Adam Maas wrote:
The one sad thing about teh digital P&S market is there is no
replacement for a Yashica T4 or Oly XA.
I'd love a pocketable P&S with a moderately fast wide-angle (24-28
equivalent) prime. If it had decent ISO 200 and 400 performance I
suspect it would find its way into many serious shooter's hands even
without a whole lot fo resolution (5MP would be fine) and no zoom.
Especially if it was as responsive as the XA or T4.
The closest I've seen is the dual-lens Kodak, but I don't want to pay
for the zoom or second sensor, just want the 23mm equivalent wide.
-Adam
Oops... linked to the film version. Here's the digi:
http://www.letsgodigital.org/html/review/ricoh/gr/digital_camera_EN1.html
-Ryan
Bruce Dayton wrote:
Hello Lon,
I basically agree with what you are saying. The issue to me is not
digital vs film but serious SLR vs Point & Shoot. Go get a
(comparatively) crappy film P&S and compare that to your SLR's - same
thing. Or compare a 67 to your 35mm SLRs.
Basically, I am saying that your digital P&S is just that - a P&S. If
your expectation is set to what the camera can do, then you will not
be disappointed.
So yes, we are basically agreeing - that SLR's are way better than P&S
for getting good images. The medium really doesn't matter here. When
I just had the 67's, MZ-S and a Nikon Coolpix 990 (P&S), I almost
never used the digital because I don't use P&S very often. When I got
a digital SLR, then things started to change, because the tools were
more equivalent.
