«

On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 22:52:34 -0800, C J Campbell
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 2010-02-03 21:29:42 -0800, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>>
>> "C J Campbell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:2010020318452775249-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
>>> On 2010-02-03 16:13:56 -0800, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>
>>>> Nothing about any D90 replacement.
>>>
>>> Nikon would probably not announce a DSLR the same day they announce new
>>> point & shoots.
>>>
>>> These particular point & shoots have some nice features, but not enough to
>>> make me give up my S90 just yet.
>>
>> I don't follow Canons much, but Googling it just now I'd agree the S90 looks
>> quite nifty.
>>
>> I still have (and like) an S60, and as I recall that series remained very
>> similar in general layout up to the S80. The S90 looks like a considerable
>> improvement. I'm not thrilled with the absence of an optical viewfinder, but
>> that seems to have gone the way of the dodo bird in all cameras of this
>> size.
>
>Well, that's the thing, isn't it? I would have loved an optical
>viewfinder. I like having a camera with pretty good specs and lots
>manual capability that fits in my pocket even more. So, if it means
>sacrificing the viewfinder, then so be it.
>
>I do have a few ideas on how I would improve it, such as making the
>lens ring behave in a consistent manner in all different picture-taking
>modes, but hey, how many of these pocket cameras even have a lens ring?

It will be interesting to see how this one pans out in tests.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10...hs10series.asp

Like one of my favorite super-zoom P&S cameras from the past, this one too
has both manual zoom and focus rings in a closed lens system for protection
from dust no matter how harsh the environment. My earlier Sony camera with
a similar lens design has been through many years of prairie dust-storms
and deserts, the sensor still clean as new.

Past P&S cameras from this company had noise-free ISO1600 due to their
previous sensor designs. Those particular models are even difficult to find
being sold as used today because they are so worth having. Nobody wants to
give them up.

If the tricks this new model are using work well, it might be a worthwhile
purchase. It's nice to see at least one company is trying new things in new
ways to achieve the best performance possible. And using a sensor-size that
is matched to optics which allow it to attain the zoom and aperture reach
it has. It looks promising, even if it goes against conventions--especially
because it goes against conventions. Back-illuminated CMOS sensor, and
multi-exposure melds, etc. Its low-light tricks it's using might even be
enough to not need shutter speeds slower than 1/4s, but it would be nice if
it had much more reach than that, at both ends of its shutter range. Maybe
those will happen in the HS20. There's too many times when I require
shutter speeds above 1/10,000 second to stop some insect's or other
animal's wing motion or other.

I also like that it has stereo audio recording for video modes, like my
present favorite P&S camera. I wouldn't buy a camera that has video without
stereo recording. When documenting sounds of nature there's some vibrancy
and fidelity that just seems to get lost in monaural sound recordings even
though the recording frequency is identical. The high frequencies that many
animals and insects make seem to become muted and just sound flat and
lifeless when not recorded in stereo. The added bonus of 1000 fps would be
a real treat for macro-videography of insects in flight and other nature
studies.

Its flip-out and tilting LCD is highly valuable for nature and
macro-photography too. I wouldn't buy a camera without that today.

It looks promising. They seem to have covered most of the bases that any
demanding photographer would require, except for longer and shorter shutter
speeds.

One caveat, I fail to understand why their specs state ~97% viewfinder
coverage for both LCD and EVF. If the image is coming directly from the
sensor, as does in all electronic viewfinders, it is then always 100%
coverage. Perhaps this is an oversight from the editor, not realizing that
a camera of this design doesn't have the typical DSLR optical viewfinder
drawbacks.

On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 01:31:19 -0800 (PST), Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Plenty of these kitchen sink superzooms rotting on store shelves. This
>will be just another one. Unless the backlit chip works miracles.
>Which it won't.

Until you own a super-zoom, you know not of what you speak. Post your proof
that they don't sell. Then I'll show you how many are in production today,
as well as in the past, to show you that it's a highly viable design for
many pros who are fed up with all the drawbacks and limitations of the DSLR
design. Why do you think that every year more and more companies are coming
out with better and newer models of super-zoom cameras? Rotting on store
shelves? No. Just rotting in the empty spaces in your own rotting mind, and
nowhere else. Some of them are difficult to even buy as "used" today at a
price less than original price because people don't want to part with them.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> It will be interesting to see how this one pans out in tests.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10...hs10series.asp
>

Certainly a lot of breathless enthusiasm in the release announcement,
and some of what they boast sounds wonderful.

O.t.o.h. I stayed well clear of Fuji when I bought my first digital
camera (an Oly 5050, for more than what you'd pay for an EOS 450 these
days) because at that time Fuji image quality was well to the rear of
the field. So has this really turned around? I don't know, frankly.

The 30x zoom seems .... well optimistic. I have a 20x zoom now, and on a
moderately windy day the very slight vibrations of the tripod can
stretch the IS envelope. Not going to get an old style Linhof-sized
wooden one! On the other hand, considering the claims they make for that
Fuji camera to be such a speed-demon, hmmm - it might work.

In any event, I think I'll take the announcement with a pinch of salt
for the time being.

f.w.i.w. -P.

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 03:49:45 -0600, Steve Carlson
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 01:31:19 -0800 (PST), Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Plenty of these kitchen sink superzooms rotting on store shelves. This
>>will be just another one. Unless the backlit chip works miracles.
>>Which it won't.
>
>Until you own a super-zoom, you know not of what you speak. Post your proof
>that they don't sell. Then I'll show you how many are in production today,
>as well as in the past, to show you that it's a highly viable design for
>many pros who are fed up with all the drawbacks and limitations of the DSLR
>design. Why do you think that every year more and more companies are coming
>out with better and newer models of super-zoom cameras? Rotting on store
>shelves? No. Just rotting in the empty spaces in your own rotting mind, and
>nowhere else. Some of them are difficult to even buy as "used" today at a
>price less than original price because people don't want to part with them.


You have a point. I do a lot of shooting on construction sites and
the dust, especially cement dust, is a real problem. For those jobs I
use a Sony DSC-R1, a super zoom with a 10 MP CMOS sensor that is
almost APS-C size.

I bought a second R1 to use as back-up when the first one fails, or
when it is being serviced. However, it has never failed, never needed
servicing, and - more to the point - has never needed the sensor
cleaning. Despite being used in dusty environments, no dust has ever
appeared on the sensor.

Meanwhile, my Canon EOS 5D and Nikon D700 have required regular
cleaning - typically 2 or 3 times a year - even though they much less
likely to be used in dusty environments.

I'm sad that Sony have not see fit to develop an upgraded R1 because
the combination of a large sensor, non-removable 24-120mm Carl Zeiss
zoom lens and articulated, top mounted LCD display is hard to beat. I
still need a DSLR outfit for my other work but I would buy an "R2" in
an instant, and probably wouldn't need to buy a backup either. Sadly,
Sony is pumping a lot of cash into the heavily loss-making Alpha
series of DSLRs so there is probably no money available for developing
a niche product like the R1.

The new Fuji looks promising. The 24mm (equivalent) focal length at
the wide end is very attractive. I'm not sure about 720mm but the
f/5.6 maximum aperture at that focal length is quite an achievement.
My major concern would be about noise levels, but Fuji have wisely
kept the MP count down to 10.0 and have a history of making sensors
that achieve surprisingly low noise at high ISOs.

One problem with pros using non-DSLRs is that clients expect you to
arrive with two DSLRs and a selection of big lenses, otherwise they
feel short changed. There is a perception that, if you turn up with
anything short of 20+ MP and pro zooms, you cannot be serious about
your work, or you shouldn't charge professional rates.

Perhaps I am fortunate in that for the work where I use the Sony R1, I
am largely left to my own devices and judged only by the results I
submit, not the equipment that was used to make them. The Sony has
never let me down and has been one of my best buys ever.

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:06:50 +0000, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>One problem with pros using non-DSLRs is that clients expect you to
>arrive with two DSLRs and a selection of big lenses, otherwise they
>feel short changed. There is a perception that, if you turn up with
>anything short of 20+ MP and pro zooms, you cannot be serious about
>your work, or you shouldn't charge professional rates.
>
>Perhaps I am fortunate in that for the work where I use the Sony R1, I
>am largely left to my own devices and judged only by the results I
>submit, not the equipment that was used to make them. The Sony has
>never let me down and has been one of my best buys ever.

There is one famous photographer I know (who shall remain nameless) for
architectural magazines who carries a DSLR around, but shoots with a P&S
because it does so much better in cramped areas and has less geometric
distortions from its lens. Whenever the clients are around he picks up the
DSLR so they won't realize that everything he submits to the magazine
editors comes from his P&S camera. Using a batch EXIF editing script before
submission. None of them ever suspect he uses his P&S camera for everything
he submits for print. They just continue to give him accolades and a
worthwhile income for his submissions. I think he enjoys the secret laugh
out of the whole thing. They all claim what a fantastic DSLR he has.

What a shame that this silly camera-gear-bigotry exists and people have to
jump though such silly hoops to please the less educated and less
experienced. We have online trolls to partly thank for that. As well as the
ignorance of those who have never held nor used cameras before. And, as you
say, expect the pro photographer to waste all that energy and money on
having to lug around last-century obsolete gear to appease others' silly
prejudices and preconceived notions.

I, on the other hand, am more fortunate. I report to no one. I don't have
to appease the silly senselessness of anyone. I can and do use any camera
that I wish to use. I sold all my DSLR gear long ago.

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 06:51:41 -0600, Steve Carlson
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>What a shame that this silly camera-gear-bigotry exists and people have to
>jump though such silly hoops to please the less educated and less
>experienced. We have online trolls to partly thank for that. As well as the
>ignorance of those who have never held nor used cameras before. And, as you
>say, expect the pro photographer to waste all that energy and money on
>having to lug around last-century obsolete gear to appease others' silly
>prejudices and preconceived notions.


I wouldn't go that far. At least not until there is a P&S camera that
has tilt-shift lenses and the outstanding low noise performance of my
Nikon D700 when used at high ISOs.

I think I will be long retired before that happens (nine and a half
years to go!).

Steve Carlson wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 22:52:34 -0800, C J Campbell
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>
>> I do have a few ideas on how I would improve it, such as making the
>> lens ring behave in a consistent manner in all different picture-taking
>> modes, but hey, how many of these pocket cameras even have a lens ring?
>
> It will be interesting to see how this one pans out in tests.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10...hs10series.asp
>
> Like one of my favorite super-zoom P&S cameras from the past, this one too
> has both manual zoom and focus rings in a closed lens system for protection
> from dust no matter how harsh the environment. My earlier Sony camera with
> a similar lens design has been through many years of prairie dust-storms
> and deserts, the sensor still clean as new.
>
> Past P&S cameras from this company had noise-free ISO1600 due to their
> previous sensor designs. Those particular models are even difficult to find
> being sold as used today because they are so worth having. Nobody wants to
> give them up.

No camera from any company has noise free ISO 1600. Not then, not now.

--
john mcwilliams

Steve Carlson wrote:

> Past P&S cameras from this company had noise-free ISO1600 due to their
> previous sensor designs. Those particular models are even difficult to find
> being sold as used today because they are so worth having. Nobody wants to
> give them up.

Looks interesting. It'll be interesting to see the focusing speed and
the noise on a higher resolution sensor than Fuji had on their older
models. If the street price is around $400 it could be a winner. But
we've seen so many instances of new super-zoom P&S cameras coming up far
short when compared to D-SLRs, I'm not holding my breath on this one.
One very bad sign on this camera is that it uses AA batteries.

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:08:11 +0000, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 06:51:41 -0600, Steve Carlson
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>What a shame that this silly camera-gear-bigotry exists and people have to
>>jump though such silly hoops to please the less educated and less
>>experienced. We have online trolls to partly thank for that. As well as the
>>ignorance of those who have never held nor used cameras before. And, as you
>>say, expect the pro photographer to waste all that energy and money on
>>having to lug around last-century obsolete gear to appease others' silly
>>prejudices and preconceived notions.
>
>
>I wouldn't go that far. At least not until there is a P&S camera that
>has tilt-shift lenses and the outstanding low noise performance of my
>Nikon D700 when used at high ISOs.

It depends on when you need those high ISOs. When it comes to long zoom
lenses for nature photography in dusk and dawn situations then my P&S
cameras have any DSLR lenses beat by 3 stops in aperture, so those high
ISOs aren't needed nor required. The same is true for macro-photography
where a deep DOF is easily obtained with wider apertures. As far as
tilt-shift lenses are concerned the digital-darkroom is wonderful thing.

Although I'm in the minority on this, I find those that remove all
keystoning in architectural photos to be so very wrong. For a more natural
appearance some minor keystoning should always be left in. There's nothing
more distracting and offensive to my eye than some building that has
perfectly parallel sides with a greatly distorted vertical perspective when
the building is shot from a ground-level POV. The same is true when someone
tries to straighten a tall stand of trees in a similar manner. Their trunks
should recede to a vanishing point. Otherwise the sensation of their height
is completely lost in the image.

This is not unlike how some blur should always be left in an action-photo
to emulate the mind's-eye's own persistence-of-vision. This too is why
those silky waterfall effects are so popular. The human eye just can't
differentiate the individual splashes of fast moving water. The softer
longer-exposure appearance looks more natural to the human eye. Capture a
kayaker in white-water shooting out of a swell in crisp detail with
individual blobs of water frozen in air as if taken with a strobe-light, or
use a slower shutter speed where the tips of the paddle are blurred and the
water equally so. I'll choose the latter as more visually appealing, every
time.

Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. But then
what do I know. I never follow nor mimic anyone else's rules, ever. Perhaps
that's why I know as much as I do and do as well as I do.

"If I had read as many books as other men, I should have been as ignorant
as they are." - Thomas Hobbes

On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 17:14:33 -0500, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>
>"C J Campbell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:2010020411222050073-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
>> On 2010-02-04 01:21:42 -0800, Steve Carlson <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> said:
>>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Like one of my favorite super-zoom P&S cameras from the past, this one
>>> too
>>> has both manual zoom and focus rings in a closed lens system for
>>> protection
>>> from dust no matter how harsh the environment.
>>
>> I liked my earlier Fujis for the manual zoom and focus rings. The Canon
>> S90 has a ring that can be used for either, but it is still just an
>> electronic switch. And there is a noticeable delay.
>
>The only fixed-lens digital cameras I've owned that have real manual zooms
>(not zoom-by-wire) are those in the Minolta DiMAGE 7 family and the similar
>but more compact Konica Minolta A200. I love 'em for that. For speed and
>accuracy a real manual zoom sure makes any motorized zoom look sick.
>
>

Though motorized zooms do have their advantages. The ultrasonic
motor-controlled zooms in the Canon P&S family can be controlled with
scripts to precisely recreate whatever zoom setting was used previously
(one of CHDK's benefits). This cannot be done with a manual zoom. For the
stop-motion animator, time-lapse photographer, kite-aerial-photographer
(KAP), and scientist, et.al., these become a paramount benefit. The typical
snapshooter will never comprehend nor embrace why this is so.