Steve in GA: I was attracted to this article because I am a Nikon DSLR owner, even though I'm not an owner of an 18-55 lens, and I was interested in reading about Nikon's use of new (to Nikon, at least) tech.
But, as I read the comments on this article, I felt like I had fallen into an alternate universe of video, live view and Nikon's glacier-like movement toward mirrorless.
I have about 1,200 exposures on my Nikon DSLR, I have shot video twice, I believe, and I have used live view three times, including those times I used it for video. Am I the only person left who likes using a viewfinder and shooting stills?
@Josh152 I've not tried that before, mostly as I am out in "the field" (my yard or nearby parks) with a limited number of hands (2!). But I could see having a tablet mounted to the tripod as being an option for a larger screen (though then you have another device to worry about keeping powered).
Rob Bernhard: Does the Elph 180 actually not have optical IS? There's no IS in the name, unlike the 190, which leads me to believe that they released a camera that reaches to 224mm equiv at f/6.9 with no physical stabilization system.
Canon, it's not 2003 anymore. Your R&D for IS in compacts has been covered for a long time now.
[[wait.. you know that? ]]
But, you of course, know it can't possibly be so, because you've done the same, right?
You can add IS at $119. The cost to Canon is effectively zero. This is shelf stuffing and has nothing to do with manufacturing costs. There is no reason for Canon to not include IS in all of their point and shoots at every price point. This is the move of a company who has lost their way.Panasonic and Sony both offer optical image stabilization at the $70 price point.
[[ Am I the only person left who likes using a viewfinder and shooting stills?]]
When talking about stills, (and I recognize that this is a bit specialized) live view for shooting macros is so much better than a viewfinder.
[removed. i misread the original sentence]
Does the Elph 180 actually not have optical IS? There's no IS in the name, unlike the 190, which leads me to believe that they released a camera that reaches to 224mm equiv at f/6.9 with no physical stabilization system.
[[For kids that are on the go - or have the tendency to drop expensive pieces of electronics, the Olympus TG-4 is a good choice]]
It's not even just for kids who are "on the go" (which nearly all kids are) or ones that drop anything. Cameras like this allow them to explore a variety of environments without worry. Even simple stuff like "it's raining outside" or "we're going to the beach."
I've recommended the Olympus Tough series to a number of families since we purchased ours. It's wonderful to watch the children explore photography in their own way in a multitude of environmental conditions.
I immediately thought of the wonderful work QT Luong has done already in all the US National Parks, with a large format camera no less.
Konstantin Mineev: Most of the people who are buying entry level DSLRs can only dream about costly toys like 11-24F4L, 24-70F2.8LII or 70-2002.8LII and traveling to Alaska.Nice promotional video by the way.
[[You argued above: "renting these lenses is so . . . inexpensive," but you didn't give a number. ]]
Woe is me for assuming that anyone visiting this thread would recognize that renting lenses is less expensive than owning them.
[[OK, so what *exactly* is "inexpensive?"]]
11-24mm - $300024-70mm II - $180070-200mm II - $2000Total cost: $6800
Let's see if $290 is less than the total cost of all three lenses combined. Hmm. Yep. It is. By a factor of 23.
So, one can spend $290 and use 3 lenses for 4 days for a photo shoot instead of paying $6800. And one could do it again, and again, and, in fact 23 more times, before it would equal the cost of the lenses. How many trips to Alaska does one take as a hobbyist?
You have difficulty reading what people actually write and instead seek to invent things for them to say so you can argue against them. This is known as a strawman. You can stand up as many as you wish, but they are easy to see right through.
a-flying-wuss: While this was interesting to watch, videos like this always look unnatural. There's that feeling all the time reminding that it's all fake. I look at a professional photographer with a set of pro ff lenses and lighting that cost more than a car, in a harsh environment - using a cheap rebel body... and that combo just doesn't make sense, every time I see it I almost hear the photographer saying "yeah, of course no professional in their right mind would bring this piece of crap to Alaska, but I got paid by Canon to promote it so please put up with my bullsh*t for a few more minutes". :)
I think these ads should not only be called what they are ("advertisement" instead of "field test"), but they also should be planned with a bit more thought. It looks stupid when a pro uses a rebel in snowy Alaska, but it'd look a lot more natural in some city hipster portrait photo sessions, for example (or wherever a plastic rebel is not completely out of its element, like it is in Alaska).
[[working with lenses and flashes way out of it's league, and price...]]
What does this even mean? That certain EOS Cameras are not "worthy" of being used with L lenses because...Reasons? What sort of twisted, myopic view of photography is this?
As a renter, I'm well aware of the costs. I find your false equivalence here to be odd. If the tools meet the needs then the only factor is the total outlay of money. Spending hundreds (or even $50) more on a body that you don't need is foolish. Renting lenses for a special weekend of shooting is far less expensive than buying those lenses.
Underlying your and the OP's comment here is a rather distasteful layer of snobbery.
There is no need to dream when renting these lenses is so very easy and inexpensive.
rrr_hhh: Sorry, but not interested
Videos are a waste of time !
It takes much more time to look at them than to read a text and after that you have no tangible traces and everything is lost unless you waste your time again for a second time.
For efficiency, there is still nothing better than a written text
I realize that logical thought is not your forte so this will be my last response.
The statement he made is not ambiguous in any way. It is the poster child for an unambiguous statement. For you to claim otherwise is beyond absurd.
Perhaps someday you will look up the word anecdote and use it correctly. Here, sadly, you did not. What you actually wrote was a deliberate misrepresentation in an attempt to change the narrative.
The "essence" was not "the same." It was not anywhere close to the same. What I wrote was a semi-clever retort. What you've written was anything but that.
[[If you think he's a troll, why did you feed him?]]
It was an alert. Forewarned is forearmed.
[[He means the videos are a waste of time for him, and also other]]
He did not say that videos are a waste of his time, he made an absolute statement that they are a waste of time everywhere and for everyone. As he cannot possibly speak for everyone, his statement is not valid and it is not "opinion" it is a troll.
[[Besides, your contribution was... following him up in said forum with "Shut up, troll!"?... Yep, that's productive.]]
I'm sorry that English is not your primary language, but if you study more and re-read what I have written you will, of course, see that I said and did nothing of the sort. Your miss-characterization of my response will be more clear after you further your education.
After this you may wish to review the quality of your contribution to this thread which, by your own rules, is even less than what you apply to mine.
@0MitchAG - Because his sole contribution to this article was to vomit his displeasure. Imagine if you were sitting in a room talking about something and he came in, stood right in front of you and yelled "Your topic is a waste of time!!" His statements are absolute, so he clearly does not believe any opinion other than his own has validity. This is not how people of reasonable intellect talk.
[[For efficiency, there is still nothing better than a written text]]
A video of you being a troll would be far more entertaining than your written proof.
FYI, The text for slide 5 states the lens is a 14-45mm in two spots. Please correct.
Vlasty: If this was completely true the original Nikon 1's should have attracted these type of folks. You couldn't get much simpler and better than smartphone quality/usability than that.
Right, so in the US you can't find them (or at least, I can't find them, maybe I'm looking in the wrong spot), which leads me to believe that few people know they exist
I've seen a couple in the wild (and I work near an area that has decent amount of tourist traffic) but for the most part consumers are either using a DSLR, using a Sony mirrorless camera, or using their phones.
I don't know where you live but in my experience, I've seen a Nikon 1 on display in a big box store maybe 1 or 2 times.
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.
[[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.]]
Didn't Canon try that with the "Powershot N" and "Powershot N Facebook Ready" cameras?