DirkL: Pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo. That smaller sensors are more prone to noise and have more DOF has been known for years, even for informed consumers.
If you try to quantify this with formulas, and then promote these to help the consumers, then make sure that
a) the formulas hold water and are appliable to the camera the consumer is interested in. But except for FOV you will never be able to do that, there are too many parameters to consider (different sensor-, lens- and processor technologies).
b) shallow DOF and high-ISO shots in low light are of equal importance to the consumer as FOV.
Otherwise you will only add confusion and desinformation, doing the consumer a disservice.Keep testing instead, data is the only reliable way to compare cameras.
This for example is pseudo scientific:"for same generation""(at least)""dependent on""personally I think"
Pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo. That smaller sensors are more prone to noise and have more DOF has been known for years, even for informed consumers.
boyd2: Again NO DECENT OPTICAL VIEWFINDER!@$% And this should appeal to DSLR owners? Forget it Canon ...
"I honestly think there would be less complaints if Canon didn't even include an OVF at all. In fact many would welcome the size reduction."
In this I agree. The OVF is worthless if it is the same as in the G12. Either ommit it and make the body smaller, or put in a decent optical, hybrid or fully electronic VF.
The Nikon CSC makes sense. Nikon DSLR users looking for a compact second system will look into it, as well as P&S upgraders, in the latter case the Nikon brand and marketing will give some extra help over m4/3.
For me, as a m4/3 user, it is not worth to consider at the moment though. Inherently, the larger m4/3 sensor has a better IQ as well and the m4/3 lens lineup is much larger. I especially miss fast glass which would compensate for the smaller sensor in the Nikon CSC system.
But I will definitely be watching what Nikon and others will do in the CSC field in the years to come.