You know, there’s a lot to be said for superzoom cameras. Instead of lugging around a DSLR camera and a stack of lenses, you can stick a massive zoom onto a camera that’s a little smaller than your average DSLR and simply carry that around. Nikon’s Coolpix P90 is a superzoom bridge camera with a whopping 24x zoom. It’s aimed at …
"Instead of lugging around a DSLR camera and a stack of lenses, you can stick a massive zoom onto a camera that’s a little smaller than your average DSLR and simply carry that around."
Because doing that will give you comparable picture quality as buying the DSLR and the lenses, right? They've managed to make just one, cheap, lens which is not only practically free of distortion and chromatic aberration, it's also incredibly sharp and super fast, meaning that the amazing AF sensor has to do little work.
I'll take two, plus whatever the reviewer's smoking.
"Because doing that will give you comparable picture quality as buying the DSLR and the lenses, right?"
There's a very good reason why the Canon 1Ds MkIII body only costs $7k. And why the professionals stay the hell away from superzoom lenses.
And it's not free of distortion or chromatic aberration, read the review and look at the pics. It's also not particularly sharp, and the reviewer commented specifically on a sluggish response.
Apart from that your comment was spot on.
Ah dangnit, I think I just fed the troll.
Not worth it...
I suspect this camera is not worth the price.
First, it is no big leap in portability compared with a DSLR like the D40, just to stay with Nikon, apparently.
Second, the quality of the shots presented here is dubious... The crops seemed a little soft (not sharp) and many of them noisy too. If the captions had the ISO and zoom level in them it might help us figure out why...
Pointless waste of money.
Nobody with any experience of taking good quality photos would ever specify a camera like this. It is riddled with compromises - the sensor is too small and the zoom range is too big.
I have a 300mm (450mm equivalent) zoom on my APS-C SLR camera and have a job getting steady shots with that. You have to have a tripod. At 624mm you would need to cement it into the foundations to get a steady shot.
With this camera you end up paying twice for each "feature". You pay extra to have a 12MP sensor but it's so small you have to pay extra for the all the noise reduction tech that blurs out much of the detail that is "captured" by the high resolution sensor.
I defy anyone to get a decent shot at the maximum zoom without spending more on the tripod than the camera itself cost.
This is a camera designed by a marketing department not a photographer.
I pity anyone who wastes their money on this device.
65%, what does it actually mean?
Do things ever get <50% these days? If not, we must assume 50% as the new zero, meaning this camera comes in at what, 30%? Sounds round about right from the pictures.
Does it strip down into 3 parts for easy cleaning? where's the 50 rounds of 5.7mm kept? a P90 remodelled for the toruist/terrorist market? i'll take 2
Image stabilisation FTW
Alex said "I have a 300mm (450mm equivalent) zoom on my APS-C SLR camera and have a job getting steady shots with that. You have to have a tripod."
Thankfully, Nikon are now quite good at vibration-reduction - it's the really big advance in lens technology in the last decade, you no longer need to hold the camera still. One of the pictures in the article is taken hand-held at 624mm equivalent and looks pretty sharp; even the pocket Canon camera I have can take sharp macro shots of coins in poorly-lit museums with a quarter-second exposure.
this camera looks very beautiful , I l ike it !
here I have a good place that is Tradestead there are many kinds of beautiful and powerful consumer electronics with very cheap price that I like it very much!