AG Schnozz wrote:
> What am I missing here? I just looked over deep pee reviews 550UZ
> review and I just don't understand something. Aren't cameras
> supposed to be getting better over time?
>
> I do realize that the camera is slightly smaller than my Minolta A1,
> but I honestly cannot find anything that it does better.
Focal lengths from 200-500 mm eq. That's what the superzoom category is
about, and to get it in a camera smaller than the A1, they have to use
teensy sensors.
There is really nothing close to the A1 in the current, strongly
categorized digicam market. The Fuji s6000 would be a worthy successor,
the only superzoom with a decent sensor, if it had IS, but alas... This
is now entry level DSLR territory. A whole different game
> The A1 is
> well over 3 1/2 years old. What's wrong with this picture?
>
The triumph of marketing over substance.
Look at the ads of retailers. Cameras are categorized by features, and
esp. megapixels and zoom range. Walk into a retailer and pretend to be a
nice fellow looking to get a digicam to replace your film P&S. At least
9 times out of 10, yo will be asked three questions in one order or
another, what are you looking to spend, how many megapixels do you need
and how big a zoom. From the asnwers, you will be presented with two or
three possibilities, If three, the extra will be a step up in cost and
specs, in case you can be talked up. Any thing more than three causes
confusion and loses sales.
Clearly, as both reviews so far have also said, the 550 UZ was designed
and priced by marketing and engineering was required to do their best to
accomplish it. So, instead of a sensible compromise between cost,
features and image quality, it wins on all features fronts and loses in
the race to produce usable images.
A shame.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|