Its official. Oly AF sucks!

Started Sep 11, 2013 | Discussions thread
esco Senior Member • Posts: 1,780
Re: Canon and Nikon are bad for the overall camera market...

bobn2 wrote:

I will say that this applies far more to Nikon than to Canon, as their P&S's are bordering on unusable, and always have been.

They haven't been strong there, and they've never sold well there. Recently, though they have some solid if not innovative performers. Hard to see that any other brand's P&S are a great deal better.

I couldn't disagree more. Just spend one day trying out the different brands of P&S. It couldn't be more obvious how poorly they perform, especially Nikon. All of these camera manufacturers have a fairly substantial line of P&S's actually, which does seem a little strange considering all the doom and gloom about the lower end of the market.

The fact of the matter is that while these cameras are called "lower end", they perform functions that simply aren't possible with a DSLR (at least not easily and not for the typical consumer).

Really, how easy is it to shoot a quick video of your kid's sporting event from the bleachers or a video of a surfing even from the shoreline with a DSLR (when you need the reach and rapid autofocus). The Canon 70D is a step forward certainly, if the autofocus holds up, but it's still going to lack the reach needed in certain events, where a P&S would fill that niche nicely.

This is why I take exception with people here calling the P&S market superfluous (between the ILCs and the smartphones). Neither one is really well equipped to handle certain real life scenarios. And, yes, I think video is very important, although I would likely be a tiny minority on this forum, which makes me wonder how well represented the average person really is here. This is quite obviously a camera snob forum, but they're not very snobbish about metrics that would be important to an average Joe in a typical day, which is why Nikon can get away with their business strategy with seemingly no one taking notice.

Which brings me back to P&S performance. The difference lies not in some resolution chart but quite simply with the ease at which you can get the shot or video that you want. With Panasonic and Sony, it's completely effortless. Autofocus is almost always superb, even down to the lowliest model. Video is almost always top notch and effortless. And they both do a generally good job with the quality of glass they put in eve their lowest model.

This brings me to Nikon. Before we even get to autofocus, video, etc., I'll point out that for a company that gets such props for the quality of their glass, they're quite prone to putting junk glass in some of their P&S's. That aside, autofocus is almost universally atrocious and video is usually of junk quality. So, bottom line is that it's very difficult to get an easy, effortless shot or video with Nikon for a typical consumer.

And, yes, there is a HUGE difference in the lower end market between the brands, which almost never gets discussed. It's a far bigger difference in quality than in the ILC market. And, yes, I do give special consideration to brands that simply don't put out a junk camera in any price bracket. It says something about the philosophy of the company.

p.s. It's been a fun discussion but I think I'll move on.

Lack reach in certain events? O.o
You do know the 70d is a dslr right? Like you could mount a long reaching lens, shoot at ISO 3200 and get results that are impossible with these point and shoots you speak of.

Im pretty confused at what your argument is about.
Photographer first, gear second

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