a question about 'hybrid' cameras

M

mjackman

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Folks,

Just a question relating to 'hybrid' cameras. I was in london camera exchange recently looking at the Nikkon D60 and the Cannon eos 450 as i was hoping to make a decision on purchasing one of them following the comments / opinions of the nice peeps in this forum.

A member of the public then came in and asked about the 'P90' which I beleive is the Nikkon coolpix P90, he saw me looking at the other digital SLR cameras and made mention of the quality of the pictures from his freinds P90.

Ive been out of the loop with slr cameras for some time now for around 5 years ive had a Cannon ixus point and shoot camera (well autofocus etc) and I felt that with the pictures from this camera there was not much sence of depth of field, more or less most things within its view were in focus. I also found that after 3 years the ixus 'autofocus' took a long time to actually autofocus (sensor problem maybe? or lens?). Before that camera about 15 years ago I had an SLR which I was borrowing from my Dad whilst i was in school.

Apparently the P90 will retail for around £300-350 according to the london camera exchange dude. The camera according to the guy who walked in off the street took 'very good quality pictures' and i asked him about the depth of field and he said it looked as good as any slr. I am tempted to now look into the P90 and similar 'hybrid' cameras however I worry that maybe eventually this will develop the same problems as my ixus with the sensors (at least with an digital slr presumably you either get the body or lens fixed, not the whole thing - if this even happens with digital slrs that is). To me the digital SLRs take very good pictures and it doesnt really float my boat that the hybrid cameras take better, but its the fact that its new technology with an insane zoom for a lot less than the cannon eos 450, and if I get the same results from the P90 in terms of depth of field shots, its very hard to ignore. Apologies if this is a bad comparrison to make, its possible im not seeing the woods through the trees and that these cameras are for two separate uses, but it almost seems as though the hybrid has a lot of the bells and whistles of the entry level digital slrs for in some instances a cheaper price. Any opinions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks guys ;)

MJ.
 
mjackman said:
but it almost seems as though the hybrid has a lot of the bells and whistles of the entry level digital slrs for in some instances a cheaper price. Any opinions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks guys ;)

MJ.
Click to expand...

"bells and whistles" do nothing to improve image quality. They are designed by marketers to catch the unwary.

I know nothing about the P90, but I guarantee that for less money you will be able to get a proper DSLR and a nice lens for less than the cost of this Coolpix, and the pictures will be much more pleasing.
 
i know what you mean, when i was buying an SLR i changed my mind to get a hybrid but i thought to myself "heck i'll just want upgrade in anoher year because i've outgrown it" so i bought a sony a300 and the quality of DSLR's are far superior to point and shoot/hybrids.
if you find a sensor chart you will see that DSLR's have a unique aps-c sensor that no point and shoot/hybrid can beat.
 
I gues we can answer your main question with another question.
Why do so many people outgrow 'hybrid' (Bridge) camera and move onto a DSLR.

Firstly, depth of field contol will not be as good as any DSLR. The Coolpix will have a lens that starts at something like 6-9mm. They are quoting 'Equivalent' focal length only in the specs. This in turn means that there will be very poor depth of field control until you get into the longer lengths. Which will be incredibly difficult to hold steady due to the small size of the camera (My mum has a Fuji 9600 which has a long lens - very difficult to keep steady).
High ISO work, well it will not be able to compete with DSLR there either.
Handling - some people like a small camera, personally I prefer something I can get a good grip on.

Don't get me wrong, the bridge camera offerings are very good, and always improving. But they still have to go a long way before the can compete with compete with an entry level DSLR with a couple of entry level lenses.
 
When Coolpix start using DX sensors, they will get much more interesting.
 
With a sensor size of 6.13 x 4.60 mm i would think low light shots are going to be no where near a DSLR quality
 
I have a Fuji Bridge camera as well as my 350D and whilst it gives ok images there are major reasons why its a travel camera when I cant or dont want to take the Canon.Things such as slow writing to the card in Raw a slow motor drive and at the end of the day an EVF is no match for real through the lens viewing
 
Thanks guys ;)

Well I think now I will ask to see the D60 and P90 both in action, (the eos 450 seems very nice but a little expensive and im not convinced yet that ill be shooting the kind of images which warrant spending the money) the main thing which I am now concerned about is how long it takes the p90 to focus, im guessing the D60 is pretty swift being a dslr. I have read a few reviews now on the P90 and it seems the image quality isnt quite as good as described to me but apparently is still pretty decent if used in manual mode, and as you guys say probably will be a long time until its a serious contender of an slr in terms of image quality. So now im questioning what i want from a camera, as the majority of photos i will be taking with it will be abroad so the combination of reasonable image quality and portability is becoming quite attractive in the P90.

MJ
 
I moved up from a nikon coolpix 8800(8mp 10x optical zoom) to a D60.

My coolpix is a very good camera for most normal situations but because of the small sensor was poor in low light and suffered from noise when the ISO was raised. I'm sure the P90 is much improved but will not compete with a DSLR when pushed to its limits. I whish I had the budget to buy a DSLR at first but the coolpix was a good starter as I needed the 10x zoom for motorsport and the EOS 300D my friend had just bought with an extra zoom lens was double the price. If a DSLR is in your budget GET ONE:thumbs:
 
puddleduck said:
"bells and whistles" do nothing to improve image quality. They are designed by marketers to catch the unwary.

I know nothing about the P90, but I guarantee that for less money you will be able to get a proper DSLR and a nice lens for less than the cost of this Coolpix, and the pictures will be much more pleasing.
Click to expand...

I used to have a minolta dSLR style point and shoot. These cameras have a real place in the market. I now use a 40D + half a dozen lenses and a bag of bells and whistles, I could replace the lot with a modern equivalent of my old camera and the image quality would be just as good.

These cameras have a lot of advantages, they do allow way more creativity than a compact + they have excellent optics often with supper zooms. No extra lenses to carry, the best can take external flash, no way to get dust on sensor, light to carry, the best have good start up times ... I could go on.

As camera enthusiasts it is very easy to become snobbish about our SLR cameras, always good to remember that there are more than one way to skin the cat.
 
Thanks again guys - in particular Foggy, thx for the recommendation im gonna check out a d60 in more depth tomorrow i think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top