Beckler8: I'm disappointed the 24-240 isn't a power zoom lens. This reduces its versatility as a video lens.
But it would still have the manual zoom ring. Like the beautiful 28-135 power zoom I see Sony has (it's $3k unfortunately!)
I'm disappointed the 24-240 isn't a power zoom lens. This reduces its versatility as a video lens.
Beckler8: Enough with the stupid minimalist design now. It has no place *anywhere* in my opinion but certainly not on cameras designed to be used by fingered humans.
@zorgon Except it's not. The push is toward minimalism across the board; it's an undeniable trend and it's absurd. Look at the Sony a7ii, rx100. High end cameras that have minimal physical controls. There's no reason not to have extra buttons on enthusiast cameras - unless one considers themselves so inept they can't learn an efficient layout. There's a reason SLR's, designed for maximum usability, have been littered with controls for the last 50 years. It's obvious.
Enough with the stupid minimalist design now. It has no place *anywhere* in my opinion but certainly not on cameras designed to be used by fingered humans.
I wonder if they've omitted power zoom on the 24-240; probably. Just like there's no zoom control on the a7 body which makes no sense. But then there aren't many controls on the body at all because they're going for some ridiculous minimalist style, which has no place in *functional* product design meant for serious users.
Obies1: I personally rate the Nikon P7700 as the best compact camera I have ever had. The zoom range is what I would consider a perfect choice for combining camera size and versatility. The lens is the sharpest I have found in my own comparisons with cameras like the G15, XZ2, etc. Its "usability" is great. It is easy to make quick adjustments with the various buttons and dials that can be customized. It does have some weaknesses, but that is exactly why I would readily pay for an upgraded version. I would love to have a 1-inch sensor in the same package. That alone would probably be sufficient for me to pay $500 to $600 for the new version. I am not a professional photographer, but I have done well in photo contests. An upgraded P7700 camera with a sharp, 28-200mm lens and a 1-inch sensor is the type of tool that could make more great photograpy possible by making a versatile camera handy (to capture photos at any time) and delivering (by capturing great photos).
I was waiting for an upgrade as well. It was a unique class because no ILC with this zoom will be as portable. But apparently not enough people agreed because judging by the nikon.com lineup and no announcement here, it seems it's the end of the line for Pxxxx. :(
However I would have the 7800 right now except I notice problems with video in all Nikon P&S, such as jittery AE. Sony seems much better for video IMO.
I sort of wish people would stop babbling on about sensor size here. Not everyone can afford an RX100 and also may not want its nearly useless zoom. These are $2-300 range cameras and a larger sensor is still an upgrade feature.
Anyway I think the S9900 is interesting with its LCD.
Michael Ma: Does it do 4K video?
I find the ZS50 interesting. The lowered pixel count and the hi-res viewfinder are nice. Before the flood of "small sensor" comments starts, get back to me when your LX/RX 100 has 30x zoom. This type of camera is just as legitimate.
Beckler8: Like all the haters here, I too think this is pretty stupid. It's a luxury image camera. But then admit that Rolls Royce and Rolex are ridiculous as well. At least this camera is a rebadge of a great model, whereas those two examples are badges of nothing.
Debatable, but that's not what makes them expensive - it's the pointless luxury factor; just as with this camera.
And what I mean by nothing is that they're not very good at what they're *supposed to do*, certainly for the price and compared to other choices. And that's what I hate about pointless luxury. If I spend $20,000 on a Rolex and it blew all other watches out of the water performance-wise, that would be different.
Like all the haters here, I too think this is pretty stupid. It's a luxury image camera. But then admit that Rolls Royce and Rolex are ridiculous as well. At least this camera is a rebadge of a great model, whereas those two examples are badges of nothing.
Beckler8: The low zoom ratio makes it hard to consider this for general purpose video.
I'm sure that helps. But still. If any camcorder had 3x zoom it would be far too crippling. That's why none of them do. :)
The low zoom ratio makes it hard to consider this for general purpose video.
marcio_napoli: Typical DP review crowd. They all look for specs, actually knowing very little how to use it in the real world.
It's just about numbers, on gear heads minds: DR numbers, MP numbers, ISO numbers, and now, 2k vs 4k.
In just a few years, 4k vs 8k... numbers, bla bla bla, numbers.
If my statement above doesn't cut it, the mighty ARRI Alexa is a 2k camera only.
Do you know what the "obsolete" 2k Arri Alexa means to the movie industry? It's basically the most acclaimed digital movie camera ever.
And guess what, few, very few Hollywood level movies are actually produced in 4k.
Very, very few.
If Hollywood is not ready yet for 4k, do we really think a bunch of gear heads on DP review are really in THAT need for 4k ?
Common argument. It misses the simple point: future-proofing. People were saying exactly the same stuff about HD back in the day. I wonder what they'd pay today to be able to see all their old footage now in HD rather than fuzzy SD rubbish. The 4K/2K difference is less of course (at standard viewing distances) and yet still quite spectacular on a big screen TV...
What they're doing in hollywood isn't relevant to most. 4K isn't fully mainstream yet, but it IS fully available. Hence the above points.
I don't really understand this. We're in the 4K era now. If you just need a quick camera to get some basic HD footage, then you don't need a 6 thousand dollar setup. But then if your application is serious at all and you're even looking at this price level, then you (should) have zero interest in capturing immediately obsolete 1080 footage. But all that said, there must be a narrow segment for whom this camera makes sense - not sure what that is though.
If they can make the same camera (or RX series) with longer but slower zoom lens, I'd prefer that. Not everyone values maximum low-light capability or shallow DOF above all else. Depending on your style, the nearly-useless 3-4x zoom just throws away a world of photo opportunities, esp. with video.
I don't buy the common notion that this camera class is doomed. Its market share will decrease but then level off - because non-photographer types can switch to phones now. Photographer types still want a better compact option and these are it. Phone cameras get better but so do these cameras!
That being said, they could increase that market share by NOT going for absurd resolutions and zoom ratios in these cameras and instead focusing on more image quality. Because while they're surely correct that most buyers are stupid and just looking at numbers, the segment considering these will increasingly include savvy buyers.
Beckler8: One important video advantage of this type of camera, which you lose with SLR and ILC options, is power zoom. Makers of those cameras continue to (effectively) ignore this feature, for no good reason.
Except they're already catering, massively, to video users. So power zoom is then needed - just as it exists in every single video camera ever made.
As for the sony lenses, nice options - just very few, and I don't think it's variable speed.
One important video advantage of this type of camera, which you lose with SLR and ILC options, is power zoom. Makers of those cameras continue to (effectively) ignore this feature, for no good reason.
I'm pleased others here are also talking about 4K video. HD-only can't really be justified on a top-end SLR and especially when 4K TV's are now readily available. Essentially you're forced to decide whether you want higher quality video or stills (i.e. GH4 or D810). Who will be the first to have both? (Not counting Canon 1DC because of 10k price.)