Nikon unveils a couple of superzoom digicams
Nikon announced a slew of new cameras today, but their superzooms are perhaps the freakiest and most inexplicable.
The Nikon P90 has an incredible 24x optical zoom. At that rate, you can, of course, detect the microscopic vibration of atoms, so it's loaded with time-defying software vibration reduction. 12.1 Megapixels, which is roughly six more than it would need with a decent sized sensor, and an interesting feature — the Best Shot Selector — which will slurp up 15 shots in rapid succession and spit out only the sharpest, which seems good for action shots. It costs $400.
On the other hand, the Nikon L100 is the downgrade at $280. It's mostly the same except with a 15x optical zoom, a 13 shot BSS and a non-posable 3" screen. Since 15x optical zoom that's more optical zoom than anyone besides cervix peeping restraining order perps will ever need, it seems like the better buy at $280.
A pair of Nikon superzooms arrive in style [Crunchgear]
the latest
latest episodes
I am not much one for purchasing a lot of stuff nor am I all up-to-date on what is considered hot shit in the camera world.
That said, the numbers accompanying the zoom and megapixel tidbits seem nice and high for $400, which would make me think these are both good deals.
Has there been a general decline, or stabilization, of camera prices in the last couple months?
There's no such thing as too much optical zoom.
Crap! I just bought the p80 :(
Still a great camera.
That's ridiculous. Yes, crappy phone cameras with terrible lenses don't benefit from having sensors with more than 2-3 megapixels, but for a proper camera with a large lens 2 MP would be absurd. Sure, you'd get really nice sharp photos that you could print as passport photos, maybe 4x6, but above that you'd start seeing serious pixelation. And that's not even considering the fact that you wouldn't be able to crop it at all.
Yes, megapixels are overhyped in most camera (and 12 MPs does seem excessive, particularly since that zoom reduces the need to crop), but there's no need to go overboard.
What the heck? I do think that gigantic megapixel numbers for non-professional cameras are bogus, but I for one would like a LOT more optical zoom than I currently get.
I use a Nikon Coolpix that my girlfriend gave me for my birthday a couple years ago; I like it, it takes nice snaps - but its 4x optical zoom makes distant objects look about the same as my naked eye. I don't think that it makes me a "cervix peeping restraining order perp" just because I'd like to zoom in on the gargoyles at Notre Dame, or get a better shot of that sailboat standing far out from Zuma...
Why would wanting better zoom automatically make me a creep?
#4 6 more not 6 times. And small sensor cameras do end up sucking on a per pixel level much past 6-7. It isn't like you don't gain "something" but you only really gain it in really large prints, and you lose low light sensitivity.
This is why a 6 MP Digital Rebel (which is positively an antique) will take better pictures than this except possibly on exceptionally clear bright days, and even then I'd be shocked if the 6MP camera didn't take a better shot up to large poster size.
Megapixel is nothing compared to sensor size. Sensor size is everything, well that and F stops (again capturing light is the goal of a camera, and getting enough light gives you options and means less noise).
These are very handsome cameras that does not mean they are very good. Nikon has been sucking on the consumer end in everything but style for quite some time.
I have a 12x optical zoom on my Panasonic and still find myself wishing for more from time to time. Would you mock the telescope sized lens that a nature photographer carries around?
#6: Doh - yes, I miss-read "6 more" as "6 times more"...
I took 3MP images with my venerable Coolpix 995 that I've blown up to 40x60 cm. 12MP is not required, merely good pixels.
I do, however, miss the Best Shot Selector feature on my DSLR. It's like an extra layer of stabilization. Combined with optic stabilization, a large aperture and the high ISO of, say, Nikon D700, you could pretty much take handheld pictures without being able to see the camera.
I loved my Panasonic LZ2 and LZ3s as they offered more than the run-of-the-mill zoom (6x). When the TZ3 came out, I bought it for my round-the-world trip - and while the extra zoom (10x) was great, its exposure and colour handling was a huge step backwards. I ended up giving it to my sister. I wanted the TZ3 zoom capability and the LZ3's fantastic pointy-shootiness!
If these lens have high distortion as the price for their length, then in my view, you can have too much optical zoom.
Numbers don't tell all with cameras. Not just MP as people rightly point out, but also zoom length and even max f-stop. Sensor size really does matter, but what manufacturer ever mentions it?
Tommy, #2: There's no such thing as too much optical zoom.
Dculberson, #7: Would you mock the telescope sized lens that a nature photographer carries around?
As someone who has a 400mm lens often used on top of an 1.4x converter on a 1.3x-crop SLR (that multiplies out to about 730mm-equivalent) and who knows how to use it, I can assure you that there is an upper limit to how much zoom is desirable. And to be honest, I am very surprized to see consumer digicams approach this useful limit. I mean, when you have a 700mm lens, you find yourself taking pictures of things that are literally a mile or two away, and by that point the distortions from the atmosphere become visible. (They basically look like the ripples you sometimes see in the air over a hot road). So you don't capture any more detail by zooming in any closer, the ripples just get bigger... unless you're shooting at a high altitude or in other places with cold, thin, still, dry air. That's my experience, anyways. Here are some pictures I took last week at Nellis AFB (1, 2, 3, 4, 5); As you can see (especially in the last image), if I zoomed in any closer, it would just blow up the ripples, and I wouldn't capture any added detail. (Which is why I try to shoot from INSIDE the base whenever possible, but last week I didn't have time to set up access).
(On a related and illustrative note; I think that there is a limit to how sharp satellite pictures can be, not just because of the optics gear on the satellite but because of the atmosphere, unless they are sensitive to electromagnetic frequencies that can make it through the air without being refracted into fuzzyness by the ripples).
I, for one, wish more cameras (and more SLR lenses) would zoom OUT more. Most only go as wide as 35mm, some go as wide as 28mm, and only a handful make it to 24mm. I have a full-frame rectilinear 12-24mm lens that is TONS of fun to use, and it would be great to get some of that functionality on a compact digicam, or in an SLR lens that zooms out to 100mm or more. Luckily I am not the only one who thinks so. I expect that Samsung's upcoming camera with a 24-240mm-equivalent lens will set the trend, and hopefully it's not too much wishful thinking to hope that manufacturers will start competing on making the WIDEST lenses they can, not just the longest. Especially since a wide lens is great for parties and dinners and the kinds of social gatherings that most normal people like to photograph. As for these Nikons, the P90 apparently zooms out to 26mm equivalent, the L100 to 28mm. Not too shabby, but again, how cool would it be if they sacrificed some telephoto reach and zoomed out to, say, 18mm?
@ #11, #12
P90 is 5mm - 110mm, f/2.8-5.0
L100 is 5mm - 75mm, f/3.5-5.4
i'm guessing the focal length are not 35mm equivalents?
f/2.8 @ 5mm (?!) is significant. for wide and fast and small though i have a Lumix DMC-LX3 and it's nice.
Here here! I take a lot of photos of graffiti in Melbourne and whenever I travel. Sometimes you find these amazing pieces of art down teeny tiny alleyways and its simply impossible to capture the whole work straight on, as a result I always end up having to take a series of photos and trying to stitch them together (usually unsuccessfully), a tripod is too much of a stuff around when you're having to climb into construction sites and roam around for hours on end and even if I could did bring a tripod the ground is usually to uneven to get the shots perfectly level if I still want to use the directly front on approach.
Most of the time I end up with just a good front on detail shot and then an angled shot from either end of the piece.
so if I want to take great pictures of my kids up on stage in low light or way out on the soccer field moving fast what is the best camera for me that isn't HUGE?