Re: Fuming mad, unscheduled replacement camera suggestions?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, May 30, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On May 30, 10:02 am, bad sector <none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:
    > Hello!
    >
    > Looking for a new camera, probably a low end (maybe SLR) Nikon
    > only because the last 'troublefree' camera I had was a Nikon.
    > I wish all (camera) manufactureres had a substantial selection
    > module on their web site!


    Nikon D3200. An insanely great bargain at $699. Once it is released.
     
    RichA, May 30, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    nick c Guest

    On 5/30/2012 12:50 PM, RichA wrote:
    > On May 30, 10:02 am, bad sector<none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:
    >> Hello!
    >>
    >> Looking for a new camera, probably a low end (maybe SLR) Nikon
    >> only because the last 'troublefree' camera I had was a Nikon.
    >> I wish all (camera) manufactureres had a substantial selection
    >> module on their web site!

    >
    > Nikon D3200. An insanely great bargain at $699. Once it is released.


    ...... and we are unanimous in that opinion. :)
     
    nick c, May 30, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On May 31, 7:02 am, bad sector <none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:
    > On 05/30/2012 03:50 PM, RichA wrote:
    >
    > > On May 30, 10:02 am, bad sector<none@_INVALID_.net>  wrote:
    > >> Hello!

    >
    > >> Looking for a new camera, probably a low end (maybe SLR) Nikon
    > >> only because the last 'troublefree' camera I had was a Nikon.
    > >> I wish all (camera) manufactureres had a substantial selection
    > >> module on their web site!

    >
    > > Nikon D3200.  An insanely great bargain at $699.  Once it is released.

    >
    > a little rich for me and doesn't offer everything I'm looking for but
    > still very tempting, when is the release expected?


    Supposedly, it was released on Apr. 19, but stock isn't available yet.
     
    RichA, May 31, 2012
    #3
  4. > I'm also looking at the coolpix series which are more within my budget,
    > like the S6300 (retired). As far as not getting everything I want, and
    > eveb the d3200 would not give me time lapse features) this model would
    > do as a minimal camera except for the bloody autofocus! I'm still
    > traumatised by the focus problems my other camera gave me costing some
    > really good opportunity shots. Is there a way to lock the focus to
    > infinity on these models? I don't mean the so called focuslock which
    > seems to actually mean autofocus and autoexposure lock-in, just the
    > autofocus and a lock OUT? I'm thinking like pointing the camera to the
    > sky and then somehow disabling AF altogether. Anyone with ideas??? Or
    > should I just accept the autofocus and be confident that Nikon's will
    > not lock onto window panes nor slew back from infinity once set?


    The lenses you would use with the D3200 have an auto-focus on/off switch
    on the lens. You may also find more options on the AF as to whether it
    focuses on nearest object or something else. Likely a lot more options on
    a DSLR than a P&S. Go to the shop and try it, or ask the assistant to
    demonstrate.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 1, 2012
    #4
  5. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    bad sector <none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:
    >On 05/30/2012 03:50 PM, RichA wrote:
    >> On May 30, 10:02 am, bad sector<none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:
    >>> Hello!
    >>>
    >>> Looking for a new camera, probably a low end (maybe SLR) Nikon
    >>> only because the last 'troublefree' camera I had was a Nikon.
    >>> I wish all (camera) manufactureres had a substantial selection
    >>> module on their web site!

    >>
    >> Nikon D3200. An insanely great bargain at $699. Once it is released.

    >
    >a little rich for me and doesn't offer everything I'm looking for but
    >still very tempting, when is the release expected?



    Beware. $699 only buys you a camera body. Pay a little more and you
    get a 3X 18-55mm zoom 'kit' lens that is good but not great.

    To get anything like the zoom range you get in a p&s, you would need
    to buy at least one more lens, probably the 55-200mm. There is a
    choice of two. one with vibration reduction at about $250 and one
    without for $150. There is also a 55-300mm with vibration reduction
    at about $400. Once again, they are good but not great lenses.

    If you want just one lens that covers the zoom range of the 18-55 and
    55-200mm lenses there is the 18-200mm with vibration reduction at
    about $850. This is an 11X zoom. Lenses of that zoom ratio generally
    are not good performers, and this one is no exception. It may be
    slightly better than others of its type but they are all optically
    poor.

    So consider whether you want to spend $699 plus $850, a total of
    around $1550, on a combination that will still fall short of the zoom
    range that you can get from a Coolpix costing far, far less. Even the
    camera body, 18-55mm lens and cheapest 55-200mm lens will cost you
    around $1050.

    Unless you are certain that you have a real need for 24 MP and are
    happy to carry around a bulky kit with camera body and either two
    medium sized lenses or one large, heavy lens, I think a Coolpix or
    another good superzoom camera will probably suit you far better.
     
    Bruce, Jun 1, 2012
    #5
  6. bad sector wrote:
    >
    > I don't really want any $1k+ digital kit because my experience with
    > digital anything has been that it goes for a crap and soon regardless of
    > how expensive it was. Still have my 35mm SLR Nikon and it still works,
    > must be like 18 years old but since the digitals have arrived I have
    > gone through four of them, they were all loaded with features I had no
    > use for, none could go out in -35c, and all just quit working or
    > degraded to the point of being unusable :-(
    >
    > I could go for a P&S but none that I've seen has AF override.


    I did extensive research on point and shoots about 6 months ago,
    read, compared, took notes, went to stores, held about 30 in hand.
    I would have liked a manual focus override but evidently there
    is no such thing on P&S.
    I settled on a Panasonic ZS-8 and am quite happy with it.
    Once in a while it will be fooled by glass but not very often.
    I can always zoom out,lock focus, then zoom back in if
    that happens. Full manual options for everything else.
    Pros: It was the only camera that filled all my requirements.
    Fits in shirt pocket, metal case, F 3.3-6.3, 60 seconds
    to 1/4000 shutter, 16x zoom.
    Its the ONLY one I found that can be operated with one hand.
    I coated most of the case in clear packing tape as soon
    as I got it. It is used in industrial environments.
    I don't care about mp. 3 mp is what I use.
    Dropped once on concrete from 3' with no damage except
    to tape. Its been wet, dirty, sandy, hot, cold, etc.
    Con: reds are somewhat brighter than blue or green.
    Screen is somewhat hard to see in direct sun.
    IMO, its a far better camera then any other P&S.
    Nothing else even came close. Got it from B&H.
     
    Paul in Houston TX, Jun 2, 2012
    #6
  7. Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-06-01 21:59:23 -0700, Paul in Houston TX <> said:
    >
    >> bad sector wrote:
    >>>
    >>> I don't really want any $1k+ digital kit because my experience with
    >>> digital anything has been that it goes for a crap and soon regardless
    >>> of how expensive it was. Still have my 35mm SLR Nikon and it still
    >>> works, must be like 18 years old but since the digitals have arrived
    >>> I have gone through four of them, they were all loaded with features
    >>> I had no use for, none could go out in -35c, and all just quit
    >>> working or degraded to the point of being unusable :-(
    >>>
    >>> I could go for a P&S but none that I've seen has AF override.

    >>
    >> I did extensive research on point and shoots about 6 months ago,
    >> read, compared, took notes, went to stores, held about 30 in hand.
    >> I would have liked a manual focus override but evidently there
    >> is no such thing on P&S.
    >> I settled on a Panasonic ZS-8 and am quite happy with it.

    >
    > Both my Canon G11 and Fujifilm E900 have manual focus. Both of those are
    > perhaps not strictly P&S cameras. However compared to my DSLRs they are
    > positively tiny, but not shirt pocketable, unless you have a
    > particularly baggy shirt pocket.


    Both very nice cameras. I came close to buying a G12
    but really needed a shirt pocket cam. Sometimes I have to
    climb structures at refineries and and chem plants and take
    photos using one hand while I hang on for dear life with
    the other hand. Easy to do in my 30's, not so easy now in
    my 60's. :)
    It was the recommendation of posters here that I check
    out B&H and am quite happy I did.
     
    Paul in Houston TX, Jun 2, 2012
    #7
  8. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    bad sector <none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:

    >On 06/01/2012 11:59 AM, Bruce wrote:
    >> bad sector<none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:
    >>> On 05/30/2012 03:50 PM, RichA wrote:
    >>>> On May 30, 10:02 am, bad sector<none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:
    >>>>> Hello!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Looking for a new camera, probably a low end (maybe SLR) Nikon
    >>>>> only because the last 'troublefree' camera I had was a Nikon.
    >>>>> I wish all (camera) manufactureres had a substantial selection
    >>>>> module on their web site!
    >>>>
    >>>> Nikon D3200. An insanely great bargain at $699. Once it is released.
    >>>
    >>> a little rich for me and doesn't offer everything I'm looking for but
    >>> still very tempting, when is the release expected?

    >>
    >>
    >> Beware. $699 only buys you a camera body. Pay a little more and you
    >> get a 3X 18-55mm zoom 'kit' lens that is good but not great.
    >>
    >> To get anything like the zoom range you get in a p&s, you would need
    >> to buy at least one more lens, probably the 55-200mm. There is a
    >> choice of two. one with vibration reduction at about $250 and one
    >> without for $150. There is also a 55-300mm with vibration reduction
    >> at about $400. Once again, they are good but not great lenses.
    >>
    >> If you want just one lens that covers the zoom range of the 18-55 and
    >> 55-200mm lenses there is the 18-200mm with vibration reduction at
    >> about $850. This is an 11X zoom. Lenses of that zoom ratio generally
    >> are not good performers, and this one is no exception. It may be
    >> slightly better than others of its type but they are all optically
    >> poor.
    >>
    >> So consider whether you want to spend $699 plus $850, a total of
    >> around $1550, on a combination that will still fall short of the zoom
    >> range that you can get from a Coolpix costing far, far less. Even the
    >> camera body, 18-55mm lens and cheapest 55-200mm lens will cost you
    >> around $1050.
    >>
    >> Unless you are certain that you have a real need for 24 MP and are
    >> happy to carry around a bulky kit with camera body and either two
    >> medium sized lenses or one large, heavy lens, I think a Coolpix or
    >> another good superzoom camera will probably suit you far better.
    >>

    >
    >The 24 MP is handy for subsequent cropping (or zooming). Much obliged
    >for the substantial response BTW!



    You're welcome. Good luck with your choice. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Jun 2, 2012
    #8
  9. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/1/2012 11:12 PM, bad sector wrote:
    > On 06/01/2012 11:59 AM, Bruce wrote:
    >> bad sector<none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:
    >>> On 05/30/2012 03:50 PM, RichA wrote:
    >>>> On May 30, 10:02 am, bad sector<none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:
    >>>>> Hello!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Looking for a new camera, probably a low end (maybe SLR) Nikon
    >>>>> only because the last 'troublefree' camera I had was a Nikon.
    >>>>> I wish all (camera) manufactureres had a substantial selection
    >>>>> module on their web site!
    >>>>
    >>>> Nikon D3200. An insanely great bargain at $699. Once it is released.
    >>>
    >>> a little rich for me and doesn't offer everything I'm looking for but
    >>> still very tempting, when is the release expected?

    >>
    >>
    >> Beware. $699 only buys you a camera body. Pay a little more and you
    >> get a 3X 18-55mm zoom 'kit' lens that is good but not great.
    >>
    >> To get anything like the zoom range you get in a p&s, you would need
    >> to buy at least one more lens, probably the 55-200mm. There is a
    >> choice of two. one with vibration reduction at about $250 and one
    >> without for $150. There is also a 55-300mm with vibration reduction
    >> at about $400. Once again, they are good but not great lenses.
    >>
    >> If you want just one lens that covers the zoom range of the 18-55 and
    >> 55-200mm lenses there is the 18-200mm with vibration reduction at
    >> about $850. This is an 11X zoom. Lenses of that zoom ratio generally
    >> are not good performers, and this one is no exception. It may be
    >> slightly better than others of its type but they are all optically
    >> poor.
    >>
    >> So consider whether you want to spend $699 plus $850, a total of
    >> around $1550, on a combination that will still fall short of the zoom
    >> range that you can get from a Coolpix costing far, far less. Even the
    >> camera body, 18-55mm lens and cheapest 55-200mm lens will cost you
    >> around $1050.
    >>
    >> Unless you are certain that you have a real need for 24 MP and are
    >> happy to carry around a bulky kit with camera body and either two
    >> medium sized lenses or one large, heavy lens, I think a Coolpix or
    >> another good superzoom camera will probably suit you far better.
    >>

    >
    > The 24 MP is handy for subsequent cropping (or zooming). Much obliged
    > for the substantial response BTW!
    >
    > I don't really want any $1k+ digital kit because my experience with
    > digital anything has been that it goes for a crap and soon regardless of
    > how expensive it was. Still have my 35mm SLR Nikon and it still works,
    > must be like 18 years old but since the digitals have arrived I have
    > gone through four of them, they were all loaded with features I had no
    > use for, none could go out in -35c, and all just quit working or
    > degraded to the point of being unusable :-(
    >
    > I could go for a P&S but none that I've seen has AF override.
    >


    I have an app on my Iphone that lets me change the focus point. Camera
    Awesome. It's a free app.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jun 2, 2012
    #9
  10. bad sector <none@_INVALID_.net> writes:

    > I was just about to undertake a complete analysis so you saved me a
    > lot of footwork, I will look that zs-8 up for sure. I like the
    > concrete floor bit, the universal test should be throwing one against
    > a wall :)


    For what it's worth, the ZS7 came up as a high choice when I evaluated
    super-zoom cameras my wife could take hiking and birding a while back;
    so it's not too surprising that the next in that series is also looking
    good.

    > no, I'm NOT kidding! I too need a shirtpocket camera but I also need
    > some goodies few of them offer like 1080 hd because I live in an
    > opportunity rich locale for rare shots (like two days ago when my
    > foot-and-ahalf tibetan terrier ran out to face down a moose 20 feet
    > from the house in the backyard). Looks like I may have to get two
    > cameras, which is ok if I find what I need. If I have to settle for AF
    > I'd want it to be one that does not use a beam but only optical
    > analysis.


    I'm not aware of any mainstream camera that uses anything but optical
    analysis for focusing. (Two different methods -- contrast detect, or
    phase detect; phase detect uses special sensors, and is mostly limited
    to DSLRs, and is MUCH faster, and is often less accurate.)
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jun 2, 2012
    #10
  11. Savageduck wrote:
    >
    > In that case the Canon S series might also be a good place to check. The
    > S100 has all that you require; full manual, RAW, IS, 1080p24 HD,
    > built-in GPS, and a good reputation.
    > ...and very shirt pocketable.
    > < http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons100/ >
    >

    A very nice cam, indeed!
    I looked at a S95 but got the ZS-8 before the S100
    came out. Guess its been 9 months now and not 6.
     
    Paul in Houston TX, Jun 2, 2012
    #11
  12. bad sector wrote:
    >
    > I was just about to undertake a complete analysis so you saved me a lot
    > of footwork, I will look that zs-8 up for sure. I like the concrete
    > floor bit, the universal test should be throwing one against a wall :)
    > no, I'm NOT kidding! I too need a shirtpocket camera but I also need
    > some goodies few of them offer like 1080 hd because I live in an
    > opportunity rich locale for rare shots (like two days ago when my
    > foot-and-ahalf tibetan terrier ran out to face down a moose 20 feet from
    > the house in the backyard). Looks like I may have to get two cameras,
    > which is ok if I find what I need. If I have to settle for AF I'd want
    > it to be one that does not use a beam but only optical analysis. Looked
    > at some manuals and there's never any 'beef' in them like how actually
    > focus is accomplished. With hardcopy printed material gone out of style
    > you'd think that the otherwise now zero-cost manuals would contain some
    > technical detail other than brain-dead repetition and white space.


    The zs-8 fit my specs but may not fit yours.
    The zs-10 and zs-20 have full HD, fast sensor, gps.
    SavageDuck suggested the G11 and S100.
    I looked at the G12 and S95. Those are great cams but did
    not fit my specs. I did not want pop up flash and needed more zoom.
    Pop up flash gets the flash further away from the lens for a
    better photo but I can see it easily getting broken in my line
    of work.
     
    Paul in Houston TX, Jun 2, 2012
    #12
  13. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:03:11 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    wrote:
    : On 2012-06-01 22:45:00 -0700, Paul in Houston TX <> said:
    :
    : > Savageduck wrote:
    : >> On 2012-06-01 21:59:23 -0700, Paul in Houston TX <> said:
    : >>
    : >>> bad sector wrote:
    : >>>>
    : >>>> I don't really want any $1k+ digital kit because my experience with
    : >>>> digital anything has been that it goes for a crap and soon regardless
    : >>>> of how expensive it was. Still have my 35mm SLR Nikon and it still
    : >>>> works, must be like 18 years old but since the digitals have arrived I
    : >>>> have gone through four of them, they were all loaded with features I
    : >>>> had no use for, none could go out in -35c, and all just quit working or
    : >>>> degraded to the point of being unusable :-(
    : >>>>
    : >>>> I could go for a P&S but none that I've seen has AF override.
    : >>>
    : >>> I did extensive research on point and shoots about 6 months ago,
    : >>> read, compared, took notes, went to stores, held about 30 in hand.
    : >>> I would have liked a manual focus override but evidently there
    : >>> is no such thing on P&S.
    : >>> I settled on a Panasonic ZS-8 and am quite happy with it.
    : >>
    : >> Both my Canon G11 and Fujifilm E900 have manual focus. Both of those
    : >> are perhaps not strictly P&S cameras. However compared to my DSLRs they
    : >> are positively tiny, but not shirt pocketable, unless you have a
    : >> particularly baggy shirt pocket.
    : >
    : > Both very nice cameras. I came close to buying a G12
    : > but really needed a shirt pocket cam. Sometimes I have to
    : > climb structures at refineries and and chem plants and take
    : > photos using one hand while I hang on for dear life with
    : > the other hand. Easy to do in my 30's, not so easy now in
    : > my 60's. :)
    : > It was the recommendation of posters here that I check
    : > out B&H and am quite happy I did.
    :
    : In that case the Canon S series might also be a good place to check.
    : The S100 has all that you require; full manual, RAW, IS, 1080p24 HD,
    : built-in GPS, and a good reputation.
    : ...and very shirt pocketable.
    : < http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons100/ >

    Or you might look for a used S90 or S95. My daughter had an S90 before she got
    her S100. She told me she actually liked the S90 better, although she admitted
    that it may just be that she still has some learning to do.

    My daughter has three young children and is very hard on cameras. When she
    gets a new one, it's usually because she's wrecked her old one. But she's far
    from a newbie, and I think her opinion can be trusted.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 2, 2012
    #13
  14. bad sector <none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:
    > On 06/01/2012 11:59 AM, Bruce wrote:


    >> Unless you are certain that you have a real need for 24 MP and are
    >> happy to carry around a bulky kit with camera body and either two
    >> medium sized lenses or one large, heavy lens, I think a Coolpix or
    >> another good superzoom camera will probably suit you far better.


    > The 24 MP is handy for subsequent cropping (or zooming).


    The trick is to learn to produce the correct view during
    shooting. Then you either have 24 MPix for printing or
    everything will be fine with much less MPix.

    > I don't really want any $1k+ digital kit because my experience with
    > digital anything has been that it goes for a crap and soon regardless of
    > how expensive it was.


    Obviously, you want to buy used bodies then. :)

    Lenses loose their value slower --- and good ones can also be
    had used.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 2, 2012
    #14
  15. David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:

    > I'm not aware of any mainstream camera that uses anything but optical
    > analysis for focusing. (Two different methods -- contrast detect, or
    > phase detect; phase detect uses special sensors, and is mostly limited
    > to DSLRs, and is MUCH faster, and is often less accurate.)


    PDAF (Phase Detect AF) is "less accurate" because it measures
    from a secondary, specialized sensor[1] --- and the optical path
    to said secondary sensor needs to be identical[2] in length to
    the main sensor. There's influence from the lenses (that's how
    microfocussing works: set an offset from the rays passing through
    the lens to the secondary sensor, often by lens and focus length.
    I.e. in theory it's as accurate as CDAF (Contrast Detecion AF) ...

    People put up with this kind of crap because it's *much* much
    faster than CDAF, handles low light well, and can properly track
    and predict subject movement.


    -Wolfgang

    [1] There are apparently ways of using PDAF on a main sensor,
    but that entails sacrificing several 10.000 perfectly working
    green pixels by half-covering them. I doubt that's in
    production yet.

    [2] or corrected for the difference
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 4, 2012
    #15
  16. Wolfgang Weisselberg <> writes:

    > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >
    >> I'm not aware of any mainstream camera that uses anything but optical
    >> analysis for focusing. (Two different methods -- contrast detect, or
    >> phase detect; phase detect uses special sensors, and is mostly limited
    >> to DSLRs, and is MUCH faster, and is often less accurate.)

    >
    > PDAF (Phase Detect AF) is "less accurate" because it measures
    > from a secondary, specialized sensor[1] --- and the optical path
    > to said secondary sensor needs to be identical[2] in length to
    > the main sensor.


    Yes. And different for each focus point, and different for each shot
    (since the main and secondary mirrors won't return to *identical*
    positions each time).

    I'm referring to the entire system in practice when I say it's less
    accurate -- that's what actually matters to those of us discussing
    taking pictures with actual cameras.

    > There's influence from the lenses (that's how
    > microfocussing works: set an offset from the rays passing through
    > the lens to the secondary sensor, often by lens and focus length.
    > I.e. in theory it's as accurate as CDAF (Contrast Detecion AF) ...
    >
    > People put up with this kind of crap because it's *much* much
    > faster than CDAF, handles low light well, and can properly track
    > and predict subject movement.


    It's faster, in particular, because the sensor output identifies which
    direction the subject is out of focus in, so the camera never has to
    guess, and never guesses wrong and has to reverse. And it's just
    inherently fast, too, doesn't have to read volumes of data from the main
    chip and then analyze it.

    It's still a total kludge; kinda like the internal combustion engine.
    It's so highly developed that it actually mostly works most of the time.

    I'm not sure how much of the tracking is based on that. The appearance
    of face-detect AF on DSLRs is based on another sensor able to get enough
    information for face detection, the actual PDAF sensors can't.

    > [1] There are apparently ways of using PDAF on a main sensor,
    > but that entails sacrificing several 10.000 perfectly working
    > green pixels by half-covering them. I doubt that's in
    > production yet.


    There are a few out there, I've seen info on dpreview It hink.

    > [2] or corrected for the difference

    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jun 4, 2012
    #16
  17. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    bad sector <none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:
    >On 06/01/2012 11:59 AM, Bruce wrote:
    >> Beware. $699 only buys you a camera body. Pay a little more and you
    >> get a 3X 18-55mm zoom 'kit' lens that is good but not great.

    >
    >The latest prices are 600us/750cdn with the 18-55 lens
    >
    >I'm not too nostalgic about carrying a bag of stuff either. Just took
    >out my old F-401 and cried over the $50's they're getting on ebay, that
    >and the POS s1500 might get me $100 total.
    >
    >When you talk Nikon zoom lenses though I'm sure you'll agree that
    >they're still far better than the p&s allinwonder superzooms :)



    Better at what? My partner uses a Panasonic FZ38 (FZ35 in USA) which
    has an 18X zoom lens with an equivalent focal length range of
    27-486mm. There is no zoom Nikkor which approaches that range.

    The zoom Nikkor with the greatest range is the 18-200mm DX which has
    an equivalent focal length range of 27-300mm. So it doesn't cover the
    300-486mm range at all, but the Panasonic does.

    The 18-200mm Nikkor is optically a poor performer. It reviews well
    against other lenses of its type, but they are all pathetic performers
    and the Nikon is only the least worst of a bad bunch. It appeals only
    to lazy people who buy an interchangeable lens camera but cannot
    manage to make the small effort to change lenses. So they buy one
    lens that will "do everything". Alas, it will do everything except
    provide decent results and I would not recommend it to anyone who
    takes any pride in their results.


    >I'd love to buy a coolpix if it gave me some manual authority, in light
    >of the last p&s and the headaches it has given me I'm not really
    >interested in throwing good money after bad :-(



    It is probably worth looking through the pages of DPReview and in
    particular the specifications of various p&s and superzoom cameras to
    see if there is anything that better fits your needs.
     
    Bruce, Jun 6, 2012
    #17
  18. bad sector <none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:
    > On 06/02/2012 08:32 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:


    >> The trick is to learn to produce the correct view during
    >> shooting. Then you either have 24 MPix for printing or
    >> everything will be fine with much less MPix.


    > As an example today while working on my driveway a good 75-100 seagulls
    > were swarming all over the backhoe-loader while I had both hands more
    > than full (for 10 hours). They ate the worms that became uncovered,
    > sofar nothing spectacular. But a wind was producing all manner of micro
    > updrafts in which the gulls were soaring without otherwise moving, some
    > of them 'surfing' inches in front of the windshield. These things have
    > such a sense for the air that they ride even the wave over a full loader
    > bucket but won't even try an empty one. It's almost as if they could
    > 'see' the air. Image composition is not always an available luxury.
    > Everytime I'd stop the magic would fall apart, so I would have had half
    > a second to grab a P&S with one hand and just fire it, maybe several
    > times, but the sorting out and framing would definitely have had to
    > follow :)


    > I didn't even try mainly because this dynamic would have to be filmed
    > instead of photographed and that is really something I could not do
    > under the circumstances.


    Let someone with a camera and knowledge ride shotgun.
    Or let someone else drive.
    Problem solved.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 7, 2012
    #18
  19. Bruce <> wrote:
    > bad sector <none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:


    >>When you talk Nikon zoom lenses though I'm sure you'll agree that
    >>they're still far better than the p&s allinwonder superzooms :)


    > Better at what? My partner uses a Panasonic FZ38 (FZ35 in USA) which
    > has an 18X zoom lens with an equivalent focal length range of
    > 27-486mm. There is no zoom Nikkor which approaches that range.


    That's why Canon rocks and Nikkon sucks. Canon has two 9.3-930mm
    (1860mm with extender) f/1.7-4.7 lenses ...

    :->

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 7, 2012
    #19
  20. RichA

    Joe Kotroczo Guest

    On 02/06/2012 06:12, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-06-01 21:59:23 -0700, Paul in Houston TX<> said:
    >

    (...)
    > Both my Canon G11 and Fujifilm E900 have manual focus. Both of those
    > are perhaps not strictly P&S cameras. However compared to my DSLRs they
    > are positively tiny, but not shirt pocketable, unless you have a
    > particularly baggy shirt pocket.


    I've been known to carry my G11 in my shirt pocket...

    Yes, it was a baggy pocket.


    --
    Illegitimi non carborundum
     
    Joe Kotroczo, Jun 8, 2012
    #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. Dave Cobb
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    419
    bagal
    May 29, 2004
  2. Peter Mason

    NEW It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World DVD!

    Peter Mason, Oct 16, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,030
    DarkMatter
    Oct 31, 2003
  3. Michael Rogers

    I's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World new DVD?

    Michael Rogers, Jan 10, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    579
    Hitman of Las Vegas
    Jan 11, 2004
  4. Robb
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    721
    philo
    Mar 11, 2007
  5. richard

    two movie scenes from "it's a mad mad world"

    richard, Nov 20, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    899
    Evan Platt
    Nov 21, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page