New digital P80 Arrives

[pankaj purohit]

..... 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...

[pankaj purohit]

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....? !!!

[pankaj purohit]

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....!

[eric_wirtz]

Fail.

[don_juan2]

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.

[shuo_zhao]

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.

[wellinghall]

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!

[eric_arnold]

"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.