Finally a bridge camera with a 2/3" sensor

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Nov 26, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    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, Nov 26, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    MG Guest

    "RichA" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >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
     
    MG, Nov 26, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    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, Nov 26, 2011
    #3
  4. "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, Nov 26, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    "David J Taylor" <> 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.
     
    Bruce, Nov 26, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    Me Guest

    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?
     
    Me, Nov 27, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    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.
     
    Bruce, Nov 27, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Nov 27, 12:16 am, Me <> 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.
     
    RichA, Nov 27, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    Me Guest

    On 28/11/2011 5:30 a.m., RichA wrote:
    > On Nov 27, 12:16 am, Me<> 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.
     
    Me, Nov 27, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    Me Guest

    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<> 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.
     
    Me, Nov 28, 2011
    #10
  11. "RichA" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >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


    Nothing new here regarding the sensor size. The Fuji s100fs bridge camera has a
    2/3 sensor and it was introduced over 3 years ago.
     
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Nov 28, 2011
    #11
  12. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Nov 27, 9:59 pm, Me <> wrote:
    > On 28/11/2011 1:31 p.m., Rich wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > Me<>  wrote innews:jauakn$6cq$:

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


    I don't think the V1 is complete garbage, only "lesser" than m4/3rd or
    APS mirror-less cameras.
     
    RichA, Nov 28, 2011
    #12
  13. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Nov 28, 8:43 am, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <> wrote:
    > "RichA" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > >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

    >
    > Nothing new here regarding the sensor size.  The Fuji s100fs bridge camera has a
    > 2/3 sensor and it was introduced over 3 years ago.


    Image sensor 2/3-inch EXR CMOS with primary colour filter
     
    RichA, Nov 28, 2011
    #13

  14. > "RichA" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > On Nov 28, 8:43 am, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <> wrote:
    > > "RichA" <> wrote in message
    > >
    > > news:...
    > >
    > > > 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

    > >
    > > Nothing new here regarding the sensor size. The Fuji s100fs bridge camera
    > > has a
    > > 2/3 sensor and it was introduced over 3 years ago.


    > Image sensor 2/3-inch EXR CMOS with primary colour filter


    Read your subject line. The "finally" part came quite some time ago. A 2/3
    sensor was used by Fuji before. No disputing that.
     
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Nov 28, 2011
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Chris_D
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    3,065
    Uli Link
    Aug 5, 2005
  2. IMKen
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    899
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Jun 22, 2004
  3. True211

    Polaroid x530 w/Foveon sensor will ship - finally.

    True211, Feb 22, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    718
    ittsy
    Mar 3, 2005
  4. David J Taylor
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    934
    Anoni Moose
    Aug 15, 2007
  5. Finally - A full size sensor in Sony A900

    , Sep 12, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    359
    nospam
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page