New digital P80 Arrives

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by pankaj purohit, Jun 26, 2008.

  1. I was discovering the Nikon website for my film SLR body's battery pack, and I found a new camera model which is not a DSLR but a digital camera with the specifications below. Two important things about this camera are 18x "optical" zoom (more than 400mm) and 12 mp. I surprised, because with our SLRs, we use some wide angles and some telephotos which normaly have range between 18mm to 300mm, if this camera fullfills more than our needs than why to buy a DSL because maximum people who are using DSLRs, use autofocus, auto exposure and other auto settings and dont utilize all the things which can be done manualy. P80 will be cheaper than a DSLR, and there is no need to interchange lenses and smaller in the size. Due to digital there are all the photos taken on those are digitals and with branded cameras, Picture quality are not the issue with different models... So discover and discuss..... Worldメs smallest*1 18x zoom camera Powerful 27 to 486mm (35mm format equivalent) 18x optical Zoom-NIKKOR lens 10.1 effective megapixels for high-resolution images Mode dial provides intuitive operation that makes it easy to achieve the desired shot VR optical image stabilization High sensitivity up to ISO 6400*2 Sport Continuous Mode for as many as 30 consecutive pictures*3 at 13 fps Large 2.7-inch LCD monitor with wide-viewing angle Electronic viewfinder for sharp, steady shooting Optimize image (including monochrome filter effect) Distortion control Three Unique Nikon Image Innovations for high performance ヨ Face-priority AF, In-Camera Red-Eye Fix and D-Lighting
    00PxkV-52077584.jpg
     
  2. Sorry, I wrote wrong, it is 10.1 effective megapixel rather 12...
     
  3. "if this camera fullfills more than our needs than why to buy a DSLR" Easy. Because even if you only use autofocus and
    auto-exposure, the DSLR still has a larger sensor and therefore potentially better image quality, plus the DSLR will be
    cleaner at higher ISOs.
     
  4. Look thru an electronic rangefinder. It looks like a television screen up close. Plus there is a time lag from what the lens sees to when you see it.

    You are better off with a D60.
     
  5. I will repeat what the first answer was a bit more bluntly. MP is an advertizing number that is supposed to mean their camera is better than one one than has a smaller number. It is a lie. It is all about sensor size not MP count. It gets more complicated, but all things being equal, bigger is better so long as you have 6MP or more.

    Furthermore to double the quality, there needs to be 4x the MP count. The change from 8 to 10 is insignificant.
     
  6. Thanks Peter and Ronald for contributions.

    You both and others and me too, will always prefer SLRs or DSLRs, but we all know, today with digitals only the picture quality matters, it doesn't matter that with what camera the picture was taken.

    So supose if this camera performs as what the specifications say, than why this will not start a new trend in photography equipements.

    Because digital shooters always say one common point in favour of digitals, and that is time factor of output. this camera will save more time, how...? This will save the time of interchanging the lenses, this will perform its best with fully autometic, no need to spend time in a small hole viewfinder.

    This is well known that the quality of picture taken on digital and film are totaly different. many film cameras produce same results in film category while good digitals get similar results in digital category. some other cameras are also in the market with similar specification with brands like canon.

    I think this is the best for the amatures and shooters who shoot when they go on holidays, or weekend or family memories.... but this this might be best for pros (Many of those blindly switched on digitals) also...

    The most benificial point of this camera is its 18x zoom with highest zoom of more than 400mm,
     
  7. Pankaj,

    And I GUARANTEE that a photographer who knows what he is doing will get a better image out of a 6MP D40 with the kit lens
    every time, because sensor size matters. And that leads to better picture quality.

    18x zoom? I have an 11x zoom for my D50. There are compromises in that design, so you know there's more compromises in
    the 18x zoom (I shudder to think what the distortion might be like). I'm not disputing that it might be a great camera (although
    currently Canon Point-and-Shoot cameras are way better than Nikon). A P&S Camera is the right tool for the job often. "I think
    this is the best for the amatures and shooters who shoot when they go on holidays, or weekend or family memories...." I agree
    wholeheartedly, it might be, although I will stick with my DSLR.

    "but this this might be best for pros" Absolutely not, and you won't find a pro who will believe that.
     
  8. Peter, I do agree with you and I am far backward than you and still love my film SLR than DSLRs, so just think why I
    like this little cam...?

    You can not totaly refuse the chances of switching of pros on these kind of point & shoot, If there were not any
    chances, than why so many pros have already switched on DSLRs while their film SLRs were doing way much better
    job for those than their DSLRs..........????

    I know personaly the "pros" in my town who use their D70 or D300 like point & shoot, and they don't know the
    functions, even they don't know what their small censors produce with their 28-80 or similar lense at the widest and
    they don't know what is RAW or JPEG, they shoot only JPEG.

    All digital pros (Who became pro with digitals and not used films earlier) just know working behind computer screen
    they don't know how to perform behind the small hole viewfinder...

    ...So why this (P80) will not change the trend.....??????????

    We now only and only see DSLRs or compact digital cameras everywhere, and this happened in just last three four
    years.

    Things are changing so quicky, like the instant results coming out from digitals where no place for wasting time for
    composing, metering, developing, printing and seeing....

    Now everybody wants to be faster than other faster one....

    No place for slowers........

    Just think twice before answering (If you do have time)........
     
  9. Pankaj,

    Pros have switched to DSLRs because their clients demand it and the economies of shooting with digital versus film
    have made it cheaper even if the gear costs more at the outset.

    What if I bet you one billion dollars that the P80 won't reverse the "trend" of pro photographers using serious cameras
    such as DSLRs. Would you take that? I bet not.

    Nope, sensor size is just one problem (strobe compatibility, lens distortion -i suspect-, low-light ability, hand-hold-ability
    are others), but "pros" and even serious amateurs are not going to dump their DSLRs for P80s any time soon. It looks
    like a great camera (useless to me without a hotshoe for a SB600 though) but pro? No way. Somebody tells me they're
    going to shoot my wedding with this and I'm going to pay them? No way.

    Again... a 6MP camera will make better 8x10s and even 11x14s than this camera (both in the same hands), even if this
    camera had 20MP.
     
  10. The sensor might be 10 mp but it's a small sensor and technology still has not solved the noise problem on small sensors at higher ISOs. Above 200-400 ISO the picture turns to cr@p quickly. As others have pointed out, a 6 mp- D40 is going to give you A LOT better inage than a 10 mp P80
     
  11. The P80 is an updated Coolpix 8800. Same problems kept that camera from soaring: Electronic viewfinder,
    viewfinder delay, noisy high ISOs, mediocre optics. The P80 is simply a super dooper consumer camera with the
    numbers to hook the masses. Sure hooked you. :)

    I'd like a little of Peter's action. But I only have a mere $1,000,000 that says the P80 won't "reverse the trend".
     
  12. If small censor is a big problem, than why most of you are using DX crop format censor,

    I forgot to mention one thing, and that would be interesting. It says : "smallest*1 18x zoom camera Powerful 27 to 486mm (35mm format equivalent) 18x optical Zoom-NIKKOR lens"

    Peter you say :- "Pros have switched to DSLRs because their clients demand it and the economies of shooting with digital versus film have made it cheaper even if the gear costs more at the outset."

    If cost is only the factor, than I think your mathemetics are week, (Sorry to say hard words, please don't take this otherwise) Have you ever calculeted the real cost difference between these two mediums...?

    Say : you spent $5000 (Lowest price I know) for a FX censor D3 which can be compared to 35 mm film and compare if you spend $600 for a high end film SLR and how much you would spend extra on buying and developing films, will you spend $4500 for 1500 rolls.... (As averagely costing me per roll less than $3)? No, much less than that, and shooting of 1500 rolls means 45000 pictures/shutter clicks.

    So think will you can still carry perfectly your DSLR after clicking about 50,000, answer is uncertain, you might have to change the body.

    So much still to calculate.

    I am totaly refuse the cost factor, but I still believe the time factor and if that is there, than more things are to invent and to come in trends.......

    Just WAIT for a couple o years...........
     
  13. Pankaj,

    Go ahead and buy a P80 and try to do some real paying "pro" work with it, and get back to me.

    Sure, we'll wait a couple years and we'll see if the pros start buying them. I think not.
     
  14. a woman at work was shopping for a new digital camera. she had high expectations: 12mp, long zoom, good low-light capability (she didn't put it that way, but that's what she meant). she said she wanted a camera like mine (i have a D300) -- i told her i didn't think so. i pointed her to the P80 instead, and she is very pleased with it. she's not the type who knows what a megapixel really is, or about the difference in sensors. and yet she had relatively high expectations and was willing to spend $400USD to get what she was after. i believe that she is the type of user for whom the P80 makes perfect sense. while i might love to have a 400mm zoom, am i going to rush out and buy a P80? are you kidding?
     
  15. If people are talking on the manner of ISO speeds, than still there is no perfect solution on low lights to capture the actual lighting and scene..... So this point os also neglagible......
     
  16. In a forum post a few weeks ago I said the same thing. For most people, not pros or very serious amateurs, the new P& S will devastate the interchangeable lens market. I have been shooting a P80 since April. For almost everything most people would want, it's wonderful and when you factor in size, weight, costs (and no additional lenses) I like it a lot.

    Am I going to sell my D300? No. There are times when that's all that will do. But I choose carefully now and weigh the tradeoffs and there aren't that many, and the P80 wins a lot.

    The problem here on PN is that you are talking to the high end very dedicated crowd. And that's not the market. A whole lot of those buying lower end dSLRs are going to weary of carrying them and their peripheral gear around and having to keep an eye on it. It will become something that sits on the shelf at home that they used to use a lot when they first got it.

    I have had a P5000 which I gave away when I got a P5100. Now I have the P5100, P80 and a P60. I have started selling some of my lenses and a backup D70s. I had already let my D299 go when I got my D300.

    In April, I carried my D300 a 17-55 2.8 and the P80 or P5100 and took side-by-side shots for comparison. Depending on the subject, there was little or no visible difference when I printed the pics. Since 99%+ don't ever get printed by the great shooting public, the size, convenience and cost will convert most of them.

    If you haven't used one of these in the field and printed them, you have a treat coming. This is especially true when transporting gear is getting more and more difficult.

    And remember a few years ago when a pro shot a film P&S on the Sports Illustrated shoot and almost no one noticed?

    If you are shooting sports, flying birds or dark nightclubs, then it's not for you. But that doesn't even scratch most of the buying public.

    This reminds me of the early film v digital discussions when almost all believed that digital would never overtake film. And we know how that came out.

    Conni
     
  17. Although I love the responsiveness of my D200 (and my wife's D300..) I am still looking around for a good compact. 10-12 MPix or so. One the FITS IN MY POCKET.

    I think the P80 is a lovely camera for people that want a lot in one package (as William points out in his example). For me it 'would not fit the bill'. Too big for a compact. Not as responsive (= fast reacting, clear viewdiner, and MF, when I want it) as a DSLR. Probably not as good high-ISO performance - sure the D300 is addictive in that respect (and there I disagree with you, Pankaj!) !!
     
  18. No, no chance at all, I hate all digitals (Even DSLRs), I hate digital black grey noise all around, I hate digital eating of details, I hate Digital post processing time (Which digital pros spent to justify their choice), I hate digital printing, I hate quick output that digitals produce and there is no satisfaction behind that, I hate sensor factors, I hate durability factor, I hate small life factor, I hate so much freedom to take pictures and laking in skills behind "camera", I hate being laisy with compositions and metering, I hate.............

    I am still using film SLRs happily (Even I started with digital and thrown that) and will use till I can find films and labs to develop.

    I am not going to buy a DSLR or Digital Compact one......

    I am just talking about the trend to come up next.......... Because no one was believing 5 years back that the DSLRs going to become mainstream cameras...... So today no one knows whats next.....????

    I know very well, I used smallest one of my cameras, and that was sony compact (I don't remeber the model), was producing so sharp pictures those I never seen in my life and with my other cameras, but those pictures didn;t had live DOF. I don't like those picture because of artificial sharpness and clearity.

    So peter you are one of those who say different and do different, you are using one digital and refusing another digital, just because you didn't use it or you don't like it today.... who knows, like your DSLR, you are going to buy a allrounder type camera next.....

    Still real digital technology to come..... and that would be a matchbox sized camera, very slimed, and still no one can asume......... people working on that............. Wait and see how more quicky the things will change........ And the todays digitals are going to be scrap soon,

    Peter, acording to you words, A client would always prefer a pro who having the latest equipement and if this happens, than todays digital camera will die before it pays for its hudge cost......
     
  19. Albin and Constance Cook are very right here and took my post positively........
     
  20. Pankaj.... Why didn't the Coolpix 8700 and 8800 and 5700 and all the EVF "superzooms" from Sony and Canon and Panasonic already make this big market shift??
     
  21. Yes Joy, you are right, but I am an Nikonian so I just said about this, but all my writup about this is about sll this
    type of cameras, all this kind of other brands cameras should also be considered as my upper write-ups, I only
    mention P80, because other 2 or three cameras ( I know) only stand up with it.....
     
  22. I have a DSLR with an APS sized sensor and a very good quality moderate zoom. I also have a 6 MP small sensor 12X superzoom, equivalent to 36-420mm. Both serve needs very well in their respective strengths. Dave Etchells of Imaging Resource writes about the "fun factor" of superzooms. They can deliver excellent quality if set and used properly in good light. I have gotten more positive reactions from the work I do with my small sensor superzoom than from my DSLR. Both have enlarged nicely to 16 X 20.
    00Py0J-52181684.jpg
     
  23. You asked the question and received the answer. Many people said no, none said ok. You choose not to believe them. Sorry if it was not the answer you wanted to hear.

    So go ahead and buy it. It will make nice 5x7 prints. A P&S is a P&S and nothing will change it.

    My walk around light weight is a D40. 18/135 lens. If I want better pics from it, I can put a better lens on it like my 35 or 28.
     
  24. Thanks Howard,

    Now tell guy (Who totaly refused the mighty new trends in photography of using more quicker and smaller gears) ......... Did you realy think, what heppened with films will not happen in future with the highly paid DSLRs..........

    Remember one thing (As I experienced in my life and how other philosophers say ) "Which raises fastly, falls much quicker than rising speed"
     
  25. interesting thread...
    the fact of the matter is that DSLR's are big and bulky and often inconvenient, especially when you're talking about
    lugging around several lenses and a body, which may be overkill for some applications. a D2X is not a casual
    snapshot camera, for instance.

    therefore, there is surely a need for "bridge" cameras to satisfy two segments of the market: 1) P&S consumers who
    want advanced features (i.e. 18x zoom) but don't want to change lenses and 2) DSLR owners who want some of their
    big camera features in a compact body.

    so far nikon hasn't been ahead of the curve on this trend -- their market strategy seems more focused on entry-level
    DSLRs like the D60 which cleverly get people to buy into their system -- and the current coolpix line reflects this.
    the market leaders right now in bridge cameras are the canon g9, the panasonic fz18 and fz50 and the fuji s100fs; at
    the high-end side, innovative compacts like sigma's DP1 and ricoh's R8 offer unique features and variation from what
    thom hogan calls the 'me-too' cameras, of which the p80 is a good example, since it doesn't have any major features
    that havent appeared before on other manufacurers cameras first.

    IMO, nikon's pithy P&S entries so far seem more like a reluctant move designed primarily not to steal the D60's
    thunder. the p80 is a step up from a p5100, but not quite on the level of a g9 or and fz50. its achilles heel remains
    shutter lag and high ISO performance. here's the problem: if you could get a better camera for $400 than you could
    by investing $1000+ into a system, why would anyone pay more? also, the $400 DSLR will soon be a reality, so
    another question, is why would anyone pay $500-$900 for a fixed-lens camera? that's the conundrum manufacturers
    face, but ultimately, they have to go where the market dictates.

    bridge cameras seem like the shape of things to come. if you combined the g9's manual controls and mag-alloy
    body with the f100fs' manual zoom ring, command dials and dedicated buttons, fixed manual-twist superzoom, and
    slightly bigger sensor (providing better IQ than most P&S cameras), you'd likely have the perfect bridge camera. but
    who could offer this camera at an affordable price point? the s100fs retails for $700 already; for that price you can get
    a d60 w/ 18-55 VR lens or a d40 with 18-55 and 55-200. a more robust all-in-one camera would satisfy the high-end
    folks, but what about the soccer moms?

    another trend is the subcompact dslr kit, i.e. olympus e-420 w/ 25mm pancake lens, which gives 35mm film users
    the equivalent of an SLR with prime kit lens, without giving up IQ or compactness. i applaud this move, even though
    4/3rds is a quirky format, and can't help but wonder why nikon doesnt offer more AF-S primes that work with
    d40/d60. do they want to cede this terrirory to sigma?

    down the line, i think we're gonna see more bridge cameras that blur the line between DSLRs and P&Ses as well as
    more subcompact DSLRs. not sure where nikon fits into all this: they could surely make a better camera than the
    p80 if they wanted to, but so far they haven't. bottom line for me is i'd get a s100fs, fz18, or g9 before i'd get a P80.
     
  26. Ronald, Whats wrong with you, I am not refusing answers, others are refusing the "going to hapeen" things,

    Just think twice or thrice or as much you can, earlier this was said that films will not be replaced by the digitals and it has happened... So why the p&S time is not coming.

    I am not joking here, I am serious and I have seen so much pros in my towen with their high end P & S (Like p80 or others) who shooting wedings or events and journalism....

    If you are saying this is only for the 5 X 7 prints than I would like to say that all the digitals, even highly priced DSLRs (I would not like to say those high end) are only good enough for smaller 5X 7 prints because I use films.......

    That is not the point to discuss now.....

    All the things happen in digitals, finaly just come arround the film vs digital talk....

    So if many of you are refusing fine and low priced P & S (Still more to invent) than you all are refusing the all digitals used in photography, whether on the other hand you are using ine of those Electronic items.
     
  27. Pankaj,

    No one disputes that a superzoom P&S like the P80 might not be great for some people, especially amateurs. You stated however that
    you thought a camera like this would make sense for professional photographers, and you implied you meant as a replacement of and not
    an addition to whatever DSLR they might be using. That sentiment is what I find ridiculous. Also, you are singing the praises of a camera
    you don't own and don't plan to buy? Is that what I understand? You state [I only mention P80, because other 2 or three cameras ( I know)
    only stand up with it.....] but earlier you say [I am not going to buy a DSLR or Digital Compact one......]

    Okay, you are making statements based on spec sheets, and have little or no knowledge of how the camera you think pros will start
    buying instead of DSLRs actually behaves.

    With all due respect, what the heck is the point of your post in the first place? Those of us who've owned and worked with good P&S
    cameras and good DSLR cameras both will tell you that the DSLR is better. You dispute this based on... what exactly...?
     
  28. Thanks Eric, for a thoughtfull writup here........
     
  29. Peter I have used and thrown digital allready before getting my film SLR........... Ehich happened one and half year back, and now I love the films.........
     
  30. The largest I have printed is 13x17. It is in my office and is quite good and garners many complements. I can't print larger because that is the size limit on my printer.

    Use care as you would with a dSLR and you can get competitive outcomes.

    How many of you responding to this post have used this camera in the field?

    Conni
     
  31. Being relatively new to DSLR, I found this discussion interesting. Before I bought my D40, I had a Kodak P880 (still have it), which is a P&S camera with lots of pro features, including RAW, electronic viewfinder, 52mm filter threads, hot shoe, manual exposure and focus, lots of automatic modes, good quality German optics, etc. At 8mp, it takes wonderful photos, and I've had some stunning 8X10s -- haven't tried any larger.

    I wasn't worried about the D40 being only 6mp because I had heard from reliable sources that the sensor size is more important than the mp size, and I now believe it -- I have no complaints with the D40. So, anyhow, this discussion prompted me to compare sensor sizes between my P880 and Nikon D40. Here's how they compare:

    Kodak P880 -- 7.18mm X 5.32mm
    Nikon D40 -- 23.7mm X 15.5mm

    That's a pretty substantial difference. Even though I still love the Kodak, the D40 is getting all of the action now. I'm about six months into the DSLR learning curve, and will graduate to a larger Nikon next year. No regrets.
     
  32. hey pankaj,
    i think the reluctance of high-end dslr users to accept the prosumer P&S revolution has less to do with snobbery and elitism and more to do with the fact that that revolution hasn't quite matured. people are likely waiting until the feature sets catch up with the ambitious marketing; until then, DSLRs offer superior IQ and better overall performance.

    as i hinted in my previous post, the best current all-around P&S is the canon g9, and the wave of the future lies somewhere in-between the fuji s100, the sigma dp1, and the olympus e-420. you could throw in the ricoh gr II in there too. but all these cameras have shortcomings.

    part of the problem is that while engineers could make a 6mp compact camera with a CMOS sensor and a modest, high-quality zoom lens or a fixed focal length large aperture lens, the marketing department has consumers thinking they can't live without 10-12 MP, face detection, and movie modes. given that, it's understandable (though frustrating for some) why nikon's recent coolpix offerings haven't been groundbreaking.

    sigma, ricoh, and to some extent panasonic have to be commended for pushing the innovation envelope, but they still havent made "the one" body which completely justifies its existance and its price point, as the nikon D300 does.

    meanwhile, nikon's pretty happy that its bitten a chunk out of canon's market share in the DSLR market, so for them, there's no rush to tackle bridge cameras which could conceivably bite into this market with any aggressiveness, at least not until the bridge market develops a bit more.

    getting back to the thread, i think the reason people are disagreeing with you, pankaj, is that you are making the p80 out to be more than it is. is it possible to shoot weddings with a high-end P&S? probably, if you really had too, although you'd look like a punter (image is important for bride-and-groom-chasers; that's why so many use the overpriced but pro-looking 17-55 nikkor). but a more likely use until these cameras develop is as a backup pocket camera or at most, some landscapes, street/doc, and candids. simply put, for portraiture, a DSLR will give you better results almost every time.

    if you take a look at the dp1's specs, it's great on paper, but in practice it's way too slow and has poor AF. shooting ISO 100 is ok for landscapes in perfect conditions, but all the reviews say it sucks in low-light; you'd be better off with a d40+sigma 30/1.4.

    similarly, the p80 has decent specs, and could deliver the same results as a more expensive DSLR in snapshot situations. you gotta love an 18x zoom. but any serious shooter will prefer a g9's more robust build and better overall feature set, yet you'll still run into the small sensor/high noise blues, to say nothing of shutter lag, with that body.

    the s100fs is intriguing too, except fuji forgot to add an auto correcting feature for CA. big oops.

    olympus is on to something with their subcompact DSLR+pancake kit pairing, but how many 5D or D300 owners will want to invest in yet another system? 4/3rds has always been a bit of a gamble, and hasn't yet proved its standalone ability; according to dp review, the 25mm pancake isnt as sharp as a prime should be, and nikon and canon's entry-level models have better IQ than the e-420.

    all of this is to say we're still one or two generations away from high-end P&S cameras really offering viable alternatives for serious shooters. the good thing is, with falling DSLR prices, bridge cameras will need to be affordable to maintain their developing niche.
     
  33. Pankaj, you could argue under water! What a classic thread. What a load of nonsense. Here's what you wrote in a recent PN thread:

    Pankaj Purohit , Jun 18, 2008; 05:29 a.m.

    I want to know too....

    What is basic difference in RAW and JPG? If I scan a negative in RAW and same in JPG, after that I will do some posprocessing than what I can or cannot do perfectly in JPG/RAW ....?

    I too want to know

    After much experiments I am still unable to find any diffrence.

    Tell me how can I test the difference....?


    Clearly you have no idea about digital workflow and processing. You aren't qualified enough to even be arguing this point.

    You keep saying that pros in your town use their high end dslr's as point and shoots, and as such they could get the same results out of a real point and shoot. The difference is, as so many people have already stated, that the dslr has a bigger sensor, greater dynamic range, raw format, better high (and medium and low) iso and greater access to shallow DOF. Even if you do use them as point and shoots, you will get better results out of a dslr (and by the way I have both a Canon 5D and a Canon S3 superzoom).

    And can someone explain to Pankaj that the quality of film has been matched by the crop (1.5,1.6x) sensors for sometime now (i don't have direct experience with this, but it is considered essentially a fact amongst people supposedly in the know).
     
  34. I am a graphics artstist, and working on computers since 2000, And I have tried various image formats, (Earlier I have used many digitals, and I have said many times) and here I I was just surprised that many say to use RAW without knowing the benifits of that, the beggest benifit of RAW is sometimes can recover some lost parts of image which happened due to bad use of camera.... and many others are, but not so much that all people fforce each other to shoot only in RAW, so I wanted to why other photographers want to use RAW,

    Now days I am working with films, and recently I starting working on scanning films, so I just wanted to know if there is binifits to scan in RAW over JPEG,

    I still not certain whether to scaning file in RAW is also benificial or not like shooting with digital camera...

    B. You have no answers on my threads and you are little down on you original opinions and just trying to refuse my question, where I am saying there are lot more chances of the fully autometed, small, lightwait P & S digital (or anything other tech.) cameras to become mainstream pro cameras..... thats all, and you or me cannot refuse this all the way because earlier people were saying tha films are not going to be replaced with any other medium and it happend, whether still so many "problems" in photography with digitals...
     
  35. Eric, you wrote some interesting words,

    Yes I do agree with you, and thats what, this is all about and some people are not understanding the point, that all these are marketing stratagies to just sale high priced cameras, even manufacturers can manufacture hugely cheap digital. They just don't want to do that right now, because at present those are earning money because of blindness of some people who blindly believe on "FAKE" DSLR body, which looks like and perform like earlier SLRs, but why this is not possible with digitals to become cameras more smaller in size and more lighter in wait, Earliear the size was manitaned with film SLRs because there was space needeed for the film rolls and machanism, but today we can see, 1.5" thick laptop has all the "needed" things in it compared to 4 feet X 4 feet desktop, even in low price than desktop,

    With digitals, this very much possible to controll the cost, size and wait while maintaining the quality.

    Still a real digital world to come.....
     
  36. I think everyone seems to be forgetting that the small, feature-filled, light-weight point-and-shoots (called bridge cameras from this point on) were also around during the time when film was the only medium. In contrast to the present, those film bridge cameras used exactly the same medium as the SLR; in other words, there was no issue with sensor size, and all the repercussions that go along with it, such as noise, high ISO performance, etc. Film SLR or bridge camera, could use Fuji Velvia 50 if the photographer desired. However, those film bridge cameras did not supplant the SLR for professional use. Why? Because a jack-of-all-trades camera involved too many compromises. For example, one major benefit of SLR use is TTL viewing; in exchange for their small size, most film bridge cameras were not large enough to accommodate a pentaprism for TTL viewing. Another example is lens quality. Say what you will, but lens with a wide zoom range cannot match two separate lenses with a total matching zoom range in terms of optical quality. I can go on and on about other differences, but the point is that bridge cameras failed to supplant SLRs even when film was the only medium around. So, in the foreseeable future, digital bridge cameras will likely also fail to supplant digital SLRs for the very same reason their film predecessors failed to do the same. The compromises are too great for professional use (and I have to emphasize professional here, since that was a key point made by P. Sure, this is great for non-photographers, but professionals have higher standards for their equipment). Simply put, the technology is not there, or it is not cost effective yet. Will the technology get there at some point? Sure, why not. But not probably in the foreseeable future.
     
  37. Cameraon, thanks for sharing your experiencefull thoughts with us,

    I do agree with you what you said:: "but lens with a wide zoom range cannot match two separate lenses with a total matching zoom range in terms of optical quality"... This sentance totaly fis with todays optics, but no one can refuse that, in future this will be possible to have only one lens for all purpose with the technology....

    Toady we don't need a lab between us and our photograph, so at the other day we won't be needing 10 lenses for 10 needs, while only one for 100 needs..........

    I just want to say that, I am feeling future scenario in such a different maner........
     
  38. I can go on and on about other differences

    Why bother? He's not listening....

    you are little down on you original opinions

    Pankaj, I don't need to have original opinions on this. I am standing on the shoulders of giants. There is nothing more that needs to be said. If all else is equal, a small sensor will not outperform a larger sensor. Sorry if this is not original enough, but it is such common sense that there is no need here for originality.

    Sure, one day small sensors will perform as good or even better than today's larger sensors. But in the future, larger sensors will still outperform smaller sensors. Full stop.
     
  39. B, this talk is not all about small or large sensors, this is about the possibilitis compactness of future equpements, so there won't be any need to interchnage lenses, big and heavy sizes or so charachterstics of SLRs.....
     
  40. B, this talk is not all about small or large sensors, this is about the possibilitis compactness of future equpements, so there won't be any need to interchnage lenses, big and heavy sizes or so charachterstics of SLRs.....

    Ok, but this is a different proposition to what you where arguing earlier. The P80 has a small sensor, and the P80 is what your question was about.

    But if your talking about compacted technology (other than sensors), then sure, one day we probably will reach human image viewing resolution limits, where having big equipment won't provide any discernable benefit to small equipment. But we are not there yet, and certainly not with the P80, no matter how well it performs.
     
  41. Pankaj, taking sensor size into account, point & shoot cameras already reached physical limit of resolution. For similar resolution/limit you'd have aps sized sensors with 100mp and full frame with 250mp. I'm pretty sure things will never go that far, but while point & shoot cameras sell on lies and "features" dslrs leave a lot more possibilities for future development.

    If I were you, i'd rather watch for new emerging compact cameras with large sensors like sigma dp1. But even these won't be a match for dslrs. If you think about such a camera with a fast or long lens, it's bulk is no different than a dslr.
     
  42. Yes Bernie and Igor, You right that what I am taliking about the P80, is not that for what I am talking about, But take this anly as a reference, I refered only this in first question, if you read my other write-ups here in this thread, you will find what is my actual feeling about next trends in photography may be....!
     
  43. Just looked at some P80 samples - surprisingly noisy, was my first thought.
     
  44. Till today, I never saw any picture from any camera (Digital or Film) which doesn't has grain or noise in dark areas...
     
  45. Hey I am waiting for your thinking about possiilities of new trends in photography guys, No one else for last few hours........!!!
     
  46. If anything, the trend for photography is not to have a single unit that can do it all for both amateurs and professionals. In all honesty, the market would never allow this. Why? Because the demands are different between amateurs and professionals. And if the argument here centers on size of the camera, then everyone should be aware that there is such a thing as too small. One need not look any further than the demise of the sub compact laptop for evidence of this.
     
  47. Pankaj, i thoroughly disagree with your argument that the Nikon P80 (or any other camera in this class) would
    replace any serious professional photographer's camera of choice for the following reasons. Firstly, the Nikon
    P80 (NP80) was designed and engineered for 'the experienced hobbyist with a limited budget' in mind. Secondly,
    you cannot make a decent A0 (or even A2, 16X20 inches) size print with the NP80 due to grain and noise in the
    size of original image captured. Thirdly, the serious modern professional photographer has already invested a
    rather large capital in either digital or analog medium format (see hasselblad H2/H3D or mamiya AFDIII/ZD) or
    high performance 35mm full frame digital SLR systems (such as Nikon D3 and Cannon 1Ds Mark III) with full a range
    of professional grade lenses of various focal lengths, which permit for the above described print size at
    sufficient detail. Lastly, the above described platforms provide immense technological flexibility -possibility
    of sensor and lens upgrade-, thereby providing the photographer with a certain degree of future proofing his or
    her investment.
     
  48. "Amateur Photographer" magazine in the UK just reviewed this camera, and panned it. They said it gave very poor quality images.
     
  49. Pankaj,

    It's real simple. A small-sensor camera like the P80 is NOT going replace a DSLR. You've got it from a lot of people for a
    lot of reasons, and your relentless clinging to the idea that this camera is going to be a pro piece of equipment is frankly
    (with all due respect) a little ridiculous. The reason I'm responding is to help the amateur who wants a serious camera
    who might read this post later.

    New trends in photography? Easy! Pros will be using FX format for years to come, Serious amateurs will eventually
    switch to "pro-sumer" FX format cameras, many of us will stick with DX for a while. Pros and serious amateurs are not
    going to be trading their D80s for P80s. It ain't gonna happen. Nobody except you seems to think it will. Can we end this
    discussion now?
     
  50. Thanks everybody,

    if you have read my upper write-ups, my thoughts would be more clear.... that I am not talking about this perticular camera which has small sensor,

    I am more talking about new trends in photography equips (Changes happening so fastly from last 3-5 years). like a few years back, everybody was talking that pros will never leave the films, today nobody is with films........!!!
     
  51. "I am more talking about new trends in photography equips (Changes happening so fastly from last 3-5 years). like
    a few years back, everybody was talking that pros will never leave the films, today nobody is with films........!!!"

    Pankaj,
    A few professional medium format platforms allow for film and digital formats (See Mamiya AFD645III and
    Hasselblad H2, 503CW, H3) to be used with same camera and lenses. A prime example of a similar system in the 35mm
    size is the Leica R9, which can be fitted with a digital sensor module. Hence films will continue to co-exist
    with digital sensors at least at the PRO level.
     
  52. I wouldn't say that film is dead. Medium and large format still reigns supreme when massive enlargements are needed...regardless, I agree with Peter in that the trend in photography, at least for the foreseeable future (5 years or so) is towards better DX sensor performance and the trickling down of FX sensor technology in camera company product lines.
     
  53. Constance Cook wrote:
    And remember a few years ago when a pro shot a film P&S on the Sports Illustrated shoot and almost no one noticed?
    Not quite an apples to apples comparison because with with film P&S cameras, they had _exactly_ the same sensor as the pro SLRs. With the P80, we're talking about a sensor which has very distinct shortcomings compared to the APS and 135 format sensors.
    This reminds me of the early film v digital discussions when almost all believed that digital would never overtake film. And we know how that came out.
    I think the reason why most people are refuting Pankaj's forecast is because he's focusing his discussion on current P&S cameras such as the P80. These cameras are definitely not going to lure pro photographers away from their DSLRs. If Pankaj is predicting that some future super P&S, with none of current P&S shortcomings is produced, will become the pro standard, then that's different. But it's not a very interesting argument. In other words, he's hinging his argument on an "insert magic here" development. Sure, if P&S cameras are magically transformed so that they are superior to DSLRs in all areas, then pros will adopt them. But it's a yawner of a discussion.
    larsbc
     
  54. I said it wouldn't do for pros but for the great mass of those buying ;lower to mid-price dSLRs, it's going to go a long way. No lenses to buy, nothing to lug around and low initial cost.

    The magazine that panned it either didn't know how to use it, used it in the casual haphazard way most do with a P&&S and so don't get what they would with the lower end dSLRs, or they had a bad sample.

    A large part of the problem with any P&S camera is that people don't use them with the care they would with an SLR or a dSLR. And then they say, "see, it's not as good." There is the urge to just grab shots with small cameras.

    I have loads (too many) of top of the line Nikon equipment. I'm selling a lot of it. I choose carefully for what I want to do and then if the little camera will do it -- it's the choice.

    About the noisy print, either the user didn't have the camera set properly or knows squat about printing. I really enjoy printing and so have worked hard to get the very best out of what I use. At high ISO, there is noise but I haven't met a digital camera that doesn't have noise. I was never bothered by grain in film if it suited the purpose it was used for but digital noise gets on my nerves and I hate the slick plastic look that often accompanies digital prints.

    As I said in my original post, I don't think these are for pros who often do very specialized things or even for serious amateurs who do very specialized things but I do think they will begin to eat the rest of the market bit by bit.

    And for those of you who tout other brands as being better than Nikon and note that they have been behind the curve, I ask you if you have used any of the new Nikon P&Ss? It's a whole new ballgame but if you don't approach the settings with the seriousness you would with adSLR, well, you'll get what you expect.

    So far, almost all who have responded to this post either haven't used one or picked it up in a store and knew all about it.
    Conni

    Conni
     
  55. Are most people in the country ( or world ) just as well off with a P&S as an SLR camera system. Absolutely. There are probably a lot people with expensive systems that would be just as well served with a decent P&S. Cameras are like bicycles, every body has at least one. And for 99% of the people out there, they can get everything they need in a bicycle from K-Mart. But dedicated enthusiasts don't buy their bikes at K-Mart.

    I picked up a Canon G9 once, for a couple of months just to play with. If you've never shot with a real camera you'd probably like it a lot. But I found it simply annoying. The resolution was good unless the scene had a lot of detail, like a landscape. The noise above 100ISO was atrocious and could be bad at 100 without very good lighting conditions. Without taking up space pointing out all the things a compact digital won't do, suffice it to say that anyone with experience with a small, medium or large format system, is well aware of what these things can't do.

    Does that mean they're no good? Not at all. It just depends on how you see photography and what it means to you. If all you want to do is take snapshots of the kids, why spend a lot of money on something you're probably not going to want to be bothered with carrying around and learning how to operate? Why buy an $8000 Trek just to ride around in the neighborhood? You won't appreciate the results anyway. All the pixie dust in the world isn't going to turn a P80 or a G9 into a "professional" camera. AFA trying to overcome the limitations of the of the electronic compacts to something that can displace a 35mm system, that's just trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
     
  56. Ah, Steve! I sm as serious about my photography as anyone on this site and I turn out work as good or better but I also see that the world that buys cameras is not PN. And that changes are being made that aren't insignificant.

    Come past some time and I'll show you what I do. I don't post anything on the Web because I don't want it to appear on other sites around the world. I know how I would feel about that. I would join the great group here of the outraged who show up when that happens. And many of my photos are people who didn't agree to having their image all over the net. I respect people that way.

    Get one of these cameras, P5000, P5100, P80 or even the little P60. Use it as you would your other cameras and see what you can do.

    I am not giving up my D300, F6 or F% or the crowd of other equipment I have and use but I use what suits and what suits is sometimes the P80.

    Conni
     
  57. Connie, FWIW, I've used digital P&S cameras longer than I have DSLRs and have, in fact, bought 3 P&Ss in the last
    4 yrs, along with 3 DSLRs. For my type of shooting, where ISO 400 is my standard speed, none of these P&S
    cameras (Fuji F10, Canon A610, Canon A650IS...along with a pair of Minolta A1s...but they're older) can come close
    to matching anything from an APS-sized sensor. But even at lower ISOs, their dynamic range is noticeably limited.
    Believe me, I'd love to be wrong, because a P&S would be more desirable for my street photography.
     
  58. This is a very interesting discussion. I am new to Photo.net and this is only the second time I have posted a
    comment. Here are my two cents worth:

    I have a Nikon Coolpix 8800 and a Panasonic FZ50. Both take great photos in their automatic and manual modes.
    When the Canon 40D came out, I decided to take the leap and buy it. Since then I have put together a nice
    collection of lenses and improved my skills tremendously. When I first made the switch to the DSLR, my results
    were terrible. The DSLR behaved differently than either of the P&S camera and the resulting photos showed it. It
    took me about three months to get consistent good results with the 40D and another three months to get consistent
    great results.

    Today I use the 40D and FZ50 somewhat interchangeably. It is true that having to change lenses can cost me some
    nice photos (nature and wildlife mainly) because I cannot switch in time to get the shot. What works very well for me
    is to use the DSLR for the stuff I am actively working on and the P&S for opportunity photos where switching lenses
    is impractical. The P&S camera has some obvious limitations. For me this is often the low usable ISO settings at
    dusk or dawn. The resulting image quality is also noticeably higher with the 40D and a good lens if everything is
    setup carefully. Both cameras make up my モkitヤ and compliment each other so well that I donメt leave home without
    them anymore. However, if I had the cash, I would be happier with two 40Ds instead. One of my biggest complaints
    about both of my P&S cameras is that they color the photos very differently than the 40D, which in my opinion is the
    most accurate. I never noticed this before I got the 40D but now it sometimes really bothers me. I can take
    basically identical photos with all three cameras reulting in slightly different colorings no matter what settings I try. I
    do have to admit that this is a problem I am still working on and it may well be that it is my own short coming rather
    than any one of the cameras.

    Who knows what the future may bring. Isnメt it all just speculation? If anyone ever comes up with a flawless $200 f/1
    lens with a range from 10mm-1000mm, either in a P&S or DSLR lens, Iメll be the first to get in line. I think we are all
    trying to improve our skills and our tools. When the photo industry finally does invent a better wrench for our nut, no
    matter what form it takes, I think people will jump on it. Until then, we are stuck using the best tools we can find and
    afford.
     
  59. Ooops...

    I forgot to mention that I have been considering the P80 to update my existing P&S cameras but have decided to hold off for a generation or two.
     
  60. "Amateur Photographer" magazine in the UK just reviewed this camera, and panned it. They said it gave very poor quality images.
    I do not have a copy of the magazine, however the list of contents found on their website indicates that the review is for the P60.
    Andrew, if you have a copy of the magazine (and it sounds like you do) can you double-check this? If the review is of the P80 could you provide a little more information regarding the author's thoughts on the P80?
    Many thanks!
     
  61. Constance,
    Like I said, I've used P&Ss before and the differences among them are minor indeed. They all basically use the
    same sensor, differing little other than the number of pixels crammed onto them. If you find that you can use
    them and get results you're happy with, great. But let's get real, they're not for any kind of serious work, even
    if it's serious only to the individual involved.

    I don't think you picked up on my bicycle analogy. Most PNers aren't concerned with what the entire world buys.
    Most of the camera buying world wants a $200 digital from Best Buys. Does that mean they're as good as a D3 or
    1DSMKIII? Maybe one day, a company will market a digital P&S that just blows away every thing else on the market.
    I just wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen. Besides, why would you assume that kind of advancement
    in that segment without at least the same in DSLRs?

    AFA as I can see, the only advances in P&Ss are in the number of MP, which someone else said, is a marketing ploy
    for the uninformed. More MP = more noise on those little sensors, aggressive in camera noise reduction means
    blurred images. There's no way to get around it. A couple of efforts have been made to market a P&S with a APS-C
    sensor. Sony made one a couple of years ago, they don't make it anymore. It was $1000 MSRP, I gotta believe if
    they sold any amount of them they'd still be for sale today. Sigma is attempting a similar thing with their DP-1.
    But where's the market? At $800 Mom and Pop aren't going to buy one and you and I can get a damn nice lens for
    our Nikons and Canons for the same money. P80s and G9s notwithstanding, the P&s camera has undergone little real
    change in recent years. And any attempt at marketing a pro P&S, like I said in my last post, is just an exercise
    in solving a problem that doesn't exist. We already have pro cameras that work quite well.
    Good luck.
     
  62. I quite got your bicycle analogy. You're ignoring that i never said they would be pro cameras and I've said that in each post I've made. But these cameras or those that follow in the next 2 - 3 generations will eat the mid-low-priced dSLR market. Extremely few of that crowd, as a percentage, will buy the gear we do if they don't have to. And they won't have to.
     
  63. "AFA as I can see, the only advances in P&Ss are in the number of MP, which someone else said, is a marketing
    ploy for the uninformed."

    well, actually, that's not true that the only advances are more MP, tho' you're right about the mkting ploy. the dp1
    and the s100fs both have bigger sensors than most other point and shoots, and take two different approaches. the
    dp1 aims to be the digital equivalent of a fixed focal length 35mm camera, while the s100fs attempts to be an all-in-
    one not-quite-a-DSLR superzoom with advanced features that some entry level DSLRs lack. both are steps in the
    right direction, and could conceivably appeal to two market segments: hi-end P&S users who want one camera/one
    lens solutions and DSLR owners who want less bulky kits for hiking or travel. but as i stated before both cameras
    seem like they are at least a generation away from being what they would need to be.if the dp1 had better
    ergonomics, better AF, and better high-ISO performance, it would be really attractive to street/doc shooters who want
    a stealthy compact for candids. likewise, the only thing really holding back the s100fs is CA, which can be corrected
    in post, but who wants to do that with every photo?

    other advances have been made, such as RAW capability--the biggest difference between a g7 and g9--and overall
    this niche will continue to develop due to trickle-down DSLR tech, which we're already seeing in some P&S cameras,
    i.e., optical stabilization, active d-lighting, etc.

    "A couple of efforts have been made to market a P&S with a APS-C sensor. Sony made one a couple of years ago,
    they don't make it anymore. It was $1000 MSRP, I gotta believe if they sold any amount of them they'd still be for
    sale today. Sigma is attempting a similar thing with their DP-1. But where's the market? At $800 Mom and Pop
    aren't going to buy one and you and I can get a damn nice lens for our Nikons and Canons for the same money.
    P80s and G9s notwithstanding"

    obviously these attempts were premature, since DSLRs were also at the $1000+ price point then. with an entry level
    DSLR at half that today, it's a bit clearer where the price points are. i think there is a slowly developing market-- there
    are lots of soccer moms who would prefer the simplicity of a fixed superzoom over a complicated DSLR kit with
    many lenses, and there will always be a need for a compact camera that takes high-quality images without
    sacrificing portability. if sigma can correct the dp1's flaws in the next generation, it could become THE street shooter
    special. but though the technology exists, the market is moving incrementally rather than with quantum-like leaps.
    that's because camera manu's have learned that it doesnt pay to make a camera the market isnt ready for yet. it's
    frustrating for folks who look at a p80, g9, or fz50 and say, "almost..."

    "the P&s camera has undergone little real change in recent years."

    i'd have to disagree here. seven years ago, i paid $400 for a 10x zoom fuji with 4.1 MP. today, i can get a more
    compact 10x zoom panasonic lumix with 9mp and many other features my fuji didnt have for $300. also, today you
    have 18x and even 20x zoom cameras which can reach 400 or 500mm at reasonable apertures. if these cameras
    could ever be made without noise problems or purple fringing, a lot of wildlife enthusiasts wouldn't see much reason
    to lug bazooka-like lenses and clunky DSLR kits.

    "And any attempt at marketing a pro P&S, like I said in my last post, is just an exercise in solving a problem that
    doesn't exist."

    i'd have to disagree here too. there is at least some demand among high-end users, and every year, $200 P&S
    owners decide to move up to more feature-rich imaging tools. you could even consider a nikon d40 a "pro" P&S,
    since a lot of pros use it in that capacity for less-critical work. if you look at the review sites like dpreview and cnet,
    they salivate with encouragement every time a ricoh grII or sigma dp1 is released, and luminous landscape's review
    of the g9 really highlighted how good that camera can be if used correctly.

    the problem is that you have in essence a fragmented niche market moving in several directions simultaneously (i.e.,
    sub-DSLR superzoom or fixed-lens compact?) and a fluctuating price point situation that results in coulda shoulda
    cameras like the p80, which retails for about $100 under a d40.

    i doubt wedding photogs will ever abandon big DSLRs and multiple-lens set ups, but for other working pros, like
    photojournalists in areas where discretion isnt jut the better part of valour, but essential to not getting shot or
    arrested, a compact pro camera that isnt an overpriced piece o' crapola (like the leica m8) would be welcomed. the
    p80 is obviously not that camera, but that doesnt mean that camera wont exist within the next two years. it just may
    not be nikon who develops it first.

    so ultimately, pankaj has a point, even if he didnt exactly articulate it with perfect clarity in relation to the market
    forces at work, i.e. supply and demand, coupled with trickle-down tech and price point factors. all these things point
    to the bridge camera trend continuing to emerge and perhaps just waiting for the breakout body pros jump on and
    soccer moms follow.


     
  64. "if these cameras could ever be made without noise problems or purple fringing, a lot of wildlife enthusiasts wouldn't see much reason to lug bazooka-like lenses and clunky DSLR kits."

    Not really. The reason those long telephoto lenses are so huge is because of max aperture size. This one of several major reasons wildlife photographers have not adopted superzoom bridge cameras. In addition, DOF is completely different between superzoom bridge cameras and their larger relatives, the DSLRs with an equivalent focal length lens. In order for the two to reconcile their differences, bridge cameras have to be larger to address both fronts. And if they're larger, then what's the point?
     
  65. Most of the arguments here, and I use the word argument for wont of a better word, are that people who are not
    very discriminating ( soccer moms etc. ) will find these cameras attractive. I agree. But it's already been that
    way for years.And who cares what teenagers and soccer moms want? I'd like to think that most of us here are
    little more discriminating and knowledgeable than that.

    Eric, you've answered my post almost point by point, but much of what you say is mere speculation : if sigma
    could correct the DP-1 - "if' - If I had wings I could fly. Even if they did, it would still just be a nice P&S.

    The Panasonic with a 20X zoom. Are you comparing that little magazoom with an equivalent SLR lens?

    Your confusing raw numbers with quality. A Lumix with a 500mm zoom is hardly in the same league with a 1D3 and
    500mm f/4 Nikon on the front. Any comparison ends with the number "500". A Leica M8, with all it's apparent
    faults, is a tad bit better than your little P&S. These things have applications, and may be handy to a photog in
    a combat zone trying to keep a low profile, one reason why rangefinders are so popular in that situation. But
    ultimate IQ is not his aim so much as just recording what's happening.

    Is a G9 better than a Canon 40D or a Nikon D300, after all it has the same amount of MP as the Nikon and more
    than the Canon. Your comparing apples to oranges. Michael Reichman said the G9 is good little camera, he didn't
    say he was junking his pro DSLRs for one.

    Look, if you're willing to accept just OK and think that smaller and lighter is always better, then a wizbang P&S
    is right up your alley. I just don't see those things as primary concerns of the type of people that frequent
    PhotoNet. I'd like to think, hell I know the standards here a little higher. That's why I've been a member here
    as long as I have. The digital compact will always be what it is, it has a place, buy 'em if you like 'em. But
    being the best Point and shoot, no matter which one it is, is like being the best Kia in a NASCAR race.
     
  66. Steve:

    If you read what I wrote (more than once, I said it's not for pros and not for most on PN.

    For someone who hasn't used one seriously, you are very quick to put it down. And I know some soccer moms who are fine photographers but they have placed their emphasis where it belongs -- on their families until they can devote time to photography. I know this because when I have admired their work and suggested pursuing photography more seriously. They tell me family comes first. And don't forget that R&D is driven not by what pros want but by what is going to sell and a bridge camera is probably that item.

    My standards are as high as anyone's' here. I cut no corners. That's why I have fine equipment. But I'm also not a fool and I use whatever gets the job done and meets all the requirements. Sometimes it's a P80 and sometimes it's not. But I have whatever I need and/or want. I am not a dilettante and earn my own living so I can spend it as I please.

    And your car analogy is lame.

    So far, this is a new camera and it is clear to me that there are few here who have used it in 'real' life but have a great deal to say about it critically.

    Since I am repeating myself because posters don't pay attention to what they've read, I have other things to do now.

    Conni
     
  67. Couple of points Constance:

    This post is about pro use, not soccer mums. And while most of us haven't used a P80, either has the OP! So we've got every right to respond to his question.
     
  68. The original post by the original poster does not mention pros.

    I did not bring up soccer moms, Steve did.

    Conni
     
  69. The original post by the original poster does not mention pros.

    Yes, but nearly all subsequent posts by him does. How 'bout you stay on topic?
     
  70. Bernie:

    I am on topic and have been since the start.

    Go back and hit Steve and others who strayed off topic.

    The OP said to discuss and I have experience with the camera and did discuss the possibilities.

    You are not the forum police -- especially when you're wrong.

    Conni

    .

    Conni
     
  71. Steve and the others are on topic. You are the one talking about this camera for non-pro use. The thread is about PRO use. Get on topic.

    And how exactly am I wrong??
     
  72. Thanks everybody, and Thanks alot to those who have been with me so far right from the start....

    So now I can say I have got some different thoughts here and now it has became a healthy conversation about the "CHANCES OF BEING THE FULLY AUTOMATED, COMPACT AND LONG ZOOM CAMERAS, TO BECOMAE PRO GEARS"

    Thats a sentance, what I wanted to say right from the begining, many, who have been with me right from the start, have understood already my opinions and questions.

    So now I found that a few of you are not refusing the chances, and few of you are refusing todays P&S, but does beleive the "chances".

    I am all talking this in a scenario, when films were thrown so quickly from the mainstream, (Personaly and imotionaly hurt me, being a film lover, stll) and people (Pros and serious) adopted DSLRs so quickly and those paid a huge amount which was comparitivly very high than film gears, even I think, higher than the total cost difference of total films bought and got developed.

    An in near future if "Chances...." happens, than they will have to pay again for the "latest tech....",

    So another question raise that, if the films were producing greater results, than why so many of them left the films...? and paid a 10X or 20X higher for the new digital gears, I do not agree with the digital favourable points, like time saving, while we have to pay more on post-processing, and the cost saving, while we have to pay so much for the gears, which I don't think that, are durable like film equips.....

    If pros will accept changes so quickly than it might be harder to survive many of them who are not economically so stronger,

    First think, not just argu....
     
  73. "CHANCES OF THE FULLY AUTOMATED, COMPACT AND LONG ZOOM CAMERAS, TO BECOMAE PRO GEARS"

    I corrected the language here....
     
  74. So another question raise that, if the films were producing greater results, than why so many of them left the films...? and paid a 10X or 20X higher for the new digital gears, I do not agree with the digital favourable points, like time saving, while we have to pay more on post-processing, and the cost saving, while we have to pay so much for the gears, which I don't think that, are durable like film equips..... First think, not just argu....

    We are thinking. Unfortunately your reasoning is zig-zagging around all over the place like a drunk walking. On one hand you trash digital, and say your never going there, and that they cost more both in terms of time and money, and lack durability. And then on the other hand, you are trying to sell the argument that a DIGITAL point and shoot is the way of the future. Which is man?

    I think you should give up on this thread and start another one in which you more clearly specify what it is you're arguing about.
     
  75. I should also add that you started the thread about the P80, and have done a complete turn around and say that your thread actually isn't about the P80.
     
  76. ..... isn't about the P80. but this is a referencef for mighty future in photography....

    And will all of you will be with me in next thread...
     
  77. In what category I should post this kind of question... so that is easily accessible for the relavent thinkers.....?

    Sorry Bernie....this is another question,

    one more thing I would like to say Bernie, my aim was to grow a question in many photographers mind about todays
    photography, which is changing its direction in terms of tools, very fastly, very costly...

    It is not all about arguing with each others thought, if you think seriously about all written upper side by all of us, you
    will definetly find a QUESTION MARK....? !!!
     
  78. I will save all these words, and will pack after reading twice-thrice and than I will open this after 2-3 years..... and will found the right, which are looking wrong today...

    Already a recent wrong looking debate have become right....!
     
  79. so many arguements here! but one thing to consider, @pankaj, why do u use film slr, if you had been given same specs as P80 in any film P&S film camera were you going to choose that?
    I think Pro photographers rely on DSLR as they are good for improvisation (P&S also but not for professional purpose always), they are still good to capture photograph with higher dynamic range and details which is must for fashion magazines and advertising media and u can't expect to capture a decisive moment from a sports field with a P&S. I think lenses are the greatest factor to choose SLR. and DSLR not meant to use for post processing always. a professional photographer always want his photograph prepared into his camera itself rather than in PS or in another image editing soft. so they still use studio and outdoor lighting equipments.
    and eventually we need to remember that an artist use tool to create art and s/he likes to work with the tools which provide them comfort and adaptibility. at this instance i cannot help reminding u about a moment in Harry Potter "magician doesn't choose the wand, it's the wand who chooses magician" may sound vague but have some sense to ponder about.
     
  80. This is like an all-out war.

    >> "If small censor is a big problem, than why most of you are using DX crop format censor"

    It's a good size that allows a massive geometrical advantage over the much much smaller P&S sensors, yet permits reasonable production costs. It's a sweet-spot concept, not a perfectionist one.
     
  81. Joseph - you are quite right, the review was of the P60. Sorry about that - this will teach me to check, rather than working from memory!
     
  82. "Eric, you've answered my post almost point by point, but much of what you say is mere speculation : if sigma could
    correct the DP-1 - "if' - If I had wings I could fly. Even if they did, it would still just be a nice P&S."

    steve, i fully realize this is speculation. that's the point of this thread. i'm hoping cam manu's can make more than
    just a nice P&S. if you actually read my post you'd see i said the future lies between the sigma, fuji and oly
    approaches to this market segment. i personally wouldnt get a sigma dp1 or a ricoh gr II until they address their fairly
    serious flaws. i'd consider the fuji, but i'm willing to wait for the next generation. the other point is that the coolpixes
    arent even near being up to snuff. nikon apparently crippled them by making them really s-l-o-w so you pretty much
    have to get a d40/d60 if you're serious enough about manual settings and speed of operation.

    and cameron, perhaps you havent checked the specs on some of these superzooms. their apertures are actually
    decent at long ranges. 420mm at 3.7 or 5.6 at 500mm is better than a nikon 18-200 and in some cases faster than
    everything but a 2.8. of course, you're likely to encounter purple fringing, NR smearing, and noisy high ISO
    performance, but i'd expect a $5k lens to outperform a $500 camera in terms of IQ (you think?). but the superzooms
    offer a substantial savings in both size and cost. if they can improve IQ by reducing noise and auto-correcting CA,
    with better controls and ergonomics, a lot of people would choose a compact option that delivers 75% of the
    performance. that's all i'm saying. of course, you can always lug your wemberley and 300/2.8 to the zoo if you
    choose.

    "The Panasonic with a 20X zoom. Are you comparing that little magazoom with an equivalent SLR lens?"

    see above. i'm saying the pano has its uses.

    dude! you can chill, i have a D300 and a bunch of 2.8 lenses, OK? sometimes its a bit of a package to lug. i'm not
    Mr. Point and Shoot, but i'd welcome a P&S that could do the job without the bulk. are you saying you wouldnt
    welcome a compact do-it-all with tricked-out features that stood up to light professional use as well as casual
    situations?

    "Your confusing raw numbers with quality. A Lumix with a 500mm zoom is hardly in the same league with a 1D3 and
    500mm f/4 Nikon on the front."

    actually, i've done nothing of the sort. but would you take a 500/4 on a bike tour? hiking? to the beach?
    across the streets of a crowded third world city? in a kyak? any place you couldn't bring a tripod?

    "A Leica M8, with all it's apparent faults, is a tad bit better than your little P&S. These things have applications, and
    may be handy to a photog in a combat zone trying to keep a low profile, one reason why rangefinders are so popular
    in that situation. But ultimate IQ is not his aim so much as just recording what's happening."

    that's funny, i just read a blog by a combat photog stating that he had given up on the m8 because it just wasn't up
    to the task.

    oh, and i dont have a P&S (i'm waiting for nikon to come out with their g9, except with better
    high-ISO). i'm just saying if i did, it wouldn't be a $5k non-state-of-the-art rangefinder that wasn't reliable in the field.

    "Is a G9 better than a Canon 40D or a Nikon D300, after all it has the same amount of MP as the Nikon and more
    than the Canon."

    (sigh). guess you missed the earlier post when i said MPs were a marketing ploy. but to answer the
    question, at low ISOs, the G9 might give you better IQ, depending on the situation.

    "Your comparing apples to oranges. Michael Reichman said the G9 is good little camera, he didn't say he was
    junking his pro DSLRs for one."

    you appear to have completely misunderstood both me and LL. What Reichman actually said was he found some
    situations where the G9 was preferable to a big DSLR kit and ended up using it more than he planned. whoop de do.
    if you read my post, i pointed out that the G9 is about as good as it gets in P&S-land--it's better than any Coolpix--
    but that it still had noise issues due to its small sensor. therefore, bigger sensors like the sigma dp1 or fuji s100fs
    are a potential solution.

    i'm not saying these will replace pro cameras/lenses. what i am saying is that if you were considering a d60+18-200
    for an all-in-one kit, the fuji will give you somewhat comparable image quality and more zoom range for about the
    price of the 18-200 alone, with stabilization, etc.

    the fact that the fuji has dedicated area-AF select buttons and the G9's ISO dial are goods sign of things to come.
    those are pro features some entry-level DSLRs dont have, FWIW.

    but hey, no one's holding a gun to your head and saying buy a P&S. if you shudder at the thought, don't get one. it's
    that simple.

     

Share This Page