Nikon's Answer to the Canon G9?

[obakesan]

Rob

 

back in 2004 canon released a "prosumer" model called the Pro 1. I see no reason why that couldn't have had a bigger sensor (bigger than 2/3 rather than smaller than that). Given its physical design (and costs) I see no reason why something bigger couldn't be used there (rather than something smaller). Given that it produced images so close to the DSLR it was compared to (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonPro1/page19.asp) I don't doubt that a sensor based around 1" (let alone the 4/3") would produce better images. This surely would not stretch the design imagination.

 

I don't know what you mean by "It's very easy for people who are deep into photography (or any hobby, for that matter) to delude themselves into believing that their _wants_ somehow represent the market. Nothing could be further from the truth.", as I don't see anything in the prosumer market which represents larger sensors anymore. I see it as a deliberate economic strategy of the camera makers to polarize the market.

 

Back when DSLR's were stratospheric in prices people (commercial photography people like those doing catalog work) used prosumer cameras as cost effective tools. I expect that they would continue to do so if such were made available. But don't just take this as my opinion, go read about it on other people's pages too http://www.bythom.com/compact.htm

[marcsharp]

I wonder if it will have low noise at high ISO like the new Nikon DSLR's.

[jerry_friedman]

I do not want to start any fights here because I think everyone has made good points about too many pixels, camera design and size etc etc. I find that differences in cameras is not as important as the work done after the exposure with software. I do not mean to denigrate the importance of the camera itself, but all manufacturers are pretty capable of producing good products for different markets.But, what you do after the picture is taken, on your computer (as it was before, in your darkroom) may be more important than hardware. I do not happen to find small sensor size so terrible, tho a larger one would be appreciated, for sure. And if too many pixels is the problem, most cameras permit shooting in lower density ranges. For me, small camera size is extremely important. And, perhaps as a result, I have been forced to work very carefully with post-exposure software. But this was true yesterday as well, when a small 24x36mm full frame 35m negative could be made to perform quite well with good darkroom procedure. And let us remember that the tiny Minox used a negative size that was 8x11mm. So, unless you are a hardware freak, I think the differences between the Canon g9 and the Nikon to be announced, will be issues of style and personal preference more than anything else. I have used the entire range of Ricoh cameras and have found them to be excellent, tiny sensor and all.