Comments on: The Camera We Want

By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 03:27:09 +0000

I would like to see levels built into cameras.

By: psu

psu — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:31:41 +0000

I have mixed feelings about the GR digital and the GX100 doesn’t really make me feel better. They added a zoom lens that I don’t really want, 2M more noisy pixels (and the GR-d had a lot of noise already) and there is no evidence that the image pipeline is fast enough, esp. in RAW. As I recall the GR had RAW write times of 30 seconds or more. That’s no fun.

That said, if the GR-d were less expensive I’d consider it. I actually am intrigued by the idea of grainy ISO 400 digital images as long as they are sharp and not smeared. But $650 is too much money to get that. You can buy a whole D40 or D-Rebel kit and maybe another lens for that. Sure, it doesn’t fit in your pants, but it will shoot like a real camera instead of being a crippled mess.

By: Gen Kanai

Gen Kanai — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:19:49 +0000

Interesting essay. What about the Ricoh GX100? Fast. Wide. RAW. Slim. It has flaws but I think Ricoh’s trying hard to distance themselves from the pack.

I’m seriously considering selling my D70s (I don’t carry it around enough) and other P&S digitals and trying this Ricoh.

By: Nelson

Nelson — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:13:00 +0000

Nice essay. I’d add one feature: raw output. Today’s sensors capture much more data than a JPG can store, and I’d like to get that data. The only reason the small cameras don’t include it is to force serious photographers to buy more expensive cameras.

By: psu

psu — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:53:47 +0000

The interesting thing about the Epic is that it really isn’t that fast. If you were to shoot with one today you’d note that shot to shot the thing is only somewhat faster than the digicams. On the other hand, it is absolutely predictable. It’s a little less than a second from hitting the button to the next shot, every single time.

I think what irks me most about digicams is that their performance is not predictable. Sometimes the image pipeline turns around quickly, sometimes not. Sometimes the AF works fast, sometimes it doesn’t. The fact that the industry doesn’t seem to care about this is just another indication of how badly they’ve failed.

By: peterb

peterb — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:48:13 +0000

For me, it’s the speed of the image pipeline that is the central issue forcing me to SLR. I lived with a Stylus Epic for _years_, and glady made the tradeoff to give away all of the features that the SLRs had in return for having a tiny fast camera in my pocket.

By: psu

psu — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:43:27 +0000

The sidebar in the Thom page has some comments on the F30

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 12:59:56 +0000

I’m in a similar situation – I’d like a camera that takes better quality photos than my current Canon Ixus 50, but I don’t want to go DSLR. After looking around, there really doesn’t seem to be much choice.

The Fuji F30 looks like a step in the right direction, they seem to have concentrated more on the sensor quality than adding features. Anybody got much experience with one?