Discussion in 'News - Discussion' started by CSBC, Feb 6, 2013.
Idiots. Have they only just noticed how overpriced their 1 series is?
As a Nikon fan I have always been dismayed that Nikon ever thought such lowly specified items would sell against better specified Panasonic and Olympus competition. I would doubt that even reducing the price will allow them to sell - they have been a marketing disaster. They needed to be micro four thirds or APS-C sensors. Making the second generation look like bridge cameras didn't help either.
Or even Full Frame, LOL!
I presum this only the CSC market?
Because their dSLRs are system camera as well.
I reckon it is about to get very interesting later in 2013.
We know 20MP can be put onto a 1" sensor.
So it stands to reason that we will see a 20MP MFT or even possibly 24MP. After all there is a 24MP APS.
It tricky once that level get hit in the consumer market. The only solution I reckon is price war.
Can't keep chasing pixel count. Not in consumer market. 24MP is more than enough for clean A2 printing with borders.
So we should a V3 and a new Lumix. Possibly a new Olympus OMD as well.
I think then the CSC body updates will slow. It will be about building lens catalogue. IMHO.
Really? It was doing OK a year ago.
Even better - Sony reckon you can get £2500 for something like that if you make sure the lens won't come off.
This harks back to an old argument though, too many pixels on small sensor will reduce image quality not improve it!
My wife says things about that with light bulbs - but it worked yesterday. But it isn't today dear!!
Perhaps everyone gullible enough has already bought one.
Mr Stoddart uses words like "reason" in a way alien to the rest of the human race.
You could put 100 mega pixels on a 1 inch sensor, if all you wanted to photograph was noise!
But you could print that noise at A0 comfortably!
I had always tipped Canon to introduce the 100 Mp sensor in APS-C - it would really give puny 35 Mp full frame a bashing.
I think the viewfinderless one feels quite nice, but it just doesn't seem to have any obvious advantage over the bigger format models - and precious little quality advantage over the much smaller Pentax Q. I don't disagree with you at all, I just happened to see that story yesterday when looking for something else. I always argued for Canon to be successful with CSCs, they would have to be able to fit any EF lens, which with the adaptor, it can and still have AF. Just the AF to fix...
For Nikon, yes, you can fit F mount lenses, but not at the sort of focal length equivalents that are useful with a CSC - forget going wide with an F mount lens. So what you're left with is less a system camera, and more a decent-ish quality compact with a little lens choice. Not a bad camera - try finding one in today's market - but too much for too little.
On a general note with all CSCs, the prices are too high they are comparable with mid range DSLRs, their system lenses similar. So where is the win with CSC apart from size and weight. IMHO 90% of people would rather have a DSLR, better quality, more lens choices and some of the new ones are pretty lightweight. For 6ft 3 bloke like me a CSC is actually a pain to use due to it's size. All CSC prices need to fall if it's going to seriously grab the market.
We were told they were selling well; IIRC at one point topping the CSC sales. Was this erroneous info?
P, seem to recall you were one of those passing on that info; can you remember where you got it from?
The big question is it the odd sensor? The next two: is it that 'cutesy' [J1] and 'cutesy plus slightly quirky' [V1/V2] doesn't cut it any more - the 'Pen Effect' is dead - or the fashionistas are happy with what they've got and have moved on or are busy with phone upgrades and tablets?
Have you had a chance to visit the Landscape PotY at the National Theatre?
Certainly the price of many is offputting - the proponents say that DSLRs have expensive flapping mirrors and so on, but the equivalent CSC generally costs more than a DSLR...
However, have you looked at s/h prices? CSCs are generally cheap as chips - a previous-generation model doesn't seem to hold it's value like a DSLR, which is great if you want to give one a try. I've tried out several, and they can be great for lots of things, although (a) I haven't yet found one with a viewfinder that doesn't make me feel sick, and (b) the viewfinderless ones just aren't as versatile as a DSLR - but as a back-up, or for travelling, they've a lot going for them.
Well that would be fine but as I pointed out there is already a 20MP 1" sensor.
Of course the noise ceiling is lower with a smaller sensor.
But AP own tests give 28 for both the Lumix G5 and the RX100.
Sensor design has greatly improve over the last two years.
Look at the new D5200, out performing the low res 16MP D5100.
If you check AP own tests again the resolution went up on the D3200 (30) at 100 ISO against the D7000 (28). Those extra 8MP sure helped. That's why you have the new D5200. The D5100 was being out performed at the basic level by the D3200.
Just think for their benefits, I do own one (just saying so you know I'm not just spouting like some do). They need to be cheaper new, than their DSLR counterparts otherwise once everyone who wants to have a go has done so, they will just die.
Don't forget the smaller sensor need a higher ISO to perform the same as a larger sensor due to light availability at the sensor sites. I don't like dxomark comparisons they don't take all factors into account before making big statements in their results.
Separate names with a comma.