are now quite good at vibration-reduction - it's the really big advance in lens technology in the last decade, you no longer need to hold the camera still. One of the pictures in the article is taken hand-held at 624mm equivalent and looks pretty sharp; even the pocket Canon camera I have can take sharp macro shots of coins in poorly-lit museums with a quarter-second exposure.
anndy
very beautiful #
Posted Thursday 7th May 2009 09:53 GMT
this camera looks very beautiful , I l ike it !
here I have a good place that is Tradestead there are many kinds of beautiful and powerful consumer electronics with very cheap price that I like it very much!