Review beat: Maybe "DP" stands for "don't post"

One of the digital camera review web sites has all but given up individual reviews of point-and-shoot digital cameras. They've decided to focus on DSLRs and their accessory lenses. The exception are "roundup" articles, in which they'll do a quickie analysis of 4-5 compact cameras.

Is this well thought-out? P/S cameras may not snag those magazine-cover quality images, but the abundance of intriguing photos over at flickr.com suggests that not everyone wants -- or needs -- a DSLR. A new DSLR costs more than $500; you can buy two, or maybe three high compacts from Canon, Kodak, or Panasonic for that amount of money.

I like my DSLR, but carrying it everywhere is a pain. I just don't do it. Most days, you'll find a pocket-size digital camera in my jacket. Most times, it gets the shot I want.

Memo to DP-XXXXXX.com: go upmarket, and you might lose the readership that got you where you are today -- a subsidiary of Amazon.com.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Silver theft on Aisle 3

Image
If you shoot film and have it processed at a drugstore, watch out. Walgreens and CVS are trying to steal your silver. By Eastwind41 (Own work) [Copyrighted free use], via Wikimedia Commons That's the only possible explanation as to why they no longer return your negatives when you develop color negative film. Instead of giving you prints with negatives in your photofinishing envelope, they give you prints and image files on a CD. You don't get your negatives back. By SkywalkerPL (Own work) [CC BY 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons Why? The film contains tiny particles of silver, which can be extracted and recycled, usually benefitting the photo lab. Companies used to offer kits that allowed labs to recover the silver, and you'd get your negatives back. But that technology likely isn't widely offered, since film processing declined. This page of Kodak's website talks about the process. The labs want to keep the silver. So you don't get your negatives
Read more

Ghost hunting: Kodak Star 1035Z camera

Image
At $2.99 in the Goodwill thrift store, the Kodak Star 1035Z camera seemed like a great deal. As long as I didn't think too hard. But I thought twice. In the realm of thrift store camera bargains, I could do better. The Kodak had a slow, 38-80mm zoom lens. And a choice of two flash options: auto or auto with red-eye reduction. No flash-defeat button. Still, at $3, with a case and owner's booklet, and a clean, scratch-free body and lens,  was it worth it? NO. NOT AT ALL. Kodak already sold a version of this camera in the 1990s. I owned one. Its auto-focus had all the accuracy of a Trump speechwriter. The zoom lens trudged to its maximum focal length at snail speed. The infant you wanted to photograph would've learned to crawl, walk, and drive a Big Wheel to kindergarten by the time the camera was ready to fire. And the shutter lag -- the moment between pressing the big gray button and getting the shot -- rivaled that of some older digital cameras. Overall
Read more

Travels with a Fujifilm Z90

Image
Point-and-shoot digital cameras -- even good ones -- have become semi-relics in the iPhone era . But compact digital cameras aren't pricey paperweights. They can do the job. And on the used market, good P/S cameras can be had for $5-$25 dollars.  Really.  After a downpour.    A local thrift store last week sold me a tiny  Fujifilm Finepix Z90 camera for $3.99. That's no misprint. A 12-megapixel, 5X zoom camera smaller than any smartphone. Under $5.  It's no Leica , of course. In default "SR auto mode," the camera chooses high ISO settings for daylight photos. (Tip: use Program mode, set ISO yourself.) But with a wide-angle to zoom 28-140mm lens (in 35mm terms) and HD video, a nine-year-old camera that outperforms most phones is a fair deal. You can skip eBay, and still land great deals. You get a couple of extra benefits: In this case, the camera came with a case, SD card, and battery. This isn't always so with thrift-store cameras. You need to check the came
Read more