[Macworld]

Post your comments for Nikon unveils eight new Coopix digital cameras here

[leicaman]

What would be really great would be a camera maker who puts image quality ahead of everything else and gives us amazing image quality. That would be worth paying for.
Smile detection, 15 fps, "smart portrait" mode, ect. are cool and all, but such cameras still have WAY too much noise at higher ISOs. Especially Nikons. I hope these are a step in the right direction.

[azchen]

The high consecutive frame rates seem pretty useless because they only work when the resolution is lowered to 3 megapixels.

[hayesk]

leicaman said:

What would be really great would be a camera maker who puts image quality ahead of everything else and gives us amazing image quality. That would be worth paying for.

Smile detection, 15 fps, "smart portrait" mode, ect. are cool and all, but such cameras still have WAY too much noise at higher ISOs. Especially Nikons. I hope these are a step in the right direction.

The answer is DSLR. The size allows for larger, lower noise sensors. It's just really hard (and expensive) to build small, low-noise sensors that fit into these point-and-shoot cameras. So if a point-and-shoot costs just as much as a DSLR (which it would have to in order to get a good sensor), people are going to buy the DSLR.

[Phooto]

Coopix - Nice. Maybe they are the new brand for pigeons.

[aceshelman]

[quote name='hayesk']
>

leicaman said:

> What would be really great would be a camera maker who puts image quality ahead of everything else and gives us amazing image quality. That would be worth paying for.
>
> Smile detection, 15 fps, "smart portrait" mode, ect. are cool and all, but such cameras still have WAY too much noise at higher ISOs. Especially Nikons. I hope these are a step in the right direction.The answer is DSLR. The size allows for larger, lower noise sensors. It's just really hard (and expensive) to build small, low-noise sensors that fit into these point-and-shoot cameras. So if a point-and-shoot costs just as much as a DSLR (which it would have to in order to get a good sensor), people are going to buy the DSLR.

That makes sense, but isn't it a fact that the high density CCDs they're using in these 10megapixel cameras actually introduce more noise -because- they're so dense? I mean heck, my 2.0 megapixel canon a40 takes absolutely beautiful pictures with no noise issues... what gives with point and shoot toys like these all going with such huge noisy CCDs?

[demani]

Its all about the stats in the marketing. Those who don't know better see 8Mp, 10Mp, and 12Mp, and see the price go up, so it must be better. I'd love a 6Mp camera with good noise behavior any day of the week. Our d70 DSLR takes great photos, and it is an old model. Foveon was developing sensors that had low noise, but they were hard to market because of their relatively low numbers in the marketing pages. Sigma has a few models that take advantage of them (and that are well regarded), but try to explain the difference at your local electronics shop (even the Apple Store).

[Steve_S]

leicaman said:

Smile detection, 15 fps, "smart portrait" mode, ect. are cool and all, but such cameras still have WAY too much noise at higher ISOs. Especially Nikons. I hope these are a step in the right direction.

Point and shoot will always produce lousy results for many reasons. Point and shoot cameras need to be small and cheap. This means you need a small sensor. You can't have a good zoom with a large sensor in a small camera. The physics don't allow for that. Also, consumers think of megapixels like Mhz. More obviously means better... right? As you well know, when more photo sites are crammed into a smaller area, the overall image quality decreases as things like image noise becomes a real problem. Some cameras try to over compensate with noise reduction software which in turn ends up decreasing the overall effective resolution of the image.

I'd be the first one to buy one of these newer cameras if they kept the new features, but went back to 4MP - 5MP images with low noise. Sadly, I doubt marketing would allow Canon or Nikon to make such a move.

[schnisz]

I agree. Though for the size and price you really can't beat these. I for one really can't tell the difference, then again I am an amatuer. ha ha





legitimate work from home

[BJWanlund]

For those of you who want to get the low-megapixel cameras with low noise, go on eBay or Craigslist, find some old digital camera someone's selling, and leave the rest of us alone.
For me personally, I'd like it if they kept a ruggedization standard on these new cameras. Had a problem where (somehow) water actually got into my digicam's screen, but somehow managed to not get into my camera body itself, so I'd like it to have an entirely waterproof structure, say a la what Panasonic's doing with the TS1.
BJ

[aceshelman]

BJWanlund said:

For those of you who want to get the low-megapixel cameras with low noise, go on eBay or Craigslist, find some old digital camera someone's selling, and leave the rest of us alone.
BJ

LOL wow I didn't think that discussing technology on a technology oriented discussion forum would put anyone's panties in a bunch, but I apparently was wrong! :^0 ?:|

[kimbarator]

@BJ: What is with you?

Wanting a low-digital-noise sensor doesn't make me or anyone else a Luddite. Craigslist and eBay shouldn't be the only sources for those who want a properly-functioning camera, one that hasn't been sabotaged by the company's marketing department.

I think it's reasonable to want actual instead of fake technological advances in this area to get at least a toehold in the digital camera market. Instead, truly crappy sensors have infected nearly every sub-$1500 camera out there. Who cares about making giant prints when the images are filled with rainbow confetti?

[hurrywait]

Looks to me like most posters here want serious cameras, not point-and-shoot convenience.
If you want a big sensor and superior optics, buy a DSLR. If you aren't a practiced photographer and want a camera that takes great snapshots, buy an advanced point-and-shoot like the Nikons announced in this story. If you're somewhere in between, buy something like the Leica rangefinder-style digital cameras.
If you just want to grouse about manufacturers who haven't delivered your idea of the perfect camera, try directing your complaints to the manufacturers. Just remember, for better or worse they produce what they believe will sell.

[kimbarator]

This attitude of "take your criticisms somewhere else" is juvenile and unwarranted, yet it keeps popping up over and over again.

My point is that Olympus and Canon PowerShot cameras I owned years ago had BETTER sensors, in terms of a reasonable trade-off between image size and noise, than what is being offered now. They were, in terms of image, if not in terms of a few extras like face-recognition, BETTER POINT-AND-SHOOT CAMERAS!

Please stop repeating this mindless mantra that anyone who misses that sweet spot, one which the major manufacturers were offering not too long ago, is just a grouch who should get a DSLR instead. And no, the used market is not the solution, because a decent point-and-shoot, which IS what I want, needs to be purchased with a reasonable warranty.

This IS the place to offer such reasonable, grounded-in-experience criticisms and observations. This is NOT the place to give knee-jerk, "Everything's wonderful, complainers shut up!" responses without really considering what someone has to say.