pjl321

I would say these cards are DOE if the max capacity is 256GB for MicroSD and 512GB SD. The people who need and will pay for those speeds also need really large capacities for 8K video and +100MB RAW files.

Isn't the TG-6 due any time now?

Olympus TG-5 2017 12.0MP - 1/2.3" 20.0 fps 113 x 66 x 32mm 250g
Olympus TG-4 2015 16.0MP - 1/2.3" 5.0 fps 112 x 66 x 31mm 247g
Olympus TG-3 2014 16.0MP - 1/2.3" 5.0 fps 112 x 66 x 31mm 247g
Olympus TG-2 2013 12.0MP - 1/2.3" 5.0 fps 111 x 67 x 29mm 230g
Olympus TG-1 2012 12.0MP - 1/2.3" 3.0 fps 112 x 67 x 30mm 230g

.... 3 of 3

Don't get me wrong, there were times i was impressed by the P900 and I got some nice shots it but the camera would have been a world beater if Nikon used an ultra high image quality, fast readout sensor. But Nikon went for the headlines of 3000mm but in doing so have more than doubled the price whilst leaving the main flaws in place. I actually believe you would get significantly better images 95% of the time with something like Panasonic FZ2500 or Sony RX10iii both with 1" sensors yes similarly priced.

Personally I would have preferred Nikon to have left the optics as they were and simply updated the sensor and image processors in the P900 and released that at around £400. I think they would have sold a huge amount more too.

.... 2 of 3

Quite honestly £1000 for camera with a 1/2.3" sensor is ridiculous anyway, I was a big fan of the P900 and had it for several months and took it on many shoots but ultimately I had to get rid because like i mentioned the noise levels and noise reduction made pastel paintings out of anything but the very brightest days. Something else i couldn't live with is the shot to shot speed was insanely slow and it had a buffer or about 5-6 photos, just to be clear this was 2015 not 2005! It was painful trying to capture anything moving.

....

1 of 3

It has been confirmed to me that the P900 is using "the same sensor from the P900". This is a massive bubble busting spec for me as that was the weakest part of the P900. This sensor was a poor sensor back in 2015, it was slow and noisy and gave photos a pastel painting look in anything but the very brightest conditions. I really can't see a camera with a poor 2015 sensor selling well at 2 or 3 times the price for the P900.

Why would Nikon not update this pivotal part of a camera to something cutting edge like one of the hugely better 12mp sensors we have in phones at the moment?

....

I'm not sure what you are saying but 35mm equivalence is used as a standard candle so everyone knows where they stand with respect to whatever camera/sensor they are using.

25% speed of 60fps is still fluid enough to make a shot or bad tackle to look cool. But yes i would love 120 or even 240fps but 4k is more important as i often have to crop the video.

Thanks for the heads up on those Canon's, i'd not seen them get announced. Way out of my price range for just a camcorder though, the RX10's are great cameras that take good videos. I need it in that order.

If they used a curved sensor then it would be much smaller and optically better.

No, it really is needed. I would want to use this camera to record sport (me playing football), sport at 30fps is not ideal and doesn't allow a smooth slow-mo like 60fps does. If you are paying that kind of money I don't think its a lot to ask.

I do find that an odd thing to say, when a new camera comes out it doesn't make whatever camera you have worse, its just progress and what is wrong with rapid progress?

I agree if they don't really change much and it's just a re-brand that is pointless and i also get frustrated when they don't include all the features you would expect and the only reason i can think of is so that they have something to add for the next one. 4k60 recording being my bugbear on this camera. But i wouldn't want them to slow down or we would have another Canon that barely releases anything and rarely innovates anymore.

Well said Mr Bustard. I agree with what you said as i have looked into this many times myself but i own a FF and i own a Nikon P900, when shooting at f/6.5 (widest aperture possible on the P900 at full zoom) that's meant to be the equivalent to around f/38 on a FF. Surely can't be right? My photos at f/38 are still bright, vivid, decent shutter speed, etc.

Great looking camera with a huge price tag but you won't get better image quality for the money over the whole 24-600mm range, plus the portability aspect.

I won't be getting it though as amazingly Sony has not enabled 4k60 recording. Given that phones and action cams can do this now it's time Sony upped their game in this department, its meant to be a state-of-the-art stacked sensor, can it really not do 4k60 video?

Possibly the reason is they wanted to reduce costs and stick with the really old UHS-I memory card slot which is also a disappointment at this price range.

I would like to have seen a new, larger capacity battery too but not the end of the world carrying a load of spares around with you.

What ever happened to UFS cards that were going to be so much faster than today's stuff?

https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-introduces-worlds-first-universal-flash-storage-ufs-removable-memory-card-line-up-offering-up-to-256-gigabyte-gb-capacity

If Sony knows what a great feature an electronic shutter is then why would they not include it on the A-Mount flagship the A99ii?

I like the A9 but the price is too high, the A99ii offers similar-ish speeds, almost twice the resolution, dual card slot, good battery life (for Sony) and has better priced lenses (ie Tamron, Sigma).

Its hard to justify paying 50% more for this camera over the A99ii or if you are locked into the E-Mount already then paying twice the price of the A7rii (although is a much bigger speed increase A7Rii to A9 than A99ii to A9).

I am also a little worried by the lake of interest in what mentioning what really matters, image quality, ISO handling, low light performance, dynamic range...)

If Sony knows what a great feature an electronic shutter is then why would they not include it on the A-Mount flagship the A99ii?

I like the A9 but the price is too high, the A99ii offers similar-ish speeds, almost twice the resolution, dual card slot, good battery life (for Sony) and has better priced lenses (ie Tamron, Sigma).

Its hard to justify paying 50% more for this camera over the A99ii or if you are locked into the E-Mount already then paying twice the price of the A7rii (although is a much bigger speed increase A7Rii to A9 than A99ii to A9).

I am also a little worried by the lake of interest in what mentioning what really matters, image quality, ISO handling, low light performance, dynamic range...)

It's still a phone sized sensor so the image quality will only be that of a phone (or lower as a phone uses a prime lens). Yes, you do get 30x zoom which has benefits but it's at the cost of low light and wide angled bokeh. A decent phone today offers F1.7, this camera at it's widest is F3.3 and going all the way to F6.4 at the telephoto end. Anyone who cares about IQ would only be able to use this under the brightest of conditions as the ISO won't be great from such a small sensor.

I'm not trying to knock this camera, i'm sure Panasonic has made a class-leading product here but i am just not sure we need this class anymore. For a camera to sell it needs to set itself apart from a phone. A 1 inch sensor is a minimum now, even if that is at the cost of zoom range. A customer has to *choose* to buy this camera and then *choose* to carry it with them over their phone which they will always buy and always have with them. You have to give customers a real reason to spend their money.

You joke but the amazing thing is at some point we will get cameras that do that, let's just hope memory storage and all other techs keep up as 2.1 billion pixels per frame is going to take its toll!

And they wonder why the grey import market is booming!

Why the hell is 1080 at 200Mbps yet 4k is only 100Mbps???

Does anybody know if the Sigma 50-500mm would severely hold this camera back as the lens isn't up to 42mp?