Reading mode: Light Dark

Smallest 10x zoom ever...S4

Go to last post
J

Joe0Bloggs

Veteran Member
Messages
5,391
Reaction score
18
Location
Shaukeiwan
The interesting thing about the S4 seems to be that it uses the height rather than the thickness of the body to house a long zoom lens. Now that you think about it the potential was always there, but this seems to be the first time that Nikon has capitalized on this potential.
 
or the lack of high ISO's?
--
Fujifilm Finepix S5100 + Fujifilm Finepix F10
 
Joe0Bloggs said:
The interesting thing about the S4 seems to be that it uses the
height rather than the thickness of the body to house a long zoom
lens. Now that you think about it the potential was always there,
but this seems to be the first time that Nikon has capitalized on
this potential.
Click to expand...
May I introduce you to the Nikon Coolpix 900:

http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/digitalcamera/coolpix/900/

That was 7.5 years ago. Since then we have had the 950, 990, 995, 4500, 2500, 3500, all of which use "the height rather than the thickness of the body to house a long zoom lens".
--
Tore
http://home.no/tl18/
 
I think the poster was referring to 10x "mega zoom" type cameras.
Tore Lund said:
Joe0Bloggs said:
The interesting thing about the S4 seems to be that it uses the
height rather than the thickness of the body to house a long zoom
lens. Now that you think about it the potential was always there,
but this seems to be the first time that Nikon has capitalized on
this potential.
Click to expand...
May I introduce you to the Nikon Coolpix 900:

http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/digitalcamera/coolpix/900/

That was 7.5 years ago. Since then we have had the 950, 990, 995,
4500, 2500, 3500, all of which use "the height rather than the
thickness of the body to house a long zoom lens".
--
Tore
http://home.no/tl18/
Click to expand...
 
I was an owner of the predecessor model SQ. which also twisted for waist level shots. I quite liked the functionality. Day time snaps were ok but the quality of indoor pictures or at low light (or night) was abysmal and generally I was very disappointed with my first Nikon. The flash was blinding and although adjustable it still gave out harsh light with bad colour and red eye. Most people looked like they had just seen a ghost ! I ended up trying to take most of my photos without flash at all.

I recently sold my SQ and I am now looking for a new camera. I am tempted by this new S4 because it now has x10 zoom and a large LCD screen, I am interested to try one to see if the new model is any better but I am wary and I will probably go elsewhere. All of my friends cameras produce much better results. If they had asked me for feedback, I could have given them alot of ideas. In particular they needed to make big changes in flash seettings and low light. I would recommend that you see some low light shots before deciding to buy it. It needs ISO800 and an adjustable strength flash, it might even have been a better idea to put the flash on the other side of the twisted camera, then you would have been able to bounce the flash off the ceiling. If you do buy one of these and end up remembering what I have said, then I would take it back for a refund before warranty runs out. If it does all work ok in low light... then well done Nikon.
 
: )

38-380mm equivalent?

bah

that may impress enough folks to sell a bunch of cameras, but in real-world photograhic situations

eg. family gatherings

there'd be far more usability (and word-of-mouth sales growth)

in a camera with a 24-120mm Equivalent Focal Length lens

- -

I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that
here and there.

~ Richard Feynman (1918 - 1988)
 
Just about every prosumer, compact and subcompact digital cameras are poorly designed. Just about every one of these cameras are a brick formfactor with a lens in the front and a display in the back. Is there a reason for this? In the film days, the camera had to accomodate the film which naturally meant that the brick was the most efficient design (film spools on either side with a lens in between). But why with digicams?

When I look at the newer sub-compacts especially, the back is almost all display leaving one to hold the camera around the edges with one's fingertips. It sems that flat and thin rather than small and useful is the design focus.

It needn't be... These cameras should be a "mini-camcorder" design.

--> Like the Nikon, the lens should be housed in the width rather than the height of the body. This will allow for longer and better zooms in a smaller body.

--> The display should swing out like a camcorder

--> The flash should pop up away from the lens to minimize red eye perhaps with a bounce feature like the Panasonic DMC-LC1

There are digital camcorders that are already of this shape. Why in the world are the camera manufacturers just making bricks?

What I find the most ridiculous are the SLR-looking cameras (most recently from Fuji and Kodak... the Kodak is about the ugliest thing I've ever seen). Is one supposed to think just because the camera looks like an SLR it's a more serious photography instrument? Digital affords these manufacturers to think outside the box and do away with the film limitations of packaging. Yet these cameras are all beginning to look like updated disc cameras. Give us more useful formfactors please!

... I myself own a Sony DSC-F717 which is the best prosumer formfactor ever! Once one gets used to shooting with a swivel body any other formfactor is a letdown...
 
JP Lee said:
Is one supposed to think just because the
camera looks like an SLR it's a more serious photography
instrument? Digital affords these manufacturers to think outside
the box and do away with the film limitations of packaging. Yet
these cameras are all beginning to look like updated disc cameras.
Give us more useful formfactors please!
Click to expand...
I agree with the above except that flat and thin are in.. and more pocketable.
JP Lee said:
... I myself own a Sony DSC-F717 which is the best prosumer
formfactor ever! Once one gets used to shooting with a swivel body
any other formfactor is a letdown...
Click to expand...
I really missed the swivel when I ditched the 717. Then I realized how much better an articulated LCD is (Oly 7070). When mounted on a tripod you can view it from really awkward angles when necessary.
 
JP Lee said:
Just about every one of these cameras are a
brick formfactor with a lens in the front and a display in the
back. Is there a reason for this?
Click to expand...
The lens often needs to be bigger than the depth of the camera would allow.
JP Lee said:
When I look at the newer sub-compacts especially, the back is
almost all display leaving one to hold the camera around the edges
with one's fingertips. It sems that flat and thin rather than
small and useful is the design focus.
Click to expand...
I agree. Tricky to use without accidentally pressing something.
JP Lee said:
It needn't be... These cameras should be a "mini-camcorder" design.
Click to expand...
A camcorder can be built this way because the sensor is usually really tiny, 1/6" is common.
JP Lee said:
--> Like the Nikon, the lens should be housed in the width rather
than the height of the body. This will allow for longer and better
zooms in a smaller body.
Click to expand...
It is a 6.3-63mm f/3.5 lens covering a 1/2.5" sensor. That's not longer and not better than zooms covering the same size sensor, like the Panasonic FZ series. And they have IS.
JP Lee said:
--> The display should swing out like a camcorder
Click to expand...
Which takes yet more space. A nice feature.
JP Lee said:
--> The flash should pop up away from the lens to minimize red eye
perhaps with a bounce feature like the Panasonic DMC-LC1
Click to expand...
Bounce with GN 4 flash? Better hope for low ceilings.

And the S4 (and all other swing-lens Nikons I've seen) is horrible in this respect -- the flash is just millimeters away from the lens.
JP Lee said:
What I find the most ridiculous are the SLR-looking cameras (most
recently from Fuji and Kodak... the Kodak is about the ugliest
thing I've ever seen).
Click to expand...
I agree, but folks buy on perception. Kodak seems to have a handle on this.
JP Lee said:
... I myself own a Sony DSC-F717 which is the best prosumer
formfactor ever! Once one gets used to shooting with a swivel body
any other formfactor is a letdown...
Click to expand...
I played with these Sonys years ago, starting with the 505. The design has its good points, but you can only move the screen on one axis. The much more popular tilt-swivel design (copied from camcorders) allows the screen to move on two axis, and is, to me, more versatile. Overall, tilt-swivel seems to have won out in the market.

As for cameras being designed around film, there were plenty of different film designs tried, the SLR shape and thin compact brick shapes won out. See 110, disc, photura, dial, all the various Land (Polaroid) cameras (SX, 600, Spectra) for just a few examples.
 
If low light capability in a small form factor is NB to you, the only camera on the market right now that can do this is the Fuji F10

Its not perfect in that you need to work the camera to get the most out of it but the Fuji forum gives advice and its not so hard to follow, just some tuning of the settings according to the light which can be very satisfying to do - just like the old days

On the other hand its the finest small camera for low light work on the planet

I see no benefits in buying another camera with similar characteristics to one you have just rejected

Wellington100
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top