BorisK1: Here's what I want to know: Supposedly, ragged cams (along with enthusiasts' and superzooms) are the only types of cameras not affected by cellphones. The manufacturers are - supposedly - focusing on the ragged cams like never before.
Why, then, all the recently released tough cams are hardly updated from previous versions? A new body color here, a new "creative mode" there, an updated logo don't really show "focus".
How in the world did you figure that I "sell cameras"???
Sorry, we seem to have a language barrier. Good day to you sir.
Neez: But does it shoot RAW, that's what people really want.
Sure, many people buy tough cameras to shoot raw, if by "many" you mean more than five or six. But for the manufacturer the *percentage* makes all the difference. Judging by the number of the raw shooting tough cams on the market, that percentage is tiny.Oh, and by the way, did you buy the Nikon 1 AW 1? It shoots raw.
Our conversion would be a lot more productive if you actually read what I wrote, and replied to it, rather than some imaginary opponent.
As it is, I have to keep repeating the same thing in slightly different terms, hoping *something* will get through.
Okay, let me try again: From the point of view of someone who sells cameras, Raw as a feature is insignificant in most types of P&Ss, with the exception of enthusiast compacts, because most P&S users don't shoot raw.
Sure, some if those users *want* raw. But there are not enough of them to justify the expense of adding it.
That expense will be primarily in additional support costs (people accidentally enabling it and not knowing what it is) and in the sales lost to the negative publicity caused by people looking at uncorrected sensor output.
I never implied that an ability to record raw was insignificant to an enthusiast photographer.
aelandesphoto: Where is the Canon WP1 in digital!? Full frame, fixed widish lens, decent aperture, waterproof, shockproof, etc. I'd buy it!
AT LEAST offer one of these cameras that does uncompressed format or RAW. Then I might consider it.
Consider how much the other fixed-lens full frame cameras cost, then multiply it by 3 (the usual premium for "underwaterness"). Are you *sure* you'll be able to afford it?
wus: Even if we disregard the small sensor and apertures I wonder how good an underwater photo can be that's shot at 24mm through a flat port.
Lots of people put (flat) uv/protection filters on their lenses, and don't have any issues with them. Why would this be any different?
H1brid: Why they don't put in bigger sensors (1" anyone?) is far beyond me.Years go by and the "new" generation comes with bells and whistles, but no actual improvements.
Good thing they add WiFi (not in this case), because that's really useful underwater rather than a bigger sensor.
As it is, tough cams use prisms to bend the light path 90 degrees just to fit the lens assembly into the body. A 1/1.7" sensor with a reasonably fast lens might (just) fit. A 2/3" is unlikely. A 1" would be a *huge* surprise.
PentaxNick: Still no WiFi built in hence no remote shooting. In 2015! TG3 it is then.
TG-3 has been hard to find (out of stock or discontinued) since last November. Rumor sites have been talking about TG-4, but it hasn't happened so far.
It doesn't. Probably because it's a very small "people".
With the possible exception of enthusiast compacts, raw *is* insignificant for a fixed-lens camera from marketing standpoint. A typical raw shooter owns (and uses) a camera with an interchangeable-lens. A typical super zoom or tough cam user shoots jpegs.
Sure, there are exceptions, but not enough of them to sell enough cameras and to offset the phone calls of frustrated users who accidentally switched to raw, and now their camera is dog-slow and outputs huge files that you can't put on Facebook, which means they probably have a virus or something.
Cane: Are companies just going to keep churning out the same small sensor in this genre? Either you suffer marginal image quality or you buy an big and expensive case for a good camera. The in between is a vast wasteland.
There were significant breakthroughs in the lens design and miniaturization in recent years. Just look at the Panasonic LX-100 or Sony RX100III. There's probably no way to fit a 1" sensor into a folded-light-path tough cam, but a 2/3" or 1/1.7" with a reasonably fast lens might be doable.
Okay, if you want to nitpick, I was referring to *fixed-lens* cameras.
But definitely not just "basic jpeg only", as you put it. An ability (or inability) to record raw files is an insignificant tick mark in the long list of specs, that neither makes not breaks a camera.
The importance of the ability to record raw is somewhere between a built-in flash and an extra stop of aperture.
Looks like all rugged cam updates/refreshes are very conservative - by all manufacturers. New body colors, new scene modes, New version number, and that's it. Oh wait, did the 133 add a mini-grip? Well, that puts Nikon ahead of everybody else... I guess.
What's strange, is that the rugged cams(together with enthusiast and super zooms) are the only fixed-lens cameras whose sales were not affected by the ubiquitous smartphone. It's expect to see a bit more effort than this.
What figures? About the dropping sales of low cost p&s cameras largely due to ride acceptance of cellphones? Sorry, don't have any specific links - buy if you search, that's what you'll find.
Here's what I want to know: Supposedly, ragged cams (along with enthusiasts' and superzooms) are the only types of cameras not affected by cellphones. The manufacturers are - supposedly - focusing on the ragged cams like never before.
mpgxsvcd: What is the focal ratio range for the underwater camera? Having a fast lens for underwater photography is paramount.
Imaging-resource says it's f/3.9 - f/4.9. Consistently slow throughout the entire zoom range. But hey, who needs aperture when you have Wi-Fi? :-)
Anadrol: Well after 22 years of use a replacement should happen one day or the other...the thing is that ironically we need it less than before when we had 56K connections !
I'm afraid ijpeg is about as easy to replace as the QWERTY keyboard layout (which, if I recall correctly, was designed primarily to reduce the jamming of the mechanical typewriters).
Usee: Sorry, but within the comparison tool it wipes away the pattern in the green area around the Nike logo on the shirt of the left player - even at the "Large" setting...
OK, it reduces the file size noticably, but I would have liked a comparison with JPEG 2000 and also different jpeg compressions...
...I see only examples of "noise reduction" with a heavy loss on detail.
They should at least improve the comparison tool, or maybe also, the format......b.t.w. which is the reason why JPEG 2000 isn't used that much?
"That shouldn't be a problem nowadays, shouldn't it?"
Just as much of a problem now as it was then. Sure, the camera CPUs are faster, but the files are larger.
I wouldn't mind an ability to fit twice as many images on my flash card, but not at the price of halving both the battery life and the burst mode rate.
The biggest technical problem with jpeg2000 was that it took a lot more CPU cycles to generate than to view.
Ken Rocket: how many shades of gray does it have? I want more than 256.
14 bit means16,384 levels of grey. Should be enough for casual use.
sportyaccordy: For whatever its worth, in the studio comparison anyway, the D810 gives nothing up to the 645Z on a 100% view basis as far as noise goes. Def want to see its DR capabilities as well as ability to pull info from dark/underexposed areas. DxOMark's data can't come soon enough. Not in the market, just want to see what it can do.
@falconeyse: No problem. It looked like a copy-paste error, I just wanted to figure out which of the two of us you were addressing.
@HowaboutRAW: Not sure what you mean by "weakness" of audio amplification with transistors - it's about as common as sliced bread.
I take it, by "truly digital imaging sensor" you mean putting a single photon counter into every pixel. Yes, that *is* a long ways off.Today's single photon counters are the size of a compact camera, and cost many times more. It will be a while before they figure out how to cram one into each pixel.http://www.excelitas.com/Pages/Product/Single-Photon-Counting-Modules-SPCM.aspx