If you've decided on Coolpix A instead of X100s, please share your thinking.

Started Mar 8, 2013 | Discussions thread
cptrios Senior Member • Posts: 1,352
Re: I like 28 a WHOLE lot more than 35, and I like the size

I dunno, I want to complain about the price, because in terms of features it doesn't seem anywhere near worth the money. No EVF, no OVF (except the add-on that costs $400), only f/2.8, no stabilization, only two control wheels vs the 3 on the X100s (and one of them seems to do nothing in any mode except M). No touchscreen, which, while gimmicky in my book, is pretty useful on a VF-less camera.

But if the lens is really good (I fear field curvature), and AF speed is acceptable - should we be willing to pay some sort of premium for miniaturization? It is an impressively small camera, and as such will theoretically provide something completely unique in the photo world; an APS-C camera that'll fit in a jeans pocket. I still think that $1100 is too high, and that $899 would have been a lot more palatable, but it's not a crazy amount of money. It's interesting to me that Nikon has caught so much more flak than Sony has for the price of the RX1, which is a nearly equally limited camera but checks in at $2799 largely because it's FF. Of course, the RX1 deserves to cost a lot of money because Sony managed to cram a FF sensor into that tiny body and design a not-entirely-huge high-quality lens to go with it. But it's an equally featureless camera to the Nikon. So why does Sony get so much more credit for their miniaturization than Nikon does?

But yeah, I'd never pay $1100 for a camera that will only let me ever shoot at 28mm. I actually really like that focal length, but definitely not as a primary one. This is very much an "extra body" kind of camera, and they'd thusly sell a lot more of them if it were priced that way.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow