First P&S that may "may" not be a piece of crap?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rich, Jul 23, 2008.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Rich, Jul 23, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rich

    /dev/null/ Guest

    "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Sick of the idiocy of the ultrazoom, itty-bitty sensored junk that
    > they sell as P&S's today? Maybe this one will be different. An f2
    > lens! Shades of 2001 and the Olympus C-3040!! A conservative zoom
    > range and a larger sensor.
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08072102panasoniclx3.asp#specs


    1/1.63-inch CCD is still a small sensor!
     
    /dev/null/, Jul 23, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rich

    2SQUID Guest

    Rich wrote:
    > Sick of the idiocy of the ultrazoom, itty-bitty sensored junk that
    > they sell as P&S's today? Maybe this one will be different. An f2
    > lens! Shades of 2001 and the Olympus C-3040!! A conservative zoom
    > range and a larger sensor.
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08072102panasoniclx3.asp#specs


    Panasonic don't have the sensor technology to make a decent 4/3 sensor.
    How are they going to get it right with a FF one?
     
    2SQUID, Jul 23, 2008
    #3
  4. Rich

    Matt Ion Guest

    Russell D. wrote:
    > Rich wrote:
    >> Sick of the idiocy of the ultrazoom, itty-bitty sensored junk that
    >> they sell as P&S's today? Maybe this one will be different. An f2
    >> lens! Shades of 2001 and the Olympus C-3040!! A conservative zoom
    >> range and a larger sensor.
    >>
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08072102panasoniclx3.asp#specs

    >
    > It has no viewfinder.
    >
    > Russell


    Put a 0.3mm focal length on it, and you don't need a viewfinder - just
    point it in the general direction of your subject, and crop it later :D
     
    Matt Ion, Jul 23, 2008
    #4
  5. Rich

    Paul Furman Guest

    Russell D. wrote:
    > Rich wrote:
    >> Sick of the idiocy of the ultrazoom, itty-bitty sensored junk that
    >> they sell as P&S's today? Maybe this one will be different. An f2
    >> lens! Shades of 2001 and the Olympus C-3040!! A conservative zoom
    >> range and a larger sensor.
    >>
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08072102panasoniclx3.asp#specs

    >
    > It has no viewfinder.


    Scroll down for the optional rangefinder attachment.
     
    Paul Furman, Jul 23, 2008
    #5
  6. Rich

    John Sheehy Guest

    Matt Ion <> wrote in news:g66d1n$3ug$2
    @registered.motzarella.org:

    > Put a 0.3mm focal length on it, and you don't need a viewfinder - just
    > point it in the general direction of your subject, and crop it later :D


    Now your sensor is *really* small.



    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    John Sheehy, Jul 23, 2008
    #6
  7. 2SQUID wrote:

    > Rich wrote:
    >> Sick of the idiocy of the ultrazoom, itty-bitty sensored junk that
    >> they sell as P&S's today? Maybe this one will be different. An f2
    >> lens! Shades of 2001 and the Olympus C-3040!! A conservative zoom
    >> range and a larger sensor.
    >>
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08072102panasoniclx3.asp#specs

    >
    > Panasonic don't have the sensor technology to make a decent 4/3 sensor.
    > How are they going to get it right with a FF one?


    What am I missin'? That looks like 1/1.63".


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Jul 23, 2008
    #7
  8. Rich

    Don Wiss Guest

    On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Rich <> wrote:

    >Sick of the idiocy of the ultrazoom, itty-bitty sensored junk that
    >they sell as P&S's today? Maybe this one will be different. An f2
    >lens! Shades of 2001 and the Olympus C-3040!! A conservative zoom
    >range and a larger sensor.
    >
    >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08072102panasoniclx3.asp#specs


    Well, it appears to be the first since the Nikon 8400 to have a 24 mm
    equivalent wide angle. This camera, after it comes out, could very easily
    depress the high used prices that the Nikon 8400 gets (due to its
    desirability among real estate appraisers and the like).

    Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
     
    Don Wiss, Jul 23, 2008
    #8
  9. Rich

    Jufi Guest

    "2SQUID" <> wrote in message
    news:g66cl8$9ot$...
    > Rich wrote:
    >> Sick of the idiocy of the ultrazoom, itty-bitty sensored junk that
    >> they sell as P&S's today? Maybe this one will be different. An f2
    >> lens! Shades of 2001 and the Olympus C-3040!! A conservative zoom
    >> range and a larger sensor.
    >>
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08072102panasoniclx3.asp#specs

    >
    > Panasonic don't have the sensor technology to make a decent 4/3 sensor.
    > How are they going to get it right with a FF one?


    A 1/1.63" sensor is now considered FF? Huh?
     
    Jufi, Jul 23, 2008
    #9
  10. Rich

    Jufi Guest

    "/dev/null/" <> wrote in message
    news:g664l7$7nu$...
    >
    > "Rich" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Sick of the idiocy of the ultrazoom, itty-bitty sensored junk that
    >> they sell as P&S's today? Maybe this one will be different. An f2
    >> lens! Shades of 2001 and the Olympus C-3040!! A conservative zoom
    >> range and a larger sensor.
    >>
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08072102panasoniclx3.asp#specs

    >
    > 1/1.63-inch CCD is still a small sensor!
    >


    No telephoto? Forget it. Also, I love Panny's consistency; bragging about
    their new low-noise LX3 and then producing the FZ28, with 10.1MP on a
    1/2.33" sensor? Right...

    I'll wait for the results, but a sensor that small with that many pixels
    doesn't look good.
     
    Jufi, Jul 23, 2008
    #10
  11. Shawn Hirn wrote:
    []
    > Yup. No viewfinder is a deal breaker for me.

    []

    Shawn,

    It has an optical viewfinder, but it is an add-on purchase. It has quite
    large sensor for a compact zoom camera.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 23, 2008
    #11
  12. Rich

    ransley Guest

    On Jul 22, 8:30 pm, Rich <> wrote:
    > Sick of the idiocy of the ultrazoom, itty-bitty sensored junk that
    > they sell as P&S's today?  Maybe this one will be different.  An f2
    > lens!  Shades of 2001 and the Olympus C-3040!!  A conservative zoom
    > range and a larger sensor.
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08072102panasoniclx3.asp#specs


    They have been making P&S that are not crap for years, it the
    photographer that matters.
     
    ransley, Jul 23, 2008
    #12
  13. Rich

    Irwell Guest

    On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:15:18 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

    > Shawn Hirn wrote:
    > []
    >> Yup. No viewfinder is a deal breaker for me.

    > []
    >
    > Shawn,
    >
    > It has an optical viewfinder, but it is an add-on purchase. It has quite
    > large sensor for a compact zoom camera.
    >
    > David


    Is the add-on viewfinder coupled to the camera's electronics?
    --


    ---
    7/23/2008 2:23:21 PM
     
    Irwell, Jul 23, 2008
    #13
  14. Rich

    ray Guest

    On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:30:15 -0700, Rich wrote:

    > Sick of the idiocy of the ultrazoom, itty-bitty sensored junk that they
    > sell as P&S's today? Maybe this one will be different. An f2 lens!
    > Shades of 2001 and the Olympus C-3040!! A conservative zoom range and a
    > larger sensor.
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08072102panasoniclx3.asp#specs


    IMHO - this post is B.S. I have a Kodak P850 - a P&S with long zoom which
    I do not consider "a piece of crap". I do quite well with it thank you.
     
    ray, Jul 23, 2008
    #14
  15. Rich

    ransley Guest

    On Jul 23, 5:18 pm, ray <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:30:15 -0700, Rich wrote:
    > > Sick of the idiocy of the ultrazoom, itty-bitty sensored junk that they
    > > sell as P&S's today?  Maybe this one will be different.  An f2 lens!
    > > Shades of 2001 and the Olympus C-3040!!  A conservative zoom range and a
    > > larger sensor.

    >
    > >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08072102panasoniclx3.asp#specs

    >
    > IMHO - this post is B.S. I have a Kodak P850 - a P&S with long zoom which
    > I do not consider "a piece of crap". I do quite well with it thank you.


    And knowing Panasonics noise leading slow as molases sensors I would
    not wait in line for this one. But this guy just doesnt know how to
    use a camera to get its full potential.
     
    ransley, Jul 24, 2008
    #15
  16. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Jul 23, 12:39 am, 2SQUID <> wrote:
    > Rich wrote:
    > > Sick of the idiocy of the ultrazoom, itty-bitty sensored junk that
    > > they sell as P&S's today?  Maybe this one will be different.  An f2
    > > lens!  Shades of 2001 and the Olympus C-3040!!  A conservative zoom
    > > range and a larger sensor.

    >
    > >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08072102panasoniclx3.asp#specs

    >
    > Panasonic don't have the sensor technology to make a decent 4/3 sensor.
    > How are they going to get it right with a FF one?


    Their cameras (like Sony's DSLRs) have always lead the pack when it
    comes to resolution, and not megapixel count, real resolution.
     
    Rich, Jul 24, 2008
    #16
  17. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Jul 23, 7:56 am, "Jufi" <> wrote:
    > "/dev/null/" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:g664l7$7nu$...
    >
    >
    >
    > > "Rich" <> wrote in message
    > >news:....
    > >> Sick of the idiocy of the ultrazoom, itty-bitty sensored junk that
    > >> they sell as P&S's today?  Maybe this one will be different.  An f2
    > >> lens!  Shades of 2001 and the Olympus C-3040!!  A conservative zoom
    > >> range and a larger sensor.

    >
    > >>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08072102panasoniclx3.asp#specs

    >
    > > 1/1.63-inch CCD is still a small sensor!

    >
    > No telephoto? Forget it. Also, I love Panny's consistency; bragging about
    > their new low-noise LX3 and then producing the FZ28, with 10.1MP on a
    > 1/2.33" sensor? Right...


    Superzooms are in their own class, and that class is LOW!

    Pixel counts can't be helped, it's lots or die on the marketing vine.
     
    Rich, Jul 24, 2008
    #17
  18. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Jul 23, 5:23 pm, Irwell <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:15:18 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
    > > Shawn Hirn wrote:
    > > []
    > >> Yup. No viewfinder is a deal breaker for me.

    > > []

    >
    > > Shawn,

    >
    > > It has an optical viewfinder, but it is an add-on purchase.  It has quite
    > > large sensor for a compact zoom camera.

    >
    > > David

    >
    > Is the add-on viewfinder coupled to the camera's electronics?
    > --
    >
    > ---
    > 7/23/2008 2:23:21 PM


    Probably not. Nor does it have a built-in MP3 player and phone...
     
    Rich, Jul 24, 2008
    #18
  19. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Jul 23, 7:49 pm, ransley <> wrote:
    > On Jul 23, 5:18 pm, ray <> wrote:
    >
    > > On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:30:15 -0700, Rich wrote:
    > > > Sick of the idiocy of the ultrazoom, itty-bitty sensored junk that they
    > > > sell as P&S's today?  Maybe this one will be different.  An f2 lens!
    > > > Shades of 2001 and the Olympus C-3040!!  A conservative zoom range and a
    > > > larger sensor.

    >
    > > >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08072102panasoniclx3.asp#specs

    >
    > > IMHO - this post is B.S. I have a Kodak P850 - a P&S with long zoom which
    > > I do not consider "a piece of crap". I do quite well with it thank you.

    >
    > And knowing Panasonics noise leading


    Noise leading because they don't heap on the NR at 100 ISO like nearly
    every other camera that doesn't do raw, I frigging HATE that in P&Ss,
    it renders their images completely useless.
     
    Rich, Jul 24, 2008
    #19
  20. Rich

    ransley Guest

    On Jul 23, 10:05 pm, Rich <> wrote:
    > On Jul 23, 7:49 pm, ransley <> wrote:
    >
    > > On Jul 23, 5:18 pm, ray <> wrote:

    >
    > > > On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:30:15 -0700, Rich wrote:
    > > > > Sick of the idiocy of the ultrazoom, itty-bitty sensored junk that they
    > > > > sell as P&S's today?  Maybe this one will be different.  An f2 lens!
    > > > > Shades of 2001 and the Olympus C-3040!!  A conservative zoom range and a
    > > > > larger sensor.

    >
    > > > >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08072102panasoniclx3.asp#specs

    >
    > > > IMHO - this post is B.S. I have a Kodak P850 - a P&S with long zoom which
    > > > I do not consider "a piece of crap". I do quite well with it thank you.

    >
    > > And knowing Panasonics noise leading

    >
    > Noise leading because they don't heap on the NR at 100 ISO like nearly
    > every other camera that doesn't do raw, I frigging HATE that in P&Ss,
    > it renders their images completely useless.


    I dont know what camera you use, it must be some 35$ toy, my 2 old 5
    and 7 mp sonys dont have that issue, Panasonic is known for excessive
    noise and NR with all but Iso 100 being their only usable settings,
    and if I remember dpreviews Panasonic reviews at Iso 100 their NR was
    visable. Still if you cant get a good photo its you not understanding
    a cameras optimal settings.
     
    ransley, Jul 24, 2008
    #20
    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. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22=28Ctrl=A4+/Alt+=A4/Del=A4+=29=2

    Linux installed-Still a piece of crap

    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22=28Ctrl=A4+/Alt+=A4/Del=A4+=29=2, Mar 4, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    992
    Whiskers
    Mar 8, 2006
  2. Guest
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    725
    Peter
    Jan 23, 2007
  3. Guest
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    595
    Guest
    Jan 23, 2007
  4. Guest
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    450
  5. Rich

    Finally a P&S that isn't a piece of crap?

    Rich, Mar 7, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    34
    Views:
    1,203
    ASAAR
    Mar 16, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page