«

"David J Taylor" <david-> wrote in message
news:i2uuv3$brv$...
>
> "infiniteMPG" <> wrote in message
> news:4b4c13e2-34bf-4918-86d0-...
> []
>> Comments and suggestions welcome, criticisms accepted, too :O)
>>
>> Thanks!
>
> Fuji FinePix HS10 - not a DSLR, so off-topic for this group.
>
> Cheers,
> David

Of course, you might find a helpful response in rec.photo.digital to where
the follow-up is set.

HTH
Richard

"infiniteMPG" <> wrote in message
news:5bf872b8-4c3a-48f2-97b9-...
[]
> Was kind of looking at this as trying to get the opinions of "other"
> DSLR users about possibly switching to a super-zoom since they are
> progressing and advancing. Thinking that someone might post some AH-
> HA piece of advice or information that might change my mind.
[]
> I didn't see it a problem trying to get some opinions from DSLR users
> in here.... :O/

I have a DSLR and there is now way I would want to revert to a super-zoom
for routine photography, with its slow operation, poor viewfinder, lack of
lens flexibility, lack of high-ISO performance etc. I do have a compact
super-zoom (Panasonic TZ3) which I use when it's the best tool for the
job. Look through the viewfinder compared with that of a DSLR. See how
long it takes to zoom from one end to the other (compared with twisting
the zoom on a typical DSLR lens). See how quick the camera is in
operation.

If you feel you can take those hits, and the lighter weight and smaller
size are that important to you, then switch.

Cheers,
David

On Jul 30, 12:44*pm, "Richard" <smith...@btinternet.com.invalid>
wrote:
> "David J Taylor" <david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in messagenews:i2uuv3$brv$...
>
>
>
> > "infiniteMPG" <57clas...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:4b4c13e2-34bf-4918-86d0-...
> > []
> >> Comments and suggestions welcome, criticisms accepted, too *:O)
>
> >> Thanks!
>
> > Fuji FinePix HS10 - not a DSLR, so off-topic for this group.
>
> > Cheers,
> > David
>
> Of course, you might find a helpful response in rec.photo.digital to where
> the follow-up is set.
>
> HTH
> Richard

$499 for a P&S with a 1/2.3" sensor? Why?

"Rich" <> wrote in message
news:e7237da8-2ac5-41c0-a197-...

> $499 for a P&S with a 1/2.3" sensor? Why?

High speed video, for a start. *Really* high speed.
10 fps stills, for another.
Auto-panoramas, for another.

But - I'm not being supercilious, cynical or dismissive, so I doubt my post
will be considered.

--
Jeff R.

On Jul 30, 9:11*pm, "Jeff R." <cont...@this.ng> wrote:
> "Rich" <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e7237da8-2ac5-41c0-a197-...
>
> > $499 for a P&S with a 1/2.3" sensor? *Why?
>
> High speed video, for a start. **Really* high speed.
> 10 fps stills, for another.
> Auto-panoramas, for another.

Toys. Gimmicks. Like 3D.

"Rich" <> wrote in message
news:697f18d7-c560-439a-bafb-...
On Jul 30, 9:11 pm, "Jeff R." <cont...@this.ng> wrote:
> "Rich" <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e7237da8-2ac5-41c0-a197-...
>
> > $499 for a P&S with a 1/2.3" sensor? Why?
>
> High speed video, for a start. *Really* high speed.
> 10 fps stills, for another.
> Auto-panoramas, for another.

> Toys. Gimmicks. Like 3D.

For you perhaps. (You can't conceive of a valid use for high speed video?)
There are other opinions, and they are equally valid.

I don't like and don't watch "reality" TV shows. That doesn't mean they
MUST NOT be broadcast.
Does it?

--
Jeff R.