File :-(, x, )
Nikon Coolpix P80 Superzoom Anonymous
Nikon has today announced a new model in its 'P' (Performance) series of digital cameras. The Coolpix P80 comes with a 10.1 MP sensor and a whopping 18x zoom (27-486mm equiv) which should hardly ever let you run out of focal length. There are also a 2.7" LCD screen and a CCD-shift image stabilization system.

-----

Where the FUCK is your god now Canon and Panasonic?

Fuck your PowerShot S5 IS.

Fuck your Lumix DMC-FZ18
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
- ISO 6400

- 13fps when cropped to 3MP.

- 27mm to 486mm.

Suck it faggots.
>> Anonymous
Does it shoot raw? The Lumix does, the Canon doesn't. If it doesn't, it's fail, automatically.

Does it have superior optical stabilization, like both the Canon and the Lumix? Nope. It's got sensor shift, for some reason.

Is its lens going to be as good as the Lumix's? Almost certainly not. As good as the less ambitious Canon lens? Probably not.

The ISO 6400 will be noisy. This isn't the D3.

High FPS rates are near useless.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>158248
its got SS because its better sony knows!
/trolling
>> Anonymous
>>158247
Apparently you do not know what crop means.
>> Anonymous
>>158248

ROFL

You're only saying that because it has the "LEICA" tag on it, just like Sony uses CZ.

It doesn't mean shit. Nikon lenses are just superior to whatever Panasonic makes in their chinese plants.
>> Anonymous
>>158250

What do you mean?

If you take pictures at 3 MP, you can do 13 FPS. That's much faster than any other camera.
>> Anonymous
>>158251
Don't know the details of the Zeiss/Sony arrangement, but I know for certain the Leica lenses on the Panasonics are designed by the same Solms staff that designs the M and R Summielmoluxaritacrons. They're made by Panasonic, but that doesn't really matter. There's no magic Leica Elf dust.

(Does anyone know if the Zeiss/Sony thing is just a trademark-for-cash deal or whether the Zeiss designers are actually involved with the lenses?)
>> Nikon !!eX1E3IhZL8k
>>158246
This camera will own so hard.


*prepares for Canon, Leica, Panasonic and Sony shitstorm*
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>158254
>If you take pictures at 3 MP, you can do 13 FPS. That's much faster than any other camera.
http://exilim.casio.com/browse_cameras/exilim_pro/EX-F1/
Except for this one, for instance, which can do 60fps at full 6 megapixels.
>> Anonymous
>>158263

Then you realize you just bout a $1,000 Casio.

The P80 costs $400.
>> Anonymous
>>158261

No..

It's just a licensed thing. Sony and Panasonic are both pretenders.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/coolpix/p80/
More specs:
1/2.33" CCD. And it looks like the ISO3200 and 6400 are only available by pixel binning in the 3 megapixel mode. I'm guessing 400, 800, and 1600 look like complete ass at the full ten megapixels, too, with a sensor that small.

Additionally, for $400, you could get an actual SLR. You'll lose the ZOMFGMASSIVE zoom range, but you'll get an ISO1600 that probably looks as good as this camera's ISO100.

Of course, this is all speculation since nobody in this thread has seen actual pictures from it. But meh. I'm not impressed with the whole superzoom class of cameras, and I'm certainly not impressed with cameras that sacrifice image quality for ZOMFGMASSIVE zoom range.
>> Anonymous
Well that camra won't own for me at least. I use a DSLR, not a point and shoot toy.
>> Anonymous
Apples to oranges.

The P80 can only be compared to the S5 IS and FZ18, both of which are inferior to it.
>> Anonymous
well that's a great camera that's fucking useless to me
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>158286
>The P80 can only be compared to the S5 IS and FZ18, both of which are inferior to it.
Why can it only be compared to the S5IS and FZ18?

But fine, if you want to be that way, I'll be that way.

According to dpreview, the P80 will have a MSRP of 299.99 pounds or 448.00 euros. Which, oddly, is a difference of $100, so let's go with the smaller: It's around $600.

So it's a little faster than the FZ18 and S5IS, and it has two more (mostly useless) megapixels. For FUCKING TWICE AS MUCH MONEY. 95% of the functionality for 50% of the price? P80 loses. Sorry.
>> des
>>158246
>27-486mm D:
>f/2.8-4.5 :|

Anyone make a current small P&S with a fastish ~28-80? The 8080 is the last one I can think of.
>> Anonymous
>>158320

ROFL

You clearly don't know anything. It's $400 USD by the way.

And people will pay more if they want a Nikon instead of a fucking Canon or Panasonic.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>158342
>You clearly don't know anything. It's $400 USD by the way.
Ah, so it is. DPReview didn't have the US price and nikonusa.com's search wasn't telling me.

Man, people in Europe get seriously raped on price.

Still. That's $100 more than the Canon and Panasonic.

And while I'll grant you that people might pay a bit more for a Nikon SLR, in the P&S category, Canon tends to have the technical lead. There's a reason we always recommend PowerShots instead of CoolPixes around here.

And again: Why must we only compare it to the S5IS and FZ18? It's barely cheaper than a low-end SLR, which'll give you worlds better image quality.
>> Anonymous
>>158270


No, I know for 100% certain (barring actually seeing the designers working on it) the Leica lenses on Panasonics are actually designed by Leica and manufactured by Panasonic, in Tokyo IIRC.

>>158286

How is this superior? Useless FPS and more megapixulz?

>>158321

Here's a case for the Panasonic and Canon both being superior: their lenses are faster. f/2.8-3.1 and f/2.8-3.5, respectively. With small sensor cameras, every bit of aperture possible is important.

Also, the Panasonic also goes to 6400 (not that it matters at this sensor size), the Canon has a shoe, and the Panasonic terminates its tele range at 504. And they both have optical stabilization, which is better than sensor shift, and this matters when you have to keep your ISO down (you do with these) and at long teles (which these have). Also, the Panasonic does raw, and we don't know yet if the Nikon does.

There is absolutely nothing remarkable about this Nikon at all. It's probably a decent superzoom bridge camera. Not a bad one, not a great one. Nothing to get excited over.

>>158342
>And people will pay more if they want a Nikon instead of a fucking Canon or Panasonic.

Then they're fucking brandwhores. It's not like someone will have F-mount lenses they can use with it.

>>158321
Not current, but Panasonic (and Leica, with a different body and badge) had a 28-90mm equiv. camera like this with a 2/3" sensor. Half the size of four thirds, but still larger than any of these. Had controls like an old SLR: shutter speed dial, aperture control, zoom and focus rings. Called the DMC-LC1 in the Panasonic version.
>> Anonymous
>>158349
>And again: Why must we only compare it to the S5IS and FZ18? It's barely cheaper than a low-end SLR, which'll give you worlds better image quality.

While I agree the guy you're debating with is being an idiot, they're different sorts of cameras. You wouldn't compare a 35mm rangefinder to a 6x7 SLR, for instance. Different tools for different tasks.
>> Anonymous
=>It doesn't have a hotshoe<=
>> Anonymous
the S5 raw patch for CHDK is coming soon, it was just ported. The S3 already has it.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>158352
>You wouldn't compare a 35mm rangefinder to a 6x7 SLR, for instance. Different tools for different tasks.
See, there's a much bigger difference there. I.e., SLRs and superzooms are used in pretty much the same way and pretty much the same situations.

Really there only two usage situations where the Superzoom class can go that the SLR class can't--they're quieter and they can take video. The market they're targeted at is pretty much 100% the "Want an SLR but can't quite afford it" market.

Compare this to, say, your Leica vs. Pentax 67 example. The Pentax can barely be used without a tripod due to its size. Its SLR framing/focusing system is completely different from a rangefinder system. There are lenses with angles-of-view and apertures for the 35mm rangefinder that just flat out aren't available for medium format SLRs. These are two extremely different cameras.

Compare with superzooms, which are basically used like tiny SLRs with only one lens and shitty quality.
>> Anonymous
>>158361
>>Compare with superzooms, which are basically used like tiny SLRs with only one lens and shitty quality.

compared to SLR's, shit quality. Maybe someone wants pseudo SLR power without OMFGHUEG. I know it doesn't even come close right now, but these superzooms will be the things people get that migrate them to SLR's.

Then they will see how much cheaper film SLR is and switch to that.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>158367
>Maybe someone wants pseudo SLR power without OMFGHUEG.
They are not significantly less OMFGHUEG than a low-end SLR. Especially when you throw Four Thirds SLRs into the mix.

>but these superzooms will be the things people get that migrate them to SLR's.
I don't see how this is in any way relevant to the argument at hand. If you've forgotten it:
Superzooms like the Nikon P80 should not be compared only with other superzooms, but instead should also have to compete with SLRs, since they are used the same way and are very close in price.
>> Anonymous
>>158361The market they're targeted at is pretty much 100% the "Want an SLR but can't quite afford it" market.

Or don't want to hassle of buying a whole kit of lenses.
>> Anonymous
"Where the FUCK is your god now Canon and Panasonic?"

LULzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz worthy
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>158373
>Or don't want to hassle of buying a whole kit of lenses.
True. But still doesn't really hurt my argument.
>> Anonymous
It still puts them apart from the DSLR buyer market.

People on /p/ see it as almost the same price as a DSLR but your typical buyer doesn't. And that's how they sell these things.

That and 18x zoom.
>> Anonymous
>>158361
They probably are used the same way by most people, probably designed for that, but I don't think that's quite their niche.

Their niche is photographing people in everyday life, documentary and candid portrait work. I use one all the time for this. They're perfectly suited for this for three reasons:

1. Silent leaf shutters. Besides the usual candid thing, people who do know you're photographing them won't know when it's exactly happening. Even with the loudest SLR people eventually let their guard down, but they'll still be reminded every time you take a shot that you just did it.

2. Size. A camera that'll fit in the palm of one's hand will blend in better than a large one, and especially at longer focal lengths- a 4xxmm equivalent lens that'll close focus to 1" at that length and is smaller than a 50/1.4 is pretty sweet for getting tight without intimidating the subject. OTOH, a tele zoom on a DSLR is not going to be easy to ignore a meter from someone's face. Not that it's something one wants to do often, but there's been times where I've used that length in such a way.
>> Anonymous
3. Most people don't like them, but I love EVFs. I think their bad reputation comes from people trying to use them the same way as an SLR finder- which makes sense, after all they're made to seem that way by the design of the camera and how they're TTL finders. But the way I've found to use them is to keep one eye open and on the scene with the lens set at a focal length one can mentally compose loosely (the stepped zoom on these cameras helps with that), and the other on the finder for precise framing. Like you described in a thread recently doing with the center AF point when shooting infrared, the viewfinder image sort of floats in the field of vision. Set the precise edges with that, watch for the decisive moment and the general scene with the other eye. Becomes totally natural and instant with practice, and it suits, at least for me, shooting these subjects. Completely different working methods than shooting with an SLR. Both nice in their own way.
For most photographers, a DSLR is the thing to go for. But these things have their niche, too, even if it's usually unrecognized by consumers and camera companies. Just like how rangefinders and TLRs were designed for general use, but eventually wound up niche tools because of their disadvantages. And except for the thing about long, small, close-focusing lenses, compacts serve this too, like Alex Majoli and Heavyweather are doing, but personally, I prefer the handling of these. The large grips and thicker lens to hold onto, I guess. And I'm probably not alone in that. But that's all up to preference.

So they're very limited- noisy at high ISOs in the image quality sense, not good despite their fields of view for shooting sports or wildlife or any of the other stuff people usually use long telephotos for- but within their limited province they work great.

I forgot about how 6x7 SLRs will usually go with a tripod- so let's say 35mm Rangefinders versus 645 SLRs.
>> Anonymous
>>158246


you fail at life and not only there, also on the webs
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
I hope this is better than that Olympus SZ550 or whatever...

This could help Nikon claw back some of the P&S market share, lord knows they need it.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>158389
>>158390
>Their niche is photographing people in everyday life, documentary and candid portrait work. [...] They're perfectly suited for this for three reasons:
Really, their niche is precisely you: Photographer who wants the handling of an SLR but doesn't want the mirror slap.

However, that SLR-sized feel comes at the price of a significant loss in the discreetness of the camera. I'd say that a superzoom--especially when using the EVF--is not significantly less noticeable than an SLR.

If you're close to the person you're shooting, they're gonna notice you bringing the big honking camera up to your eye even if there's not a big reflex mirror slap to hear. If you're far enough from the person that they wouldn't notice the camera, they're probably too far to really notice the mirror slap, either. And my experience is that people *aren't* reminded every time you take a shot--they literally just completely stop hearing it after a little while. It becomes part of the background noise. I'm like a ghost ninja when I'm shooting a company event with my SLR. You'll *feel* more obvious, maybe, but you won't *be* more obvious.

So the only real advantage that a superzoom has over a compact P&S for this particular niche is the zoom length. But you'll find that all the greats of documentary, street, and candid photography tended to favor lengths in the 35mm-60mm range. Shooting people with a supertele tends to make your pictures look flat and uninteresting. Good for boring model shots in a clothing magazine, but not good for giving your viewer the feel like they're right there in the action.

So, the candid/documentary niche is filled better by compacts than by superzooms.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>158390
>I forgot about how 6x7 SLRs will usually go with a tripod- so let's say 35mm Rangefinders versus 645 SLRs.
Let's go ahead and say 35mm rangefinders vs 35mm SLRs. I'll still grant you that those two classes of camera are good for completely different things. But I think the difference in usage patterns of superzooms are much closer to the usage patterns of an SLR than a rangefinder is to an SLR, even in the same image format.

For the record, the keeping-one-eye-open trick you use with your superzoom and EVF works just as well with a real viewfinder. When I was shooting volleyball games, I did that all the time with my 50mm lens on so I could see when the ball was about to zip into my frame. So that's not a differentiation between EVFs and glass viewfinders.
>> Anonymous
>>158429

Hmm, have you used any of these cameras? FZ18 or S5?

They are smaller than a 400D with 50mm.
>> Anonymous
>>158429
>SLR-sized

But they're not. Any of the ones I've seen will literally fit in the palm of one's hand. An SLR won't.

>they're gonna notice you bringing the big honking camera up to your eye

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. I've literally been walking right next to friends, not on a loud street or anything either, but inside, and taken their picture and they didn't know until I showed them. Wouldn't have happened with an SLR.

And again, they're not "big, honking" cameras at all. They're the same size as a moderately sized compact, except with a longer lens and a grip sticking out the front.

>But you'll find that all the greats of documentary, street, and candid photography tended to favor lengths in the 35mm-60mm range
Yep. I use it probably about 75% at a normal focal length. Probably about 20% of the rest is medium tele. But the longer lengths do see some use, as does the 36mm equivalent wide end, but that doesn't really factor into the debate.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
No, it's the same size as a SLR, LAWL
>> Anonymous
>>158437
>For the record, the keeping-one-eye-open trick you use with your superzoom and EVF works just as well with a real viewfinder.

Yeah, it does, and I use it just like you describe when I'm shooting with an SLR, too. But with an EVF used in the way I'm describing, you're not just using it to keep an eye on stuff in the scene. It's used just as much for composition as the finder image is, which is why the stepped zoom comes in handy: you learn to get it to a specific step, and learn to visualize there. The finder is for cleaning up the edges of that composition.

And with the two experiences, it comes down to personal preference. I'm not arguing against SLRs or for these cameras for most photographers. I'm just arguing they have their place.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>158438
>>158455
Dammit. You bastards made me go all the way out to my car so I could grab my A95.

As it so happens, I do have some experience with the S5IS. My girlfriend owns one.

Here's the front view. The S5 is a little shorter and a little narrower, but it's still a large camera. If compared to, say, an entry level Four Thirds SLR, I'm guessing it would be even closer.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot A95Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaLens Size7.81 - 23.41 mmFirmware VersionFirmware Version 1.00Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2008:04:11 22:55:30Exposure Time0.6 secF-Numberf/2.8Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length7.81 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2592Image Height1944RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeISO Speed Rating200SharpnessNormalSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeSingleDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingSuperfineMacro ModeNormalSubject Distance0.370 mWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed192Image Number100-0003
>> Anonymous
>>158474

Now put a 400mm equivalent on your XT. Or whichever long end the S5 is.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>158474
And here they are top view. Note that they are very nearly exactly the same length when turned on. That's not zoomed in or anything with the S5 either, that's just how far it extends naturally when you turn it on.

Sorry for the blur and grain. Too lazy to set up a tripod for this.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot A95Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaLens Size7.81 - 23.41 mmFirmware VersionFirmware Version 1.00Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2008:04:11 22:55:47Exposure Time1 secF-Numberf/2.8Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length7.81 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2592Image Height1944RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeISO Speed Rating200SharpnessNormalSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeSingleDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingSuperfineMacro ModeNormalSubject Distance0.370 mWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed192Image Number100-0004
>> Anonymous
>>158474Dammit. You bastards made me go all the way out to my car so I could grab my A95.

mirror? bathroom? ALUMINUM FOIL?
>> Anonymous
>>158474

does the front of the 50mm rotate?

i heard it doesn't
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>158483

The 50mm 1.8 does.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>158472
>I'm just arguing they have their place.
Ahh.

And I'm just arguing that their place is not so far away from the place of SLRs that they are completely Apples to Oranges incomparable.

I.e., I'll certainly grant that it's not a small Fuji apple to large Fuji apple comparison, but it's closer to Braeburn vs. Fuji than it is to Clementine vs. Fuji.

(Fuji might not have been the best apple choice for this analogy, but I really, really like Fuji apples. Fuji cameras, I could take or leave)

>>158479
>mirror? bathroom? ALUMINUM FOIL?
... vs top view of the cameras.

The quick stroll out to my car was moderately inconvenient, but not nearly as inconvenient as the complex series of mirrors and supports it would have taken to get a top-view comparison of the two cameras taken with one of them.

>>158477
>Now put a 400mm equivalent on your XT. Or whichever long end the S5 is.
No. As was part of my argument, if you're taking candid shots with a lens longer than a Nifty Fifty on an SLR, you're Doing It Wrong anyway.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>158483
>>158485
No, the front of the EF 50/1.8 does not rotate. It extends, but doesn't rotate.
>> Anonymous
>>158485

or you're doing it so that girl with the huge boobs doesn't see you doing it

but regardless

it's still a all-in-one package that would quadruple in size if the rebel had it
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>158487

You're right. I had remembered that one wrong.
>> Anonymous
how do you manual focus these cameras
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>158494
Can't speak for the others, but with the S5: Poorly at best. You look at the little screen on the back while pressing the arrow buttons to focus. I'm guessing the Nikon this thread is about is the same way.

My old Minolta DiMAGE A200 superzoom had an electrically-linked focus ring on the lens so you could focus it that way. Not as good as mechanically focusing, but better than doing it with the little buttons. It also had real mechanical zoom, which was nice.
>> Anonymous
so you're still doing it by step instead of micro adjustments
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>158540
Pretty much, yeah.

In my experience, manually focusing a P&S or superzoom is almost never worth it.
>> Anonymous
>>158559

if you can do it fast enough, ie twisting the lens instead of buttons, you could prefocus it for shit like volleyball or whatever
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>158563
The only time I've really ever felt the need for manual focus on my SLR is when it's too dark to comfortably autofocus. And in those conditions, anything less than an SLR will just not be able to take a shot at all.

(That's just me, though.)
>> Anonymous
>>158537
The Oly 570uz has a ring on the front for zoom/focus but you can't do both at the same time with that control.
>> Anonymous
talking about point and shoot

manual focus it for extrem fast shutter click instead of focus lag for things like sports

didn't say anything about night
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>158590
Ahh, okay, I gotcha.
>> Anonymous
>>158491

Does that mean it's massive win for CPL
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>158596
More it means it's neutral for CPL. Non-rotating threads are generally assumed, with rotating being fail.

(That being said, I've got one lens with rotating filter threads and I've not found it to be particularly onerous to adjust the polarizer after focusing or hold onto the filter while hitting the AF button)
>> Anonymous
>>158596
Kinda yeah.
>> Anonymous
>>158607
I tried using it on the kit lens. It's workable but god, I keep feeling I'm going to damage the motor if I rotate it too fast after focusing
>> Anonymous
>>158613I tried using it on the kit lens. It's workable but god, I keep feeling I'm going to damage the motor if I rotate it too fast after focusing

When I first got my camera, I manual focused the kit lens without moving the switch to MF. Old habit.

Did that for like a week before I realized it's not FTM. It still works.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>158613
Oh, that's right, the 18-55's got rotating threads, too. So I've got two lenses that do that.

(I forget because my other lenses are 52mm and my 58mm polarizer is a piece of shit)