That's true. I don't understand either. It's kind of pointless, but I guess they want to you buy their updated version S500, which, if I'm not mistaken, doesn't have a limit.
Recently, the manual was leaked accidentally. You can probably find it in your preferred P2P networks ...
See here: "The sites quickly removed any information, but some specs were caught that make it appear as if this will be a less expensive digital SLR than the Nikon D70.
The camera will have a silver case, will accept SD memory instead of CF, 3D Matrix metering (adapted from the D2X, 1/500 flash sync, 1/4000 max shutter, 2" LCD, ISO 200-1600. It seems it's basically the D70 with a lighter body.
It's also suspected that the camera may ship with a new lens - AF-S DX 18?55 mm f/3.5-5.6G "
Around $400 street at the moment. 5 Meg, and why not for the price? You never know when you might want to go big with an old shot, and don't forget that bigger pixel count means you can crop a shot more severely and still have acceptable resolution.
A lens that goes a little wider than some, and takes accessory add on diopters. Integrated lens cover. Long battery life. Excellent optics. Nice big bright LCD. By my lights, a near perfect size: small, but not so small as to be difficult to work with. Really really solid feel, like a little milled block of aluminum.
Really, your choices ought to be limited to Canon or Nikon, and I think the Canons at this price point just feel nicer in the hand.
I've used the Canon A75 -- and this is one of the better P&S style bodies out there. Handles well. Good manual control. We now have a Sony DSC-P93 in the office. Bulkier, decent quality, not as much manual control.
I also get to use a Nikon D70. It's just so much nicer to use. If the D50 turns out to be a small and cheap version, get that. Otherwise a "two lens" E-300 oly kit is nice too!
The new Canon 350XT looks promising as well...
Some (all) of these may be more money than you want to spend however...
I have an old Nikon coolpix 2000 that's been a real champ. The only reason I'm considering replacing it is the pause between when you click the button and the picture takes. Lots of pictures of cute babies right after they've done something adorable and looked the other way.
I have an old Nikon coolpix 2000 that's been a real champ. The only reason I'm considering replacing it is the pause between when you click the button and the picture takes. Lots of pictures of cute babies right after they've done something adorable and looked the other way.
Yeah, but those come pre-loaded on the Nikons, so they don't count.
Recommendation threads generally turn into "what I want" threads rather quickly.
Thanks to trumpt & addabox for e-mailing those sample pictures. It's nice to see not all digital cameras are terrible like my Kodak.
I'm going to hold out and see what the Coolpix S1 has to offer, but I'm definitely going to do Nikon or Canon (depending on how they feel when I got to check them out in person).
If anything I am a Canon fanboy simply because I have plenty of experience with their cheap P&S cams and it's all been mostly positive. My last cam was a Sony (5000+ pics and counting) and the difference between the Sony picture quality compared to Canon is very noticeable and I absolutely despise Memory Sticks. I will not look at another Sony cam anytime soon.
I know Nikon makes a quality product as well but I have no experience with them.
I've got an S500 at home, and also love it. I've had it for almost a year. It takes really, really good daytime shots. night shots aren't so good, but then again, most cameras aren't any better.
I've used olympus cameras as well. They seem to have more or less the same picture quality, but the canon interface is many times better. The S500 also goes for a long time on a single battery charge.
My friend has an S50, and the photos are about the same quality. The S50 is the same camera as the S500, only larger. I guess the benefit is that it's somewhat rugged, proven by the fact that he dropped it on a brick floor while vacationing in Prague. Still works fine, and the photos from the trip were totally intact.
Grover, I know what you asked for, but is it really what you need?
The way I've looked at it is that unless a P&S model is so small as to fit in a shirt or pant pocket comfortably, then it's too big as a compact camera. You may as well get something that's easier to hold and offers more control. If Nikon suceeds in introducing a $599 D50 kit, then why not consider a DSLR? Such a camera is bound to be small (like any of the istDS, E300, E-1, 350XT) with a compact (slowish) 3X zoom on it. Built around an APS sized sensor, it'll be plenty small for a purse or such, and offer much sharper results in a number of shooting conditions (assuming some rudimentary camera control)
Grover, I know what you asked for, but is it really what you need?
The way I've looked at it is that unless a P&S model is so small as to fit in a shirt or pant pocket comfortably, then it's too big as a compact camera. You may as well get something that's easier to hold and offers more control. If Nikon suceeds in introducing a $599 D50 kit, then why not consider a DSLR? Such a camera is bound to be small (like any of the istDS, E300, E-1, 350XT) with a compact (slowish) 3X zoom on it. Built around an APS sized sensor, it'll be plenty small for a purse or such, and offer much sharper results in a number of shooting conditions (assuming some rudimentary camera control)
I don't know if it's a given that you'll get better results with such a camera just because its a DSLR.
The "point and shoot" appellation is a bit of a misnomer, suggesting entry level limitation. Even a DSLR will have a full auto mode, and a camera like the Canon S60 has plenty of manual control.
The DSLR allows you to use better lenses, but only if you pay for them. Fixed lens cameras from Nikon and Canon have excellent optics out of the box.
DSLR adds cost, weight and complexity without giving the average person much in the way of return. Unless you're really an enthusiast, being able to affix a high quality wide angle lens or do sophisticated spot metering isn't really much of an upside.
And at the price point Nikon is rumored to be trying to hit, I doubt they'll be offering much functionality beyond their fixed lens cameras; it sounds like a bit of a marketing ploy to put "DSLRs" in the hands of people who want to feel cooler about their camera.
Anyway, I have no doubt that it will a very nice thing, I just question, given what Grove has described as his wishes, if he gets anything he needs for an extra $200-$300 dollars.
It's a fair question, definitely, since I know almost nothing about the stuff (well that's an exaggeration) I should not act as if I know what is best.
But I can say this, I am married and the wife does not want a camera she would have to fidget with or one that she would consider cumbersome.
And I am not at all disinclined to argue with her on this because, quite honestly, I feel the same way. As I said above, I love my Nikon SLR (as it collects dust at the bottom of my closet) but I'm just not interested in fiddling around with manual controls anymore, and I know that the little woman isn't either.
Also, I absolutely refuse to own another camera with a lens cap you have to put on and take off. It sounds trifling but it is quite possibly the most infuriating thing in the history of mankind.
Quote:
The way I've looked at it is that unless a P&S model is so small as to fit in a shirt or pant pocket comfortably, then it's too big as a compact camera.
I agree with you completely.
And some smaller P&S digitals are offering some manual controls. Check out the Canon S70.
For point and shot i love my Canon SD 110. It was $150 on amazon (i think its a little more now) for 3.2 MP and rechargeable battery (AA cameras are big, heavy, and love to eat batteries). Its a good size and not very heavy - about the same as my ipod. The SD110 was a great buy and im very happy with it.
addabox, there isn't any comparison between a DSLR with even mediocre optics and a compact cam, except maybe under ISO 100 in low dynamic range situations.
It's absolutely not true that expensive high quality optics, and a large selection of them are needed to extract the most out of a DSLR. A single moderately fast mid-zoom (28-90) or so covers as much range as any point and shoot.
The benefit is that you can control shutter speed, "film" speed, and aperture to much great effect than what is possible with a compact camera. While you need to be more conscious of your shooting, the camera offers more latitude, detail, and precision.
A D50, with 6MP, a small body, and an 18-55 (27-80 equivalent) will offer better resolution than any compact (currently up to 8MP) print larger, have greater dynamic range, focus faster, let you pre-focus or focus manually if required, and offer the possibility of shooting credible ISO 800-1600 -- which means no flash. And, just like a number of P&S or compact cams, it won't fit in you pocket, but it will fit in a purse, fanny pack, or nap sack.
addabox, there isn't any comparison between a DSLR with even mediocre optics and a compact cam, except maybe under ISO 100 in low dynamic range situations.
It's absolutely not true that expensive high quality optics, and a large selection of them are needed to extract the most out of a DSLR. A single moderately fast mid-zoom (28-90) or so covers as much range as any point and shoot.
The benefit is that you can control shutter speed, "film" speed, and aperture to much great effect than what is possible with a compact camera. While you need to be more conscious of your shooting, the camera offers more latitude, detail, and precision.
A D50, with 6MP, a small body, and an 18-55 (27-80 equivalent) will offer better resolution than any compact (currently up to 8MP) print larger, have greater dynamic range, focus faster, let you pre-focus or focus manually if required, and offer the possibility of shooting credible ISO 800-1600 -- which means no flash. And, just like a number of P&S or compact cams, it won't fit in you pocket, but it will fit in a purse, fanny pack, or nap sack.
Well, all of that is certainly true of the DSLRs that have been on offer till now.
However, there is nothing magic about the "DSLR" format that guarantees superior quality. Just because the D60 would handily outperform a compact camera doesn't mean any DSLR would. Much less a camera that isn't even on the market yet (I don't see how you can make claims for the D50).
I would say the performance of the current crop is largely due to market differentiation; if you're going to spend $1000+ on a digital body and more on lenses, it's probably true that you can make good use of more sophisticated manual controls, that you plan to use good quality glass, and that you expect and would not not settle for less than top notch performance.
But as Nikon migrates the format down the price ladder, there is no reason to expect markedly better results from a $600-$700 DSLR that comes with a compact zoom than from a camera such as the Canon S70. Why would you?
The CCD is the same. The lens may or may not be marginally better. The metering may or may not be somewhat more sophisticated, ditto the degree of manual control. There may be more provisions for studio attachments. And certainly you can manually focus faster.
Beyond that, again, there is nothing magic about the SLR form factor that makes pictures better. I will agree that if you put a really great lens on there you're doing something the smaller camera cannot match. But then you're way out of Grove's price bracket again.
Well, all of that is certainly true of the DSLRs that have been on offer till now.
However, there is nothing magic about the "DSLR" format that guarantees superior quality. Just because the D60 would handily outperform a compact camera doesn't mean any DSLR would. Much less a camera that isn't even on the market yet (I don't see how you can make claims for the D50).
I would say the performance of the current crop is largely due to market differentiation; if you're going to spend $1000+ on a digital body and more on lenses, it's probably true that you can make good use of more sophisticated manual controls, that you plan to use good quality glass, and that you expect and would not not settle for less than top notch performance.
But as Nikon migrates the format down the price ladder, there is no reason to expect markedly better results from a $600-$700 DSLR that comes with a compact zoom than from a camera such as the Canon S70. Why would you?
The CCD is the same. The lens may or may not be marginally better. The metering may or may not be somewhat more sophisticated, ditto the degree of manual control. There may be more provisions for studio attachments. And certainly you can manually focus faster.
Beyond that, again, there is nothing magic about the SLR form factor that makes pictures better. I will agree that if you put a really great lens on there you're doing something the smaller camera cannot match. But then you're way out of Grove's price bracket again.
There is something magic about the DSLR segment -- sensor size. There is not a DSLR in production today without a sensor that is at least 4X larger than the largest digicam sensor.
4/3rds = 18x13.5mm = 243mm^2
DX (Nikon 1.5X crop) = 23.7x15.6mm = 370mm^2
AFS (Canon 1.6X crop) = 22.3x15.1 = 337mm^2
35mm = 36x24mm = 864mm^2
the biggest digicam sensor is 2/3rds, or 8.8x6.6mm, a paltry 58mm^2, but the S70 is smaller still at 1/1.8" or 7.176x5.319mm or just 38.2mm^2 that's 6X smaller than the smallest DSLR format.
What this means is that your contention of needing the best glass is emphatically not true. The lp/mm required to extract 6-10MP out of a 4/3rds to APS sized sensor are nearly an order of magnitude less than what's needed to get 6-8MP from a digicam sensor. CHEAP, SLOW, OLD glass on any DSLR will outperform just about any digicam in existence.
That's the practical magic of today's DSLRs. However, if someone were to put at least a 4/3rds sensor into a compact, then that negate the advantages I've spoken of. 4/3rds, BTW, is just a hair larger than old 110 film, a format designed for compact cameras. In one sense, you may be right in that an "SLR" focusing system is not needed to extract those benefits. But aside from a $3000 Espon RD-1 rangefinder, SLRs are the only place to get larger sensors right now.
Given that published manuals for the D50 show it to be a less expensive D70, and that Nikon's kit lenses are very good, I can confidently state that a $599 D50 kit will outperform any compact Digicam.
Now if someone would like to put a 4/3rds or APS size sensor into an S70 type body... well, then I'm listening...
First impressions of preproduction D50s are starting to show up on camera review sites. The D50 sounds very similar to the D70 with the exception of a 18-55 kit lens and the use of SD instead of CF memory cards. The big problem with the D50, though, is price: $899 list for the kit, a far cry from the $599 that's been rumored. That's about the same price as the 8 megapixel Canon Rebel XT. It'll be interesting to see what the actual street price of a D50 will be.
Comments
Originally posted by OldCodger73
Is there any information available on the D50?
Recently, the manual was leaked accidentally. You can probably find it in your preferred P2P networks ...
See here: "The sites quickly removed any information, but some specs were caught that make it appear as if this will be a less expensive digital SLR than the Nikon D70.
The camera will have a silver case, will accept SD memory instead of CF, 3D Matrix metering (adapted from the D2X, 1/500 flash sync, 1/4000 max shutter, 2" LCD, ISO 200-1600. It seems it's basically the D70 with a lighter body.
It's also suspected that the camera may ship with a new lens - AF-S DX 18?55 mm f/3.5-5.6G "
Around $400 street at the moment. 5 Meg, and why not for the price? You never know when you might want to go big with an old shot, and don't forget that bigger pixel count means you can crop a shot more severely and still have acceptable resolution.
A lens that goes a little wider than some, and takes accessory add on diopters. Integrated lens cover. Long battery life. Excellent optics. Nice big bright LCD. By my lights, a near perfect size: small, but not so small as to be difficult to work with. Really really solid feel, like a little milled block of aluminum.
Really, your choices ought to be limited to Canon or Nikon, and I think the Canons at this price point just feel nicer in the hand.
Makes really great pictures. Get it.
I've used the Canon A75 -- and this is one of the better P&S style bodies out there. Handles well. Good manual control. We now have a Sony DSC-P93 in the office. Bulkier, decent quality, not as much manual control.
I also get to use a Nikon D70. It's just so much nicer to use. If the D50 turns out to be a small and cheap version, get that. Otherwise a "two lens" E-300 oly kit is nice too!
The new Canon 350XT looks promising as well...
Some (all) of these may be more money than you want to spend however...
Originally posted by midwinter
I have an old Nikon coolpix 2000 that's been a real champ. The only reason I'm considering replacing it is the pause between when you click the button and the picture takes. Lots of pictures of cute babies right after they've done something adorable and looked the other way.
Yeah, but those come pre-loaded on the Nikons, so they don't count.
Originally posted by Matsu
Skip P&S and go straight to DSLR.
A DSLR is not exactly compact as the original poster requested...
Thanks to trumpt & addabox for e-mailing those sample pictures. It's nice to see not all digital cameras are terrible like my Kodak.
I'm going to hold out and see what the Coolpix S1 has to offer, but I'm definitely going to do Nikon or Canon (depending on how they feel when I got to check them out in person).
I know Nikon makes a quality product as well but I have no experience with them.
Only you and your eyes can make the decision...
Originally posted by groverat
I've got an S500 at work. I really love it.
I've got an S500 at home, and also love it. I've had it for almost a year. It takes really, really good daytime shots. night shots aren't so good, but then again, most cameras aren't any better.
I've used olympus cameras as well. They seem to have more or less the same picture quality, but the canon interface is many times better. The S500 also goes for a long time on a single battery charge.
My friend has an S50, and the photos are about the same quality. The S50 is the same camera as the S500, only larger. I guess the benefit is that it's somewhat rugged, proven by the fact that he dropped it on a brick floor while vacationing in Prague. Still works fine, and the photos from the trip were totally intact.
The way I've looked at it is that unless a P&S model is so small as to fit in a shirt or pant pocket comfortably, then it's too big as a compact camera. You may as well get something that's easier to hold and offers more control. If Nikon suceeds in introducing a $599 D50 kit, then why not consider a DSLR? Such a camera is bound to be small (like any of the istDS, E300, E-1, 350XT) with a compact (slowish) 3X zoom on it. Built around an APS sized sensor, it'll be plenty small for a purse or such, and offer much sharper results in a number of shooting conditions (assuming some rudimentary camera control)
Originally posted by Matsu
Grover, I know what you asked for, but is it really what you need?
The way I've looked at it is that unless a P&S model is so small as to fit in a shirt or pant pocket comfortably, then it's too big as a compact camera. You may as well get something that's easier to hold and offers more control. If Nikon suceeds in introducing a $599 D50 kit, then why not consider a DSLR? Such a camera is bound to be small (like any of the istDS, E300, E-1, 350XT) with a compact (slowish) 3X zoom on it. Built around an APS sized sensor, it'll be plenty small for a purse or such, and offer much sharper results in a number of shooting conditions (assuming some rudimentary camera control)
I don't know if it's a given that you'll get better results with such a camera just because its a DSLR.
The "point and shoot" appellation is a bit of a misnomer, suggesting entry level limitation. Even a DSLR will have a full auto mode, and a camera like the Canon S60 has plenty of manual control.
The DSLR allows you to use better lenses, but only if you pay for them. Fixed lens cameras from Nikon and Canon have excellent optics out of the box.
DSLR adds cost, weight and complexity without giving the average person much in the way of return. Unless you're really an enthusiast, being able to affix a high quality wide angle lens or do sophisticated spot metering isn't really much of an upside.
And at the price point Nikon is rumored to be trying to hit, I doubt they'll be offering much functionality beyond their fixed lens cameras; it sounds like a bit of a marketing ploy to put "DSLRs" in the hands of people who want to feel cooler about their camera.
Anyway, I have no doubt that it will a very nice thing, I just question, given what Grove has described as his wishes, if he gets anything he needs for an extra $200-$300 dollars.
It's a fair question, definitely, since I know almost nothing about the stuff (well that's an exaggeration) I should not act as if I know what is best.
But I can say this, I am married and the wife does not want a camera she would have to fidget with or one that she would consider cumbersome.
And I am not at all disinclined to argue with her on this because, quite honestly, I feel the same way. As I said above, I love my Nikon SLR (as it collects dust at the bottom of my closet) but I'm just not interested in fiddling around with manual controls anymore, and I know that the little woman isn't either.
Also, I absolutely refuse to own another camera with a lens cap you have to put on and take off. It sounds trifling but it is quite possibly the most infuriating thing in the history of mankind.
The way I've looked at it is that unless a P&S model is so small as to fit in a shirt or pant pocket comfortably, then it's too big as a compact camera.
I agree with you completely.
And some smaller P&S digitals are offering some manual controls. Check out the Canon S70.
It's absolutely not true that expensive high quality optics, and a large selection of them are needed to extract the most out of a DSLR. A single moderately fast mid-zoom (28-90) or so covers as much range as any point and shoot.
The benefit is that you can control shutter speed, "film" speed, and aperture to much great effect than what is possible with a compact camera. While you need to be more conscious of your shooting, the camera offers more latitude, detail, and precision.
A D50, with 6MP, a small body, and an 18-55 (27-80 equivalent) will offer better resolution than any compact (currently up to 8MP) print larger, have greater dynamic range, focus faster, let you pre-focus or focus manually if required, and offer the possibility of shooting credible ISO 800-1600 -- which means no flash. And, just like a number of P&S or compact cams, it won't fit in you pocket, but it will fit in a purse, fanny pack, or nap sack.
Originally posted by Matsu
addabox, there isn't any comparison between a DSLR with even mediocre optics and a compact cam, except maybe under ISO 100 in low dynamic range situations.
It's absolutely not true that expensive high quality optics, and a large selection of them are needed to extract the most out of a DSLR. A single moderately fast mid-zoom (28-90) or so covers as much range as any point and shoot.
The benefit is that you can control shutter speed, "film" speed, and aperture to much great effect than what is possible with a compact camera. While you need to be more conscious of your shooting, the camera offers more latitude, detail, and precision.
A D50, with 6MP, a small body, and an 18-55 (27-80 equivalent) will offer better resolution than any compact (currently up to 8MP) print larger, have greater dynamic range, focus faster, let you pre-focus or focus manually if required, and offer the possibility of shooting credible ISO 800-1600 -- which means no flash. And, just like a number of P&S or compact cams, it won't fit in you pocket, but it will fit in a purse, fanny pack, or nap sack.
Well, all of that is certainly true of the DSLRs that have been on offer till now.
However, there is nothing magic about the "DSLR" format that guarantees superior quality. Just because the D60 would handily outperform a compact camera doesn't mean any DSLR would. Much less a camera that isn't even on the market yet (I don't see how you can make claims for the D50).
I would say the performance of the current crop is largely due to market differentiation; if you're going to spend $1000+ on a digital body and more on lenses, it's probably true that you can make good use of more sophisticated manual controls, that you plan to use good quality glass, and that you expect and would not not settle for less than top notch performance.
But as Nikon migrates the format down the price ladder, there is no reason to expect markedly better results from a $600-$700 DSLR that comes with a compact zoom than from a camera such as the Canon S70. Why would you?
The CCD is the same. The lens may or may not be marginally better. The metering may or may not be somewhat more sophisticated, ditto the degree of manual control. There may be more provisions for studio attachments. And certainly you can manually focus faster.
Beyond that, again, there is nothing magic about the SLR form factor that makes pictures better. I will agree that if you put a really great lens on there you're doing something the smaller camera cannot match. But then you're way out of Grove's price bracket again.
Originally posted by addabox
Well, all of that is certainly true of the DSLRs that have been on offer till now.
However, there is nothing magic about the "DSLR" format that guarantees superior quality. Just because the D60 would handily outperform a compact camera doesn't mean any DSLR would. Much less a camera that isn't even on the market yet (I don't see how you can make claims for the D50).
I would say the performance of the current crop is largely due to market differentiation; if you're going to spend $1000+ on a digital body and more on lenses, it's probably true that you can make good use of more sophisticated manual controls, that you plan to use good quality glass, and that you expect and would not not settle for less than top notch performance.
But as Nikon migrates the format down the price ladder, there is no reason to expect markedly better results from a $600-$700 DSLR that comes with a compact zoom than from a camera such as the Canon S70. Why would you?
The CCD is the same. The lens may or may not be marginally better. The metering may or may not be somewhat more sophisticated, ditto the degree of manual control. There may be more provisions for studio attachments. And certainly you can manually focus faster.
Beyond that, again, there is nothing magic about the SLR form factor that makes pictures better. I will agree that if you put a really great lens on there you're doing something the smaller camera cannot match. But then you're way out of Grove's price bracket again.
There is something magic about the DSLR segment -- sensor size. There is not a DSLR in production today without a sensor that is at least 4X larger than the largest digicam sensor.
4/3rds = 18x13.5mm = 243mm^2
DX (Nikon 1.5X crop) = 23.7x15.6mm = 370mm^2
AFS (Canon 1.6X crop) = 22.3x15.1 = 337mm^2
35mm = 36x24mm = 864mm^2
the biggest digicam sensor is 2/3rds, or 8.8x6.6mm, a paltry 58mm^2, but the S70 is smaller still at 1/1.8" or 7.176x5.319mm or just 38.2mm^2 that's 6X smaller than the smallest DSLR format.
What this means is that your contention of needing the best glass is emphatically not true. The lp/mm required to extract 6-10MP out of a 4/3rds to APS sized sensor are nearly an order of magnitude less than what's needed to get 6-8MP from a digicam sensor. CHEAP, SLOW, OLD glass on any DSLR will outperform just about any digicam in existence.
That's the practical magic of today's DSLRs. However, if someone were to put at least a 4/3rds sensor into a compact, then that negate the advantages I've spoken of. 4/3rds, BTW, is just a hair larger than old 110 film, a format designed for compact cameras. In one sense, you may be right in that an "SLR" focusing system is not needed to extract those benefits. But aside from a $3000 Espon RD-1 rangefinder, SLRs are the only place to get larger sensors right now.
Given that published manuals for the D50 show it to be a less expensive D70, and that Nikon's kit lenses are very good, I can confidently state that a $599 D50 kit will outperform any compact Digicam.
Now if someone would like to put a 4/3rds or APS size sensor into an S70 type body... well, then I'm listening...