«

To their preview for this new Nikon. High-end compacts of years ago
didn't have TINY sensors, they had 2/3" sensors considerably larger
than the ones in any compact now. Had they kept up with the same
sensors, with new technology and processing, they might have had
something. As it is, compacts are still lame compared to ANY DSLR,
including units that are CHEAPER than the overpriced compacts in
question.

http://dpreview.com/previews/nikonp7000/

On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 20:26:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote:

> To their preview for this new Nikon. High-end compacts of years ago
> didn't have TINY sensors, they had 2/3" sensors considerably larger
> than the ones in any compact now. Had they kept up with the same
> sensors, with new technology and processing, they might have had
> something. As it is, compacts are still lame compared to ANY DSLR,
> including units that are CHEAPER than the overpriced compacts in
> question.
>
> http://dpreview.com/previews/nikonp7000/

Is this what you had in mind.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/9903/99031802olyslr.asp

On Sep 9, 11:53*am, Irwell <h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 20:26:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote:
> > To their preview for this new Nikon. *High-end compacts of years ago
> > didn't have TINY sensors, they had 2/3" sensors considerably larger
> > than the ones in any compact now. *Had they kept up with the same
> > sensors, with new technology and processing, they might have had
> > something. *As it is, compacts are still lame compared to ANY DSLR,
> > including units that are CHEAPER than the overpriced compacts in
> > question.
>
> >http://dpreview.com/previews/nikonp7000/
>
> Is this what you had in mind.http://www.dpreview.com/news/9903/99031802olyslr.asp

This is the finest P&S (apart from Sony's R1) ever made with the 2/3"
sensor. It's low ISO images were terrific (though lacking in DR in
some situations) because it had an amazing lens. Had they kept this
quality, you'd have an 8 megapixel, 2/3" sensored camera with modern
processing. Problem was, this camera was almost $1000 when it came
out owing to its build and lens quality so DSLRs still win.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/spec...ly_c8080wz.asp

RichA <> wrote:
>This is the finest P&S (apart from Sony's R1) ever made with the 2/3"
>sensor. It's low ISO images were terrific (though lacking in DR in
>some situations) because it had an amazing lens. Had they kept this
>quality, you'd have an 8 megapixel, 2/3" sensored camera with modern
>processing. Problem was, this camera was almost $1000 when it came
>out owing to its build and lens quality so DSLRs still win.
>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/spec...ly_c8080wz.asp


But the Sony DSC-R1 had an almost APS-C size sensor!

Olympus C8080WZ sensor size: 8.80 x 6.60 mm
Sony DSC-R1 sensor size: 21.5 x 14.4 mm
Olympus sensor area: 0.58 cm2
Sony sensor area: 3.09 cm2.

The Sony R1 sensor is 5.33 times the size of the Olympus sensor.

Perhaps you were thinking of the Sony DSC-F828, which had the same
size sensor as the Olympus C8080WZ? Of course both these cameras had
*very noisy* sensors.

On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 08:53:20 -0700, Irwell <> wrote:

>On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 20:26:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote:
>
>> To their preview for this new Nikon. High-end compacts of years ago
>> didn't have TINY sensors, they had 2/3" sensors considerably larger
>> than the ones in any compact now. Had they kept up with the same
>> sensors, with new technology and processing, they might have had
>> something. As it is, compacts are still lame compared to ANY DSLR,
>> including units that are CHEAPER than the overpriced compacts in
>> question.
>>
>> http://dpreview.com/previews/nikonp7000/
>
>Is this what you had in mind.
>http://www.dpreview.com/news/9903/99031802olyslr.asp

or maybe http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf707/ ?
I still regret selling mine.



Eric Stevens