Less isn't more - it just isn't

<edited, for brevity>

Hello,

My Kodak P850 has all the features you desire, and then some (e.g.,
RAW). It's hardly "compact," but, I think it's the best P&Ser around,
for the money.

The other Kodak models that you've mentioned, look nice, too; no
personal experience of any of them, though.


Cordially,
John Turco <>

 

Simple. I got into digital 'cause I was tired of lugging all that stuff
around - a Canon AE1, 35-70 zoom, 70-210 zoom, flash, filters etc. My
Fuji S7000 has a 6x optical zoom (35-210 equiv) and all in a package
smaller than the Olympus OM1.

If you're a pro photographer, a DSLR is essential to take the hard
knocks, if you're an amateur, more often than not it's just bling-bling
jewelry.

 

1. Not a big thing for me, and probably the vast majority of buyers. I
carry mine in a very small case on my belt.

2. Because that's now what P&S cameras are about, for the vast majority
of users. Manufacturers of consumer electronics don't spend a penny,
especially in a market as price competitive as P&S digital cameras for
features that 90% of the users don't want.

3. Some have the optical viewfinder, some don't. Do like I did and buy
one that does, as you did.
As for the diopter, this is an excellent idea because us baby boomers
are buying P&S digital cameras and our sight is not what it once was!
When will the camera manufactureres figure this out?

4. Gotta have a race, so old models can be obsolete as quickly as
possible. If you think they're giving that up, you just haven't
accepted reality, even at our age!

5. Sales gimmicks. 90% of users don't know and wouldn't care if they're
there, but it sounds impressive in an ad to some, I guess.

Adding interchangable lenses? That's what many of us are trying to get
away from. Again, a feature most buyers could care less about, and it
adds significant cost in that price-competitive market discussed above.


All in, I'd say you need to pick the right camera, as you seem to have
done, with as many of the features that you want built-in. I bought a
Canon A520 a yr ago for some of the reaons you mention. It has an
optical viewfinder. I would have like the diopter adjustment, but
couldn't find a camera that met my other requirements with one. Instead
of an accessory shoe, a more powerful flash is available. If I ever
decide I need it, I'll buy it. (Probably when my first grand-kids
arrive.) And it has 2 other lenses available, a telephoto and a
wide-angle. I felt that if I decided I didn't mind hauling around more
lenses, I could get one or both of these. So far, the trade-off isn't
worth it. I like having the camera, with zoom lens, and a spare memory
card and a spare set of AA batteries, in a tiny case on my hip whenever
I need it. And I can forget it's there when I don't need it. I think
that's what I like best about my digital P&S, after lugging around
lenses and filters and tripods for all those 35mm years. I'm glad now I
have the pix from back then, but I'm even gladder that I can now get
the snaps I want with what's in a 5x5x5 pack on my hip. And get almost
the same flexibility and quality that I got with all that gear in past
years. Gotta love technology!

 

That's not saying much. Chances are if you're an amateur and own any
digital camera, you're not putting it to good use.


--
Laugh alone and the world thinks you're an idiot.


/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z anl

 

Probably true. But I'm not earning my salary from it and if it brings me
satisfaction, then that's the important point.

 

What is good use? Is it ,as I believe, just opinion?

 

Precisely my point.

--
ASCII and ye shall receive.


/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z anl

 

Well, it *is* reasonable to assume that most people who can afford to
buy a camera is similarly able to afford eyeglasses (corrective lenses)
if they happen to need them, including bifocals for presbyopia.
Granted, it may not necessarily be the most optimally performing
solution, but for a camera manufacturer, your eyeglasses come for free,
so the potential marketplace consumer set is small, even before
considerations of the relative expense of adding the feature is
considered.

The left-side lug I can agree with, although in balance, I also have to
admit that I rarely use a wrist strap when it comes to land cameras.

For the hot shoe, I do have to disagree: its size will adversely
affect the "pocketability" of the smaller class of cameras (such as the
Elph), plus the shoe's edges makes the camera less smooth, which means
that the likelihood of the camera getting snagged in a pocket is
increased, which runs contrary to the manufacturer's design goal of
something small and sleek that will easily slip in/out of a pocket.
Since 'pocketability' is a design characteristic encountered far more
frequently by its customer base than is the use of an external strobe,
the camera design gets directed to the needs/desires of the majority.

In what is frequently a commodity-based marketplace (hence, the
MegaPixel race), the profit margins aren't as fat as you would like to
think, so cutting corners and shaving costs is de rigor.

We are "helped" more by simply having a good set of eyeglasses, and the
wisdom to realize that LASIK won't ever get rid of bifocals, since
presbyopia is caused by a hardening of the lens which reduces its range
of adjustability.

As well as sound business reasons to reject the rest. Unfortunate, but
true.


-hh

 

As one who normally wears glasses, I can see problems with wearing
them while looking through a viewfinder...
The glasses put the viewfinder farther away, meaning hat you can't see
as much as you could with the eye closer.
With the eye farther away from the viewfinder, sunlight can get in,
making the image in the viewfinder much harder to see.
Being "helped" in this way by using glasses when shooting is help I
don't need.