That would make
sense and not leave me with the feeling you are a shallow, empty
headed party boy.
Sorry for being so frank, but your thread is an example of what has
happened to DPReview.
Well you certainly were frank -- and a bit aggressive which is a pity since I think you have misunderstood me. Oh, and I do like to point out that it's ironic that you accuse of something that you yourself do: have strong opinions on matters. Had I chosen your example of the opening post I'd not only miss the opportunity to share my own opinion of the new Canon ultracompact line-up but also miss doing something you yourself do. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
First of all I'd like to ask you this: what are you implying in your "what has happened to DPReview" comment. Are you saying that my kind persons with little knowledge of cams come here and only talk about what's trendy, cool and good-looking instead of focusing on all the technical stuff and the little variations in picture quality from cam to cam? If this is what you are implying I'd like to say two things: 1) You have misunderstood me and 2) welcome to the present: in ultracompact-range the inside of the camera isn't the only thing that matters.
Let's start with the OVF. I don't think they are old-fashioned. What I wrote earlier was that I think they are unnecessary and old-fashioned in ultracompact cameras in my opinion. OVF are great in bigger cams and when you really want the best picture you can get. But ultracompact cameras are basically in my opinion for fun. They are the sort of cams you carry everywhere forgetting them in your pocket and whipping them out when you get inspiration to shoot something. People talk about point and shooting. So with ultracompacts many people just want to quickly snap some pics they don't want to use minutes adjusting the camera, carefully targeting with OVF and what not.
I ask you this. Why do you think so many ultracompact are without OVFs? Without too much manual control? With manufactures clearly making the exteriors pretty? Could it be that a big part of ultracompact-users don't really care if the pic is slightly out-of-focus or if there is a microscopic pinkish hue in the pic? Could it be that ultracompact-users just want a fun little cam that they take everywhere with them? And could it be that if you keep the cam inside your pocket and take it everywhere wanting some style in the exterior of the cam isn't a bad thing?
If I was talking about the same thing in a digital SLR forum then I'd understand the reaction. Digital SLR users tend to demand a lot out of the performance of the cam and there style and other superficial things have really no importance. But in this thread I'm talking about ultracompacts and if you think my opinons are that of "a shallow, empty headed party boy" you not only aim your irritation at me but also many many ultracompact users and manufactures who focus partly on creating nice-looking cams.
As I said earlier if you think that having to put your nose against the lcd while using the OVF is your idea of good ergonomics and a fun camera then I don't know what to say. Again, the whole point of the ultracompact camera is to be fun, easy to use and carry. If this wasn't the case then who would buy ultracompacts. I mean wouldn't it make more sense to buy a bigger camera with way better performance. Or are you perhaps saying that only reason to buy an ultracompact is the fact that they cost less than digital SLRs?
I don't have anything against you. I'm not even angry about your style of making my writings look stupid (and I'm 23 by the way). I think it's just sad that some people think it's a terrible sin to make appearance as a criterion. Unfortunately, these people make themselves look a bit foolish and old-fashioned by doing this since one basic idea behing ultracompacts is to make them small and easy to look at. So while you might think my kind of thinking makes DPReview look bad then your kind of thinking makes it look like a place where "technical nerds" diss everyone who tries to sell the point that it's okey to make appearance a criterion in a camera class one of the points of which is to make the cams in somewhat the same principle as mobile phones nowadays: performance wrapped around in a stylish cover.
Look, I do know Canon cameras are really good. I've read the reviews and truly Canons usually are the best versatile ultracompacts (right now, anyway). I just don't like the way they look and OVF-issue having to do with ergonomics and appearance.
To end this reply to you, I'd like tell a little more about my own camera requirements since you clearly have misunderstood me. The reason why I'm talking about a "party"cam is to make it clear to people that I want a cam that can handle party situations (low light). Certainly I'd use the cam in other situations as well (in vacations, taking pics of my cat, in special days et cetera). Because party-situations are so demanding and because I'd probably use the cam mostly in those situations I'm talking about a party cam. Oh, and by the way... You might have missed Sony's T30-campaign as they made it very clear Sony T30 would be a good cam to have in "parties".
).
