mpgxsvcd: F3.2-6.9 lens is all I needed to see. NEXT!
People, please stop being misleading.Just because f/6.9 may be the equivalent exposure to f/41 on a full frame sensor doesnt mean that its a flawed system in the compact.
Looks like a great camera.But why no 1080p60 video? Is canon still having issues with Digic 6 and 1080p60 video battery life?
@jpgthere's no evidence that you would even know what to do with f/whatever lol.
antares103: It's not 2.8 throughout? Failboat.
It's not 1.8 throughout? Failevenlargervessel.duhI hope you were joking.. but going by a lot of the negative comments, I somehow dont think you were.A 300mm 2.8 prime alone is almost a foot long and over 2kg and costs thousands.
Yoggie: "Shut up and take my money!" This will be great for flexibility when walking around or traveling to take acceptable pictures. I will switch to quality primes when I want to take great shots.
Totally agree. There's nothing more to be said.
eddie_cam: You can see a few P600 samples here:http://www.nikon-image.com/products/camera/compact/coolpix/performance/p600/sample.htm
Thanks Eddie.Good to see the lens is still nice and sharp. Sensor seems slightly improved over P510..marginally. If you want a basic long-zoom camera with good image quality, this will serve you well.
Just annoying that Nikon couldnt be bothered including RAW, hot/cold shoe for flash/mic, Expeed 4 for 1080p60 video, which are all considered minimum these days.
Just an incremental improvement.
Nightwings: Model upon model, year after year, yet still no hot-shoe .... still no RAW.
Most companies learn by their mistakes Nikon ...... you don't appear to ascribe to such a tenet. Oh Well, no $ale I guess.
Better luck next year. :)
g'day Nightwings 'ol buddy. Yeah wider would be impressive.. I'm currently interested in the Tamron 16-300 lens. Looks like it could be a great alternative to the Nikon 18-300.. Hope the optics are decent..
mpgxsvcd: They could take a dump in a box and write 20+ megapixels and 60x zoom on it and some people would buy it.
Some people just were not meant to be photographers.
And still produce better photos with it than some..
Completely agree. They've missed the boat and are only relying on a longer zoom. Its not enough. They still dont even have 1080p60 video. Though, if the sensor is cleaner than the P510 and retains its quality lens, it could still do well..
mpgxsvcd: 1440mm is not useful within our atmosphere. My telescope is only 800mm.
Nonsense. A good quality acromat is capable of at least 30x magnification per inch of aperture. Apochromats even more so. So a telescope with 2inch objective can easily perform at 60x.
60x zoom is not the same as magnification. Its less magnification.
JJLMD: There's NOTHING on the market that is comparable because this camera offers 2 attributes that don't travel together in ANY competing product:
1. The constant f2.8 zoom allows me to snap quality pics of my kid's indoor performances (ie, ballet recitals). Previously bought the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 for my wife's Nikon D3200 and she made me return it- too big, too heavy, and she doesn't like changing lenses. I've considered a Sony 70-200 f2.8 for my SLT-a99 but also find it too big, too heavy...and it's $2k!
2. DSLR IQ from sensor + processor. I recently bought the Sony RX100m2 and its IQ surpasses that of my wife's Nikon D3200 + 18-200 f3.5-5.6 (!), especially in low light. The BSI architecture allows 40% more light gathering ability than the sensor size would predict meaning it'll perform on a par with the best MFT sensors.
This UNPRECEDENTED combo makes it the perfect camera for the enthusiast soccer mom (and dad). I ordered mine.
I do agree with the conclusion, however - its a great combo. I'm looking forward to seeing low light samples and some video before I consider buying it.
Wait a sec, he said the RX100m2 and its IQ surpasses the 3200 + 18-200. The RX100* doesnt have the reach for what you point out either.
You've given your wife the wrong lens for low light. Put a proper lens on the D3200 such as a 17-50 2.8.
munro harrap: Well, huge apologies, NOT! Do you really mean to say that a 1" sensor is NOT 1" at all? The sensor is only 13.8mm x8.8mm. This means that it has an area merely of 12,244 sq. mm. Well in the UK and I am sure elsewhere it is against the Sale of Goods Act and the Trade Descriptions Act to state that the sensor is a 1" sensor.A 1" sensor has an area of 64,516 sq.mm, and that's more than four times the area of this tinsy nail-clipping bodie sized chip, so the image quality will be absolutely no improvement on what the 7800 Nikon can already do, and Sony are plain daft here, unfortunately. I apologize from my previous post, as I believed a 1" sensor to meet that description.Surely Sony need to produce the R2, with the same abilities and a genuine APS-C sensor, to dare to charge this kind of money. I had a DSC-828 with a similar sensor but the Zeiss lens (28-200mm) was unusably beset by blue fringing, and I returned it to the store.
Ahh, I see where your confusion lies. You've had the 828 and woke up 9 years later. Yes, the world has changed a bit since then.
Is $1300 expensive for what this camera offers? I really dont think it is.My 17-50 2.8 and 90 2.8 lenses combined almost cost this much.The RX10 covers these lenses and also does 1080p60 video in one convenient (and 800g is fairly light weight) package.
I like what I'm seeing.
sigh.Do people press their noses against a painting and say, These brush strokes look terrible! - and therefore its a bad painting?
Do people get a magnifying glass and look at the skin cells of a woman's face and say, She's ugly!
Just because you can, doesnt mean you should.
Look at the PHOTO, not the PIXELS.
HawaiiVolcanoes: ohh STOP...the images are HORRRRRRIBLE. Anyone that thinks that these images can compete with (anything) is simply fooling themselves. DPREVIEW...this is a new low for you.
The basis of these types of negative posts is quite clear.By exaggerating, huffing and puffing, some posters think it makes them look like they passionately know what they are talking about and possess knowledge and skill that is superior to actual professionals.
They simply are seeking attention and enjoy seeing their names "in lights".
These photos look great on my 24" IPS display. If you need to pp them in any way, then go ahead. They still look great.. even more impressive that they came from a multi-purpose pocket device.
These are great photos regardless of what was used to capture them.Its always amusing and sad to see the "experts" come out with their 2 cents to find reason to complain or compare as if they have some need to feel superior.Enjoy life. Be happy.
MarioV: I have the previous Nexus 7. These are very good devices. Only issue is that, over a few months, the battery steadily loses the ability to hold a charge for very long when in standby mode. Higher res and 50g lighter are nice, but doesn't make me rush to upgrade.
Thanks. Will give it a try some time.