photoguy622: Let's say that the camera manufacturers come up with a super simple, Wi-Fi sharing camera. Besides a dedicated zoom, what obvious advantage would the average consumer see? Not much, or at least not much worth carrying an extra device around for.
So, it's a moot point.
The future is advanced, expensive cameras marketing to enthusiasts and professionals. Witness the rise of the RX100, it's not grandma and grandpa who bought those. Point-and-shoot is going to die the same way dedicated MP3 players have.
In the iPod Nano's case, size is a tangible benefit, but is it for a point and shoot?
Yup, and the Powershot N didn't work out very well.
Let's say that the camera manufacturers come up with a super simple, Wi-Fi sharing camera. Besides a dedicated zoom, what obvious advantage would the average consumer see? Not much, or at least not much worth carrying an extra device around for.
People just don't want to carry around a second device unless they absolutely have to.
On my recent vacations I've seen more and more people choosing phones over dedicated cameras. The only advantage most people see in a dedicated camera over a phone is the proper zoom.
We may care about aperture, lenses, control dials, viewfinders, weather sealing, etc., but people who don't view photography as a hobby could not care less.
Gollan: I've been reluctant to see the new Mad Max movie because I felt it would be swamped with cartoonish CGI in an effort to top the wonderful, practical special effects in Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior. These photos make it look like computer imagery is being used to complement acting, rather than replace it. If the whole thing is like that, I really should give the move a chance.
Unfortunately "original" doesn't make money... at least not the kind of money re-makes and superhero movies make. Hollywood is about making money. Original movies rarely pull in the big crowds.
If you want original stuff you need to look at smaller productions and television.
photoguy622: The addition of RAW support is great, but why not also add a shutter priority mode?
Meanwhile I just bought a refurbished Nikon 1 J4 with the waterproof housing for $275.00. Hopefully it won't be too bulky.
If the Nikon's too big I'll stick with my Canon D20 and wait until someone adds raw and a full suite of manual controls to a waterproof camera.
Why is this so hard!
Hmm, good to know. I never would have known that the limited apertures negated shutter priority, but it makes sense.
The addition of RAW support is great, but why not also add a shutter priority mode?
Canon has produced a nice lens for the price, and I'm glad they are releasing more crop lenses.
Most people who buy this lens will not be knit picking CA and minor softness, they will be wowed by the new perspective this lens will bring.
photoguy622: Nikon should have come up with a better kit lens for the V3, like Fuji has on the X-E2.
This kit lens is a disgrace on an enthusiast level camera - average apertures and sharpness, power zoom and no filter threads.
@dpmaxwell: That's right. I forgot that detail!
I did see that, it's amazing what some JPEG processing can do!
Nikon should have come up with a better kit lens for the V3, like Fuji has on the X-E2.
I know this camera is average at best, but I'm still astonished by the reach of these things.
In 2006 I had the 12x Canon S2 IS and I thought that had amazing reach! Time marches on.
photoguy622: Let's not forget the flip side, that a smaller sensor has the benefit of having a great area in focus.
I guess I missed that in the article. My bad. I read it quickly while commuting.
Let's not forget the flip side, that a smaller sensor has the benefit of having a great area in focus.
Another reason someone needs to release a true RX100 competitor!
The biggest problems with these cameras, unless they are on fire sale, is the price. I generally like the design and features of this new V3.
Nikon would probably do well releasing an RX100 competitor alongside the interchangeable lens offerings.
photoguy622: Those pictures are atrocious. I thought the Olympus was bad at detail retention, the Nikon is even worse.
I don't think my expectations are unreasonable, and I don't expect SLR images from a point and shoot such as this. However, my Canon A570 IS from many years ago has better photo quality!
It seems that image quality has actually been declining in consumer oriented point and shoot cameras in the last few years.
Ben Herrmann: I really have to chuckle when I read some of the comments here. It goes to show that all of us "see things differently." I personally think that the Nikon and Olympus tough cameras "trounce" the Canon D30. To me, the Canon D30's images look smeared - no detail at all. Of all 3 of the touch cameras shown here, I'd have to say that I would go first for the Olympus, but I'd be happy with the Nikon as a very tight second. But the next guy may disagree - and that's life.
But it's interesting (and sometimes hilarious) to view how folks look at images - which can often be a result of the monitors they view them on, the calibration involved, if any, and a wide variety of variables could come into play - not to mention vision in general and personal IQ standards.
I don't see it that way. The Canon actually has detail, at the expense of more visible noise.
The Canon looks to be the best of the bunch so far, and that's not saying much. It seems Canon takes a light handed approach to noise reduction, which is appreciated, even if it means more noise.
I do wish they could find a way to digitally remove fringing.
Those pictures are atrocious. I thought the Olympus was bad at detail retention, the Nikon is even worse.