$1,200 interesting and exciting. Likely cost: 2-3X.
S B McCue: Let me admit my bias up front: I own a P7700. I abandoned the G-series at G10, but I do have a nostalgic fondness for the G7 and G9. I thought the G10 was a misstep at the time it was introduced and haven't changed my opinion since then.
That said, all the criticisms leveled at the P7700 are accurate ... it does not handle particularly well, has some operational lag and the write times can be frustratingly slow. In capable hands, however, it certainly turns out stellar images. I have some ground to cover before I call myself "capable," but I've seen the results others have achieved.
There's just something about the G15 that gives me the impression that it was designed in a woodshop. It lacks true Canon art, whereas the P7700 is the current refinement of Nikon's enthusiast-class offering. I'm disappointed that the Coolpix A appears to suffer from some of the same operational glitchiness as the P7700; it's an enticing upgrade for me after some years with the P series.
Nikon DNA. Each camera manufacturer has stalled in many respects at what its very first digital cameras evidenced, whether slow processing, poor low light focus, etc. Amazing.
camerosity: Wrong, dpreview. Your Canon bias is showing. The Nikon Coolpix P7700 is a direct descendant of the Nikon Coolpix 990 introduced January 27, 2000. It was the top of the line of the Coolpix models, just as the Canon G1 was the top of the line of the Powershot models.
Get your facts straight. I don't work for dpreview, and I already know more than the staffer they asked to write this article!
I actually think the heritage of most point and shoots, even the more expensive ones, are the contractors who develop certain sub-assemblies: zoom gears; focusing modules; the battery/card chambers and doors; the joystick dials; etc.
Looks like a nice cameras. Just think Body Only should be somewhere around $300. We are well past development costs on this format and, wow, no cost for mirror, optical viewing, etc.
Mescalamba: I would only add, that Sony ZA 24-70/2.8 SSM dont have stabilisation for simple reason that Sony system doesnt need it. Should be noted there that all Sony dSLTs and dSLRs have built in stabilisation system, so every lens on it is stabilised (as long as camera knows there is lens on it and it has proper focal length in chip coded).
So simple "No (stabilisation in camera body)" would suffice.
Then why aren't the Sony or Pentax mount lenses less costly. Why not put OIS in the lens and the user can choose to turn off in-camera shake reduction.
rfsIII: It's a quality revolution. First there were the Sigma 35 and 50 1.4s, and now this. Do any of you experts know what has changed in either the lens industry that is allowing these second-tier companies to suddenly come out with lenses that equal or beat the big two? I know that there is a lot of cross pollination and that the second-tier firms make components and sometimes whole lenses for Canon, Nikon, and the rest, but there seems to be a shift in what has always been a very "cooperative" industry. In years past I don't think that Canikon would have allowed their subcontractors to make lenses that directly competed with their bread and butter products. Has something changed in the industry culture? Are we seeing a new breed of corporate executive who rejects the collusive practices of times past? Are new design algorithms or computer programs making this possible? Or have Sigma and Tamron just kicked their optical engineers into high gear?
Interesting comments. I think part is the recognition that one must compete at the high end, higher value, more profit product. Those buying a camera with kit lens, will likely do fine and not look elsewhere than what comes with the Canon, Nikon, Sony, maybe, Pentax DSLR.
Photoshop Elements used to have a neat trick. You could open JPEG files in Camera Raw mode and it was possible to recover some highlights.
Gesture: What's the equivalent in the Canon or Sony lineup?
What's the equivalent in the Canon or Sony lineup?
marike6: DPR writes: "Users wanting to shoot primarily in live view mode will have to settle for slower autofocus performance than they'd get from nearly any mirrorless camera."
It's a DSLR with an OVF. Why would a still shooter want to shoot primarily in live view mode? Unless you are leveraging the articulated LCD shooting low to the ground or overhead, if you are shooting "primarily in live view mode" on a DSLR, you are doing it wrong.
I don't get why DPR keeps harping on handheld Live View shooting and subtracting points from DSLRs with OVFs for LV and touch screens. It's a bias that's particularly odd considering these a DSLRs not P&S or ILCs without VFs.
Go back far enough and Phil Askey reviews would question why anyone would want Live View on a DSLR. Actually, how about when the camera is on a tripod.
DLBlack: It is sad news that Olympus is dumping their p&s cameras. Still for most people the smartphone/table photos are good enough and their is no need to carry multiple devices if one is good enough.
I keep hearing that P&S cameras was where the big profits were. So with P&S cameras gone then the price of high-end cameras are going to have to go up some.
The day is near that cameras and phone/tables are going to work together. It has started with wifi connectivity in cameras. The Canon N, which is extremely small has wifi might be useful if one wants a little better than a smartphone/tablet but not interchangeable lens camera. A ruggedize sprt camera with WIFI coul be userful to. Panasonic has a ruggedize sport camer with wifi. So there is a place for a P&S camera but it is not your regular p&s camera. It has been replace by the smartphone/tablet.
So many places I go, few carry cameras, a lot of photos being taken with phones-from modest ones to the better phones with apps.
Good idea. So should a few others. The traction for Olympus is in Micro 4/3rds and all-weather cameras. Wish more had joined the Micro 4/3rds consortium.
rallyfan: The Sigma DP "M" series offers excellent solutions to questions very few are asking and for which even fewer are willing to pay; a very impressive evolutionary dead end that sold slowly and performs even slower. Dreary cameras lacking what Ignatius J. Reilly would call the proper geometry and theology, taste and decency.
The rest are good choices.
The Merrill is like when someone doing 35mm sees what their first 120 or 4x5 film neg can produce in terms of details and tonality. It's another dimension of reality.
PicOne: Might this mean that DPR will wake up a bit and perhaps attempt a review of a Merrill compact?
When you buy a DP series camera you are getting a premium lens besides the sensor.
jhinkey: Nice, but not $900 nice . . . .
Although an avid Nikon user for some time now - I've recently added some m43 gear to my kit because Nikon came out with a very anemic 1 system. I couldn't wait anymore for a compact, high IQ system with non-dumbed down bodies and a decent lens selection.The V-2 was a step in the right direction, but it was too little too late as it lacks features that I think should have been there. Plus the lack of anything seriously wide or a fisheye or other fast primes aggravates the situation.
Nikon is playing catch-up to m43 and needs to get serious real fast with high quality glass that's not outrageously costly nor larger than the m43 equivalent.
Part of me wishes they would build something to compete with the Fuji XE-1 offerings.
Samsung has a nice lens lineup and the sensor is APS-C.
Sakura Sakura: Seems to me Nikon are misjudging & overpricing the Nikon 1 system. I just don't get it, the 4/3 system just as compact, cheaper & probably better image quality. In case you think I have a downer on Nikon I have a Nikon DSLR & love it.
But it's an "acclaimed system."
brilliant sharpness ... intricate details ... $900 a bargain. What with modern computer-aided design and advanced manufacturing techniques, can never understand why lenses cost so much.
Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee: It doesn't matter a whit. I don't use their stuff. I use Aperture, Corel etc.People spend far too much time "processing" and not enough composing or just taking photos.I wish them ill in their move!
Yes, read a book by W, Eugene Smith, all the time he spent working on images in the darkroom. There were 2 Lustrum Darkroom books issued by Ralph Gibson that showed the "processing" mode in the film days.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review