NEW: Nikon Coolpix P90
Focus
12 MP
24 x zoom (35 mm eq: 26- 624 mm !!)
3" Tiltscreen, borrowed from Sony ;-)
and much more:
http://www.europe-nikon.com/product/en_GB/products/broad/1745/overview.html
I'm gonna start saving...
--
Focus
anir...@gmail.com
> Not bad:
> 12 MP
> 24 x zoom (35 mm eq: 26- 624 mm !!)
> 3" Tiltscreen, borrowed from Sony ;-)
>
>
> I'm gonna start saving...
>
> --
> Focus
I wonder why don't they try to have a larger size sensor? It is now
1/2.33" (6.1x4.6mm). Whay can they make it with sensor similar to the
old Coolpix 8800/Olympus C-8080 or Sony DSC 828, ie. at least 2/3'
size. Or even bigger an closer to 4/3 size.
Can't a bigger sensor physically fit to the camera's size? I assume
that the camera size will be similar to the other superzoom cameras,
or even bigger.
Doug Jewell
Even a small improvement in sensor size would make a big
difference to the size of the lens. These cameras are
playing in a market where they compete for mum & dad
dollars, who generally look at the numbers, 12MP must be
better than 10MP, and 24x zoom is better than 20x, and look
at the size and weight - if they wanted something big and
heavy they'd get an SLR. Of course, the vast majority of
photos taken by this camera will only be viewed on a
computer screen or printed at 6x4, so the 12MP is kinda
academic. When downsampled to that size, even the ultra
noisy high iso images will still look kinda ok. Meanwhile
the owner thinks "I've got 12MP and 24x zoom so I've got a
really good camera".
The readers of this NG might prefer to have 10X zoom,
allowing a bigger sensor for similar sized lens, or might
prefer to only have 6MP in return for better high-ISO
performance, considering there probably wouldn't be much
difference in actual resolution. But we aren't the people
that Nikon is aiming this camera at. They are chasing the
"high numbers are better" brigade.
Neil Harrington
"Focus" <n...@nowhere.pt> wrote in message
news:3dmdnaqIN4PnVRXU...@novis.pt...
Yes indeed, that looks very interesting.
The P80 didn't quite make it for me, but I'm looking forward to seeing more
information on this one.
Neil Harrington
> On Feb 3, 4:43 pm, "Focus" <n...@nowhere.pt> wrote:
>> Not bad:
>> 12 MP
>> 24 x zoom (35 mm eq: 26- 624 mm !!)
>> 3" Tiltscreen, borrowed from Sony ;-)
>>
>> and much
>> more:http://www.europe-nikon.com/product/en_GB/products/broad/1745/overvie...
>>
>> I'm gonna start saving...
>>
>> --
>> Focus
>
> I wonder why don't they try to have a larger size sensor?
Because of the 24x zoom.
> It is now
> 1/2.33" (6.1x4.6mm). Whay can they make it with sensor similar to the
> old Coolpix 8800/Olympus C-8080 or Sony DSC 828, ie. at least 2/3'
> size. Or even bigger an closer to 4/3 size.
Can't be done, and still keep that wide-ratio zoom in a camera of reasonable
size, weight and cost.
> Can't a bigger sensor physically fit to the camera's size?
Sure, but that's not the problem. A larger sensor necessarily means a
physically larger (and heavier, and more expensive) lens to cover it, if
that zoom ratio is kept. The new P90 24x zoom obviously couldn't cover a
larger sensor. Settle for a much smaller-range zoom and then yes, the sensor
could be larger. But obviously the 24x zoom is the big selling point here.
> I assume
> that the camera size will be similar to the other superzoom cameras,
> or even bigger.
All the superzoom cameras have small sensors, and for the same reason. The
greater the zoom ratio, the smaller the sensor. The older Coolpix 8800 you
mention has a 2/3" sensor, but only a 10x zoom. This new P90 sensor is
actually larger than that -- relative to its zoom range.
Me
Meanwhile the owner thinks "I've got
> 12MP and 24x zoom so I've got a really good camera".
>
truly diffraction limited at all times, so "real" resolution is perhaps
closer to about 2 megapixels than 12 (not knocking 2mp - it's enough
for most people's expectations)
But it doesn't matter, the average consumer has no idea, the numbers
help sell new cameras, and the large file sizes mean good business for
the computer industry. To say otherwise too loudly is bad for the economy.
There's 8mp cellphone cameras now too. Samples I've seen are much
better than I'd have expected, but still well and truly inferior to a
4mp P&S I owned about 7 years ago.
Dave Cohen
While what you state is perhaps technically correct, you're falling into
exactly the same fascination with numbers as those you criticize, but in
reverse. Personally, given a choice with either this camera or it's
rival, the canon sx10-is, I would settle for a lower pixel count if only
for a smaller file size. But this is all beside the point, the only real
criteria is how well does it perform. As long as you can get decent
8x10's with some cropping (and with a 20x or more zoom how much should
one need), then pixel smixel, sensor smenshor be damned, just show me
what it can do under the majority of everyday shooting situations. I
suspect it and it's competitors do rather well as long as one avoids
those very predictable situations such as high speed sports events, but
maybe even then we could be surprised.
Dave Cohen
Rich
news:3dmdnaqIN4PnVRXU...@novis.pt:
> Not bad:
> 12 MP
Bad.
> 24 x zoom (35 mm eq: 26- 624 mm !!)
Bad
> 3" Tiltscreen, borrowed from Sony ;-)
Good, but low rez, like all P&S screens. Good for composition, bad for
evaluation.
Besides, Nikon is well behind Canon, Panasonic and Fuji when it comes to
the quality of output from their P&S's. So this is just another cookie-
cutter superzoom.
Focus
"Rich" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:t6ydnReiSYGn1hfU...@giganews.com...
> "Focus" <n...@nowhere.pt> wrote in
> news:3dmdnaqIN4PnVRXU...@novis.pt:
>
>> Not bad:
>> 12 MP
> Bad.
>> 24 x zoom (35 mm eq: 26- 624 mm !!)
> Bad
>> 3" Tiltscreen, borrowed from Sony ;-)
> Good, but low rez, like all P&S screens. Good for composition, bad for
> evaluation.
Who'd buy this for "evaluation"?
Just to shoot with and have a great zoom when you need it.
> Besides, Nikon is well behind Canon, Panasonic and Fuji when it comes to
> the quality of output from their P&S's. So this is just another cookie-
> cutter superzoom.
O please: neither of them are better or worse.
--
Focus
mianileng
>
> The readers of this NG might prefer to have 10X zoom,
> allowing a bigger sensor for similar sized lens, or might
> prefer to only have 6MP in return for better high-ISO
> performance, considering there probably wouldn't be much
> difference in actual resolution.
I, for one, would certainly have preferred a less noisy, lower
pixel count with my otherwise excellent 8MP Pana FZ30. The higher
MP figure was not the reason I upgraded from my earlier 5MP FZ20.
It was the major overhauling of other features like the much
faster startup, zoom ring, swivel LCD, relocation of the memory
card slot, extended shutter speed range, higher resolution EVF
and LCD, addition of RAW and 3:2 format, etc. etc. I'd even hoped
that the change from 1/2.5" sensor to 1/1.8" would have offset
the noise of a higher pixel density, but I was disappointed in
this respect.
Neil Harrington
What resolution do you use it at?
I have several 8-, 10- and 12-megapixel compact and ultracompact cameras,
but normally I set them all to 5 MP. I believe that helps a little, though
it would probably be better if they were 5 MP natively.
mianileng
I sometimes set it to less than the max resolution but it doesn't
seem to make that much of a difference regarding noise. At least
not for pixel peeping.
Towards the end of last year, I helped my nephew with a small
commission to take pictures in various locations for a calendar.
He used a DSLR but I also shot the same scenes with my FZ30. The
night before we visited one location 150 km from my town, I set
my camera to 1.2 MP (1280x960) and fogot to change it back and
took several dozen shots at that setting. The people who did the
final selection chose two of those 1.2 MP shots.
The picture area on each page of the calendar is 10x16. Now
that's 80 ppi and some pixelation is quite noticeable on straight
slanting lines, but the rest of the picture came out much sharper
than I expected. I've personally shown it to some two dozen
people, including some who are taking up photography as a serious
hobby. With the exception of one advanced amateur, none of them
spotted the pixelation until I pointed it out. Admittedly most of
them didn't possess an experienced critical eye, but it goes to
show that a high pixel count is not essential for most people.
Neil Harrington
"mianileng" <mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:gmfjmm$df5$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
I've never really made more than a casual comparison, but some of the
high-resolution Coolpix models which offer ISO 3200 do so only at much lower
resolutions like 5 MP. Since this is obviously for reasons of noise, I'm
just assuming it must help a little at somewhat lower ISOs also. I will have
to test this out more thoroughly.
>
> Towards the end of last year, I helped my nephew with a small commission
> to take pictures in various locations for a calendar. He used a DSLR but I
> also shot the same scenes with my FZ30. The night before we visited one
> location 150 km from my town, I set my camera to 1.2 MP (1280x960) and
> fogot to change it back and took several dozen shots at that setting. The
> people who did the final selection chose two of those 1.2 MP shots.
>
> The picture area on each page of the calendar is 10x16.
That's remarkable. Really tells you something, too.
> Now that's 80 ppi and some pixelation is quite noticeable on straight
> slanting lines, but the rest of the picture came out much sharper than I
> expected. I've personally shown it to some two dozen people, including
> some who are taking up photography as a serious hobby. With the exception
> of one advanced amateur, none of them spotted the pixelation until I
> pointed it out. Admittedly most of them didn't possess an experienced
> critical eye, but it goes to show that a high pixel count is not essential
> for most people.
It sure does. I've tried my small cameras down to 3 MP a couple times and
still could see no difference, but normally leave them at 5 anyway to stay
on the safe side. But your experience at 1.2 MP is certainly an eye opener.
eNo
I agree. I can't wait for the noise tests on this camera starting at
ISO400 or so. I'm guessing for roughly the same price you can get a
D40 that will blow the P90 away in noise performace with "half" the MP.