The rise of the big zoom point and shoots...

[bitkahuna]

In recent years we've seen 'pro-sumer' point and shoots get bigger zooms, more features, bigger screens, and faster operation. They still can't match the DSLRs in overall picture quality flexibility (number of lenses, low light low noise, outboard flashes, battery life to name some) but they're getting better and better and offer several things the DSLRs haven't or don't, including - big wide zoom range, motion video capture, big screens, ease of use, image stabilization, compact packaging.

The Canon 'G' series was a trend setter. They're up to the G7 now which is very impressive but is an unusual (but compact) shape compared to rivals plus 'only' has 6x optical zoom. But picture quality (for a point and shoot) is supposed to be very good.

Sony's 'H' series cameras are impressive with lots of features, very good picture quality and the H5 has a GORGEOUS 3" LCD screen on the back. It has a 12x zoom.

Panasonic's weighed in with their FZ line, with the new FZ8 about to ship, which competes directly with the Sony H5.

Olympus is about to ship the new CZ550 which has an amazing 18x zoom including a nicer 28mm equivalent wide angle end, something the others don't have. Their recent prior prosumer cameras have not been as well received as the competition from what I can tell.

Pentax, Fuji, and others have models too. Don't know about Nikon to be honest.

The market is hotter than ever for models that aim to get you 'close' to DSLR performance in many shooting situations, but without the expense and inconvenience (size, weight, switching lenses).

Would love to hear your thoughts on these trends.

[xknowonex]

Originally Posted by bitkahuna

In recent years we've seen 'pro-sumer' point and shoots get bigger zooms, more features, bigger screens, and faster operation. They still can't match the DSLRs in overall picture quality flexibility (number of lenses, low light low noise, outboard flashes, battery life to name some) but they're getting better and better and offer several things the DSLRs haven't or don't, including - big wide zoom range, motion video capture, big screens, ease of use, image stabilization, compact packaging.

The Canon 'G' series was a trend setter. They're up to the G7 now which is very impressive but is an unusual (but compact) shape compared to rivals plus 'only' has 6x optical zoom. But picture quality (for a point and shoot) is supposed to be very good.

Sony's 'H' series cameras are impressive with lots of features, very good picture quality and the H5 has a GORGEOUS 3" LCD screen on the back. It has a 12x zoom.

Panasonic's weighed in with their FZ line, with the new FZ8 about to ship, which competes directly with the Sony H5.

Olympus is about to ship the new CZ550 which has an amazing 18x zoom including a nicer 28mm equivalent wide angle end, something the others don't have. Their recent prior prosumer cameras have not been as well received as the competition from what I can tell.

Pentax, Fuji, and others have models too. Don't know about Nikon to be honest.

The market is hotter than ever for models that aim to get you 'close' to DSLR performance in many shooting situations, but without the expense and inconvenience (size, weight, switching lenses).

Would love to hear your thoughts on these trends.

bitkahuna, i am glad u started this thread since were both in the market for them. im starting to be a real big fan of this trend as im using the older FZ-5 and I love it alot. My only gripe with them is noise at low light and at high iso.

[Woogie]

People do things / want things that make their lives more convenient (that's why so many people have cell phones, right?).

The general public measures how awesome a camera is by A. the number of megapixels it has and B. its optical zoom.

People are starting to learn that their little pocket cams with 3x optical and 3x digital isn't cutting it, especially if they're looking for some range.

For those reasons, you release a camera with 7+ megapixels and 10x+ zoom and you're good to go.

[RA40]

My observation these super zooms is they have poor focus capability due to the smallish lenses. Many of the ones I've tried only work reasonably well when it is bright out. A dusk shot at longer focal lengths....

Then you have the zoom steps...some are good while others are limited. It's pointless to have such focal lengths when in many cases, the physical components aren't up to the task. The marketing depts are trying to cram too much to make these feature rich and letting the performance drop. It's nice to have the range but the true usefulness is lacking.

[Lil4X]

I fear the P&S cameras are leading consumers into a “numbers” trap, i.e.: megapixels and zoom range, much as consumer camcorders have. Digital zooms are pretty useless for any kind of quality work, since they generally crop the picture to expand the image. Marketers are probably looking at the average consumer who is either shooting casual family pictures with flash indoors, or outdoors in full sun. Most of these users will never need ultra-fast, or long lenses – not in these applications.

It still comes down to good glass, a chip with sensitivity, resolution, and smooth color rendition, and a solid body that keeps it all together, properly aligned. Then there’s the shooter. Give me a good photographer over a good camera any day. The “prosumer” models bit mentions are very, very impressive, and probably represent the direction of the market. As much as I love an SLR, the smaller cameras have a distinct advantage in size, weight, and convenience.

Big zooms are really incredible tools, but they can make us pretty lazy. I began my TV career as a cameraman back when we had four fixed lenses on the turret and you had to move quickly and smoothly between shots and even on the air. They called it “crank and yank”, flip the turret to the new lens position and grab that pedestal steering ring and haul on it for all you were worth to start the camera moving across the floor. If you could dolly on a 135mm lens and follow focus, you were considered a pretty hot shooter. A few of us could usually accomplish the same feat on an 8” lens, but we were the few, the proud, the nerdy.

Then came the zoom (yes, my first was actually a Zoomar), followed by Rank-Taylor-Hobson and Angenieux “multifocal” lenses. (Zoomar had tried to copyright “Zoom” although it didn’t last long in the courts.) Now three cameras could stand in the center of the studio and shoot an hour live show without moving their pedestals. Incredible. We got fat and lazy, twirling those zoom cranks instead of pushing that 700lb “dance partner” to get our shots.

Fast forward twenty years and I was shooting 35mm and 120 film. Good, fast lenses were all of a fixed focal length. Short zooms were available for Canon, Nikon, and some of the medium-format cameras like Bronica or the oddly scaled up 35, the 120 Pentax that looked like a Canon A-1 with a serious glandular condition. No need for a motor drive here, the mirror was so heavy the camera kicked like a 12 gauge if you had the temerity to poke the shutter release . . . and hanging on for dear life, you would have exposed all eight frames on the roll before you could get your finger off the trigger anyway. Sort of like my first experience with a short magazine in a Thompson sub-machine gun – spraying everything downrange when panic set in after the first two rounds – I think I hit everything but that Marine gunny sergeant – whom ten seconds later I would regret I hadn’t shot.

Today, more out of tradition than experience, or perhaps because of lack of same, I will probably stick with one or a series of short zoom lenses on my DSLR – primarily because it makes me stop and think about the shot rather than blast away. That zoom is handy for making final framing adjustments, or change a bit of perspective - but for larger changes, that walk back to the car to swap lenses usually gives me a chance to think about what I am really trying to achieve. Having jumped into the 21st Century rather abruptly, I need all the head-scratching time I can get.

[RA40]

Agreed with Lil4X...casual consumers buy into these numbers readily. Much of the tech arena tout numbers. It is similar to cars...buyers look at HP, 1/4 and fuel economy primarily. Then they try and balance the other features...

For myself, I've not been a long focal length shooter, a 28 or 35mm fixed lens serves me well. Too bad the cameras are getting longer focal length lenses...I'd like to see some 28mm. The stitching built into the P&S negates that but it is a PITA to sit there , line-up and take a series. One click please.

[Coco-bun]

Originally Posted by Lil4X

I fear the P&S cameras are leading consumers into a “numbers” trap,

we're already there.
sadly a lot of people tend to forget matter like composition and lighting. people aren't into photography anymore. they're into camera and the gadgets.

[bitkahuna]

Originally Posted by Coco-bun

sadly a lot of people tend to forget matter like composition and lighting.

Forget it? They didn't know it to begin with.

people aren't into photography anymore.

On the contrary. Digital cameras have gotten more people INTO photography than film ever could have. You may not like the results but it's no different than camcorders, desktop publishing, karaoke, and other 'creative' endeavors that most people have little talent at. Technology enables many people to show how clueless they really are. LOL

they're into camera and the gadgets.

Yup!

[bitkahuna]

Originally Posted by xknowonex

bitkahuna, i am glad u started this thread since were both in the market for them. im starting to be a real big fan of this trend as im using the older FZ-5 and I love it alot. My only gripe with them is noise at low light and at high iso.

While Canon, Nikon, etc. have not brought out a point and shoot with a big sensor yet, I hope someone does it soon. They're probably worried about cannibalizing their DSLR market (and margins), but I don't think they should worry. Pros and serious photographers will still need the rugged packaging, better balance with large lenses, and the optical superiority of specific lenses for specific situations.

[RA40]

This is a touchy spot with me...not everyone desires to carry an SLR. Thus my hope was that Canon would follow the G6 with a worthy G7. Not the crippled camera they released that lacks RAW, an articulating screen and f2.0 lens.

There is a joy in using a well crafted camera body too. Sadly, most P&S these days are not to my old world liking. I would be tempted by a Leica M8 or D-Lux 3 but the cost is prohibitive given the changing technology.

An APS sized sensor in a medium sized P&S with a f1.8 or f2.0 lens that covers 28/32-100mm At 8-10MP would make me happy. Add in RAW, articulating screen, hot shoe and a aluminum/magnesium body...

When I use the Contax G bodies, I keep looking at the film cover expecting to see the results on an LCD screen.

[Coco-bun]

I love my SLR too, but sometimes its just too bulky. Especially when I'm hanging out with my friends. I may be in the market for a new P&S and there really isnt much offered. My wants = prime, raw, good construction, f2.8 or faster, and hopefully around 500bucks for a used one. I really want the Ricoh GR Digital (28mm prime lens, f2.8, RAW, awesome construction) except the write speed of it takes FOREVER. It literally took like 20seconds to write one RAW file.

Sigma is coming out with the Foeven APS-C sensor sized P&S (DP1) soon...but its a f4.

[Coco-bun]

Originally Posted by bitkahuna

On the contrary. Digital cameras have gotten more people INTO photography than film ever could have. You may not like the results but it's no different than camcorders, desktop publishing, karaoke, and other 'creative' endeavors that most people have little talent at. Technology enables many people to show how clueless they really are. LOL

i know, but it seems like a lot of these people are not sticking to those interests. I've seen plenty of people buy a digital SLR b/c its capable of taking good cameras. and they can't cope with the learning curve and just give up . The number of people interested in photography has gone up, yes, but not many people are willing to go through the learning process.

[Woogie]

Originally Posted by Coco-bun

I've seen plenty of people buy a digital SLR b/c its capable of taking good [pictures]. and they can't cope with the learning curve and just give up . The number of people interested in photography has gone up, yes, but not many people are willing to go through the learning process.

This is indeed very true. Everytime I travel to a big tourist attraction, a parade, or even the zoo, I always see moms and dads with Rebels w/ kit lens on green box (auto) mode. They're convinced that they can take better shots with their DSLR than little point and shoots.

[Coco-bun]

I really don't think there is nothing wrong with the green box mode. I mean, by the time I check the light, set my ISO, aperture, shutter speed, focus, composition, the subjects gone.

Sometimes, especially when I'm just walking on the streets, I keep it on the green box mode so I dont miss anyshots. If i know I'm shooting something/someone, I usually keep it on Tv or Av though.

but at a parade/zoo...I probably wouldn't even take my SLR if I am there to enjoy the moment with whoever is with me. This is why I want a GR digital...my cybershot just doesnt have the controls i want.