Less isn't more - it just isn't

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by verity, Oct 7, 2006.

  1. verity

    John Turco Guest

    <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 <>
     
    John Turco, Oct 13, 2006
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. verity

    Stewy Guest

    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.
     
    Stewy, Oct 13, 2006
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. verity

    salgud Guest

    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!
     
    salgud, Oct 13, 2006
    #23
  4. verity

    Mueen Nawaz Guest

    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
     
    Mueen Nawaz, Oct 14, 2006
    #24
  5. verity

    Stewy Guest

    Probably true. But I'm not earning my salary from it and if it brings me
    satisfaction, then that's the important point.
     
    Stewy, Oct 16, 2006
    #25
  6. verity

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    What is good use? Is it ,as I believe, just opinion?
     
    Neil Ellwood, Oct 16, 2006
    #26
  7. verity

    Mueen Nawaz Guest

    Precisely my point.

    --
    ASCII and ye shall receive.


    /\ /\ /\ /
    / \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z anl
     
    Mueen Nawaz, Oct 16, 2006
    #27
  8. verity

    -hh Guest

    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
     
    -hh, Oct 16, 2006
    #28
  9. verity

    Bill Funk Guest

    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.
     
    Bill Funk, Oct 17, 2006
    #29
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.