«

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

"RichA" <> wrote in message
news:1dfafb78-acd1-4ee7-b48a-...
>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

I am looking for a superzoom. This one looks interesting. EVF has 1.4M
pixels (as opposed to 0.2 for other superzooms). Worth waiting to read a few
reviews.

On the downside, it looks like it will be expensive. Maybe as much as an
entry level dslr with a superzoom lens such as the Tamron 18 - 270.

--
MG

RichA <> wrote:
>
>I say finally since it's been some time since any bridge camera
>sported one, years in fact.


My guess is the Sony DSC-F828 which was introduced in 2003. The
Olympus E-10 (4 MP) and E-20 (5 MP) also used this sensor size. The
E-20 was the last to be introduced, in 2001.

The follow-up to the DSC-828 was the Sony DSC-R1. That was introduced
in 2005 and had a sensor that was just shy of APS-C. I bought two and
still have one, though I haven't used it for a couple of years. I
found the Sony chargers and spare batteries when I was packing all my
Nikon and other F mount equipment for sale - nearly all gone now.

"Bruce" <> wrote in message
news:...
> RichA <> wrote:
>>
>>I say finally since it's been some time since any bridge camera
>>sported one, years in fact.
>
>
> My guess is the Sony DSC-F828 which was introduced in 2003. The
> Olympus E-10 (4 MP) and E-20 (5 MP) also used this sensor size. The
> E-20 was the last to be introduced, in 2001.
[]

It's more recent than 2003. The Nikon 8400/880 were reviewed in January
2005.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp8400/
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp8800/

Cheers,
David

"David J Taylor" <david-> wrote:
>"Bruce" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> RichA <> wrote:
>>>
>>>I say finally since it's been some time since any bridge camera
>>>sported one, years in fact.
>>
>>
>> My guess is the Sony DSC-F828 which was introduced in 2003. The
>> Olympus E-10 (4 MP) and E-20 (5 MP) also used this sensor size. The
>> E-20 was the last to be introduced, in 2001.
>[]
>
>It's more recent than 2003. The Nikon 8400/880 were reviewed in January
>2005.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp8400/
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp8800/


Thanks, David. They were from a time when I took next to no interest
in Nikon's offerings, so thank you for the correction.

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?

Rich <> wrote:

>Bruce <> wrote in
>news: :
>
>> RichA <> wrote:
>>>
>>>I say finally since it's been some time since any bridge camera
>>>sported one, years in fact.
>>
>>
>> My guess is the Sony DSC-F828 which was introduced in 2003. The
>> Olympus E-10 (4 MP) and E-20 (5 MP) also used this sensor size. The
>> E-20 was the last to be introduced, in 2001.
>
>The Olympus C-8080 (great camera) was their last one in 2001, it cost as
>much as a V1 does now.


Probably the same sensor as the E-10 or E-20?


>Nikon also had one with a 2/3", the Coolpix 8800.


Thanks.

On Nov 27, 12:16*am, Me <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> On 27/11/2011 5:03 a.m., RichA wrote:> I say finally since it's been sometime 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. "Good bridge camera" is simply a reference to the fact
previous superzoom bridge cameras (which is what the new Fuji is) have
had small sensors with poor performance. This 2/3" sensor camera at
least has a chance to be as good as the Nikon V1 which while not as
good as Nikon's APS DSLRs isn't the absolute dog superzooms of the
past were. 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.

On 28/11/2011 5:30 a.m., RichA wrote:
> On Nov 27, 12:16 am, Me<u...@domain.invalid> 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.

On 28/11/2011 1:31 p.m., Rich wrote:
> Me<> wrote in news:jauakn$6cq$:
>
>> On 28/11/2011 5:30 a.m., RichA wrote:
>>> On Nov 27, 12:16 am, Me<u...@domain.invalid> 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.