[demani]

Exactly- that's the crux of it. The sensors were of a high enough resolution a few years ago. The advances they made were.t necessarily for the best (let's face it- if we all bought what was the most common thing since that was good enough we wouldn't be on Macworld right now).

Yes, marketing did push things in this direction- not better engineering. There do exist better solutions available. And given that there are some options (i.e. some 7x optical P&S cameras) for zoom in a small size, a slightly larger sensor with that kind of lens would give much better photos and still be capable of 4-5x zoom (which is better than most P&S cameras).

Just like we prefer a certain quality of usability and design in our computers (and phones) there is also a desire for something similar in this area as well. Most people just don't have the information. Some people say "It doesn't matter- I never see that noise anyway"- they usually are the ones who only print 4x6s: and the ones for whom a 10Mp camera does nothing but create giant files, since a 3Mp camera would give equally good results at that print size (with lower noise and higher sensitivity).

[hurrywait]

@kimbarator: The tone of your reply seems pretty defensive. My comments were not juvenile, nor knee-jerk, nor "everything's wonderful, complainers shut up". I read through every post leading up to mine and commented accordingly. And I didn't suggest taking criticisms elsehwere. I suggested informing the manufacturers they weren't providing the product you wanted instead of complaining to a group of consumers who may or may not have the same requirements and expectations you do. Just because you don't agree with other poster's positions or they
don't agree with yours is no reason to paint them as non-thinking (your
"mindless mantra" and "knee-jerk" comments).

As for your grounded-in-experience comment, before my first post I began to write about my experience over the last 20 years in film and digital photography, but figured no one really wanted to read all that. Instead I just commented based on the overall direction I saw the thread taking.

The unfortunate truth is the market has moved away from what you (and others) want in a point-and-shoot camera. I intended my comments to convey that I thought it was more productive to choose a camera available in the marketplace today that filled most wants rather than complaining about what was not available.

[kimbarator]

@hurrywait:
I'm sorry about the defensive, or more accurately frustrated tone. That's a common reaction, though, when instead of either agreeing or disagreeing with a well-stated position, respondents (not just you) choose to condescendingly tell a poster what they really want, without respecting the integrity of what the person actually stated.
I described exactly what I wanted in a point-and-shoot, which is something analogous to what older PowerShots gave to many thousands of satisfied photographers. But you decided that people like me only think we want what we say we want, and that we actually "want serious cameras, not point-and-shoot convenience." That's simply not true.
You said "If you want a big sensor and superior optics, buy a DSLR," though I had not expressed a need for either one of those features.
You then suggested that I "just want to grouse about manufacturers who haven't delivered my idea of the perfect camera." Come on, now. That is indeed my idea of a juvenile, inaccurate, and unfair comment, one that's pretty likely to draw a defensive response!
I don't expect a perfect camera, or have any idea what that would be. I do hope that informed conversations between consumers in forums like this one can help increase demand for cameras which offer an INTELLIGENT balance between price, optics, image size and noise. There is simply NO valid reason for turning out endless iterations of high-priced camera models whose pictures take up lots of disk space and take a long time to download, but which have to be printed small in order to conceal the bursts of rainbow confetti in every blue sky and every shadow in the image.
The current marketing-dominated mix of features is simply a foolish development, and talking about that fact in settings like this IS one helpful way of raising awareness of that fact. As in banking and the mortgage business, market forces don't always result in a worthwhile mix of consumer options. Sometimes the market can get stuck in a very counterproductive rut for a surprisingly long time. (And yes I have also written to some major manufacturers about this.) And that's not "grousing," it's discussing. : )

[People_Eater]

[quote name='Steve_S']
>

leicaman said:

Point and shoot cameras need to be small and cheap.

Small maybe, but not necessarily cheap. One of the cameras mentioned in the article is $400. For that kind of money, I'd expect a decent sensor.

And it's not difficult to make a point-and-shoot sized camera with a larger sensor. You just need to sacrifice some of the zoom range to avoid having a bulky lens. It's perfectly feasible technically (look at Leicas). But again, the problem is the marketing. They hype the zoom range.

Personally I'd love a point-and-shoot with no zoom lens at all, just a really nice prime. But that's not going to sell to the mass market. Remember when they used to make those in the 35mm days? There were some fantastic snapshot cameras with prime lenses from the likes of Olympus. They were always so much better than their zoomy counterparts. But then everybody insisted on having zoom, and everything went downhill real quick.

I think it would be even better for the target market - it makes the camera easier to use. I know my mother gets confused by the zoom, she'd be better off if she didn't have to think about it. The zooms also take away so much light that they end up ruining a lot of shots because of shake, or having to use the flash.

But... marketing means it will never happen... grrrr!

[People_Eater]

hurrywait said:

If you want a big sensor and superior optics, buy a DSLR.

I have several DSLRs, thank you.

Quote

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.

Oh right... a Leica is "in between"? A Leica M8 body alone costs twice as much as any of my SLR bodies. And the "advanced" point-and-shoot cameras aren't really that "advanced" in terms of quality. They still aren't up to par.

I wish somebody would make something in-between. Something using a simpler approach with an emphasis on quality, but without the insane Leica over-pricing and fetishization. But that's the problem, it doesn't exist. It can't be that hard, though.

Cosina-Voigtlander are helping on the lens side of things by making inexpensive M-mount glass - but they only make 35mm camera bodies, and I'm not very confident that they are going to get into the business of making a digital Bessa body.

I don't see what's wrong with my desiring a decent, no-nonsense compact camera. The industry really needs to get over all the gimmicks and get back to basics.

[kimbarator]

Amen to that!
As for the image size/image noise fiasco, here's my crude analogy: Let's say that a bizarre marketing trend sweeps through the car industry. In every showroom across the country, every new car suddenly sports a minimum of a 300 horsepower engine. Sounds fun, even if a bit pricey on the gas, right?
But the weird thing is, the brake designs have been deliberately crippled to the point where all new cars under $50,000 have simply terrible stopping power. Everyone except luxury car owners has to creep around in first gear. Any attempt to really unleash those powerful engines results in a crash.
Baffled consumers log onto automotive web forums and point out that, while high-performance engines are all well and good, any viable car design has to match acceleration with correspondingly powerful brakes, keeping a usable ratio between engine horsepower and braking horsepower.
But the Experts sign on to chastise those grumpy grousers, urging them to just drink the kool-aid and get in line with the new industry status quo. They tell us to calm down and just focus on whether we prefer our crippled muscle cars in sedan, SUV or minivan body style.


I'm a consumer, not a digital imaging professional, but the bottom line is simple: As you enlarge your image, degradation in the form of color noise, and degradation in the form of pixelation should rise in reasonable proportion to each other. If, by the time the color noise has gotten really ugly, there are still tons of pixels waiting to be zoomed in on, then those are WASTED PIXELS, and the cash you've spent on all that useless resolution is WASTED MONEY!
Of course, I'm not knocking Nikon in particular on this. It seems that all the big camera companies have followed pretty much the same silly high-noise, high-megapixel trend.
I am VERY frustrated with Nikon, however, for introducing a RAW format in their top point-and-shoot cameras that is deliberately designed to be Windows-only. Have you invested serious money in Nikon's Mac image processing software, as I have? Even with Capture NX 2, we will never be able to open the new CoolPix RAW files. That's simply pathetic and wrong.

[hurrywait]

I apparently oversimplified my response, and underestimated the audience. Apologies. As is the risk in any text-based response, my intended tone got lost due to my hastily chosen words or poorly stated ideas. I'll make no further efforts to defend my original position.

I say this without a hint or sarcasm or condescension: Best of luck in your search for the camera you really want.

[kimbarator]

Thanks, hurrywait! You are right, though, that my snarky tone was not helping the conversation. Something I will try to be more careful about in these text-only interactions. ; )

[People_Eater]

kimbarator said:

>

Quote

Have you invested serious money in Nikon's Mac image processing software, as I have?

No, my software money mostly goes to Adobe. Which is unfortunate, but better than dealing with Nikon's software. Hardware manufacturers just don't know how to write decent software (Apple excluded, of course).

Have you considered moving to Adobe Lightroom or Apple's Aperture? I know they are pricey "pro" packages, but even amateurs will see a productivity boost.

[kimbarator]

Yeah, I'm quite happy with Aperture, and I'm also saving up for Creative Suite 4.

But a local pro raved to me about the RAW processing in Capture NX 2. Also, the U-control points are sometimes easier to work with than making complex selections and masks, at least at my rudimentary skill level.

And, again, I'm no expert, but Nik Sharpener Pro seems pretty cool to me too.

I just thought that Nikon was getting smarter about their relationship with Mac folks, and I didn't think they'd do something so stupid as to create a RAW format that's permanently tied to one specific proprietary Windows component.

Thanks!