[DonV]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion; but "no" on weather sealing?

[Wasp]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion; but "no" on weather sealing?

Yes, they have had a number of WR cameras fail on them. Not Pentax I suppose, they are Canon/Nikon/Sony fanbois.

[DonV]

Yes, they have had a number of WR cameras fail on them. Not Pentax I suppose, they are Canon/Nikon/Sony fanbois.

Interesting.
I just don't understand how a "failure" of WR could result in any worse outcome than no WR to begin with ?
By definition and construction WR would seem to be an improvement under any circumstances; now it if cost an inordinate amount of extra $$- that could be a reason to complain.

[Philoslothical]

I can't believe a company put a power switch on a zoom ring. I'm surprised some people seem to like this idea, too. Wouldn't it mean that if you over-enthusiastically zoom to that end of the range you risk turning off your camera accidentally and missing your shot? So you'd have to constantly make sure you don't do that. And it means you could never leave the zoom set while conserving power. Every time you would normally switch off a DSLR to give it a break, you'd have to take the time to zoom back in, potentially missing shots. It sounds awful.

I think people commonly have misconceptions about WR. Some people, not all, but some, want to treat WR as an insurance policy so they can put the idea of water damage in the category of "It can't happen to me." rather than a more pragmatic "This feature reduces my risks but there is still a real risk every time I expose my camera to water." They have to choose, and it makes them feel responsible for damage that occurs (which they are), so they angrily blame the WR to displace it. If they didn't honestly value WR from the outset, including its limitations, they'll be loathe to accept responsibility for entirely normal failures that we all hope never happen to us. This principle applies to many things.

[Sidney Porter]

Not sure if its marketers or engineers that believe the more buttons the better.

My favorite useless feature is the disc eject button on CD/DVD player remote controls.
This might be useful if you had a trained monkey to change discs for you.
Or in the unlikely event that the button on the main unit stops functioning.

Chris

I used this the other day on a blu-ray player. I powered it on with the remote. The disk don't read. I pressed eject on the remote the tray opened I then pressed play and the tray closed and the disk read. I did this all from the remote.

[trixtroll]

I’ve got a Fuji X10 that I talked my wife info buying when we went on our honeymoon.

It comes out of the desk drawer when we go on vacation and I carry it on a $12 Chinese knockoff of the Spider Holster. It usually makes it through an entire trip without changing the battery, so that’s a plus.

Never paid attention to the zoom markings, but that is a dumb feature….I’m much more annoyed by the fact that the OVF doesn’t have any sort of information displayed.

[K(s)evin]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion; but "no" on weather sealing?

Heard of them, had never watched them. I wasn't missing anything. I want my 01:32 back!

[Rondec]

The guy who came up with the PASM dial sure has a lot to answer for.

Yes modern bodies have dials you can customize, but why can't I have old school shutter and ISO dials? Like on my beloved Pentax LX?

A Fujifilm XE3 lets you have the best of both worlds. Dial in your choice with the value right there on the dial, or set it to A. Even Nikon got in on the act for a bit, can't remember the model now. Not even all Fujis have the analog magic. Some models stick with the PASM thing.

Honestly, I much prefer modern two or three e dials. Once you are used to them it is far easier to adjust settings with your eye at the viewfinder.

I am aggravated that for most SLRs you can't turn off the shutter sound. I've searched the manuals and can't find that setting, but I'm sure I'll figure it out one of these days.

[trixtroll]

Honestly, I much prefer modern two or three e dials. Once you are used to them it is far easier to adjust settings with your eye at the viewfinder.

I am aggravated that for most SLRs you can't turn off the shutter sound. I've searched the manuals and can't find that setting, but I'm sure I'll figure it out one of these days.

I “think” the KP has a silent mode, but only when it’s in live view.

Doubt it’s possible when using the viewfinder since the mirror slap is most of the sound.

---------- Post added 07-05-21 at 04:22 AM ----------

I “think” the KP has a silent mode, but only when it’s in live view.

Doubt it’s possible when using the viewfinder since the mirror slap is most of the sound.

Nope, scratch that. The electronic shutter isn’t silent.

[stevebrot]

The Northrups are saying that nobody needs pixel shift, eye AF or weather sealing. And a few other things as well. I tend to agree with them.

Camera features YOU DON'T NEED: Eye AF, Pixel Shift & more - YouTube

Of course there are those who feel that nobody needs the Northrups for day-to-day shooting as well.


Steve

[AgentL]

Of course there are those who feel that nobody needs the Northrups for day-to-day shooting as well.


Steve

This post wins for today.

[Fogel70]

I can't believe a company put a power switch on a zoom ring. I'm surprised some people seem to like this idea, too. Wouldn't it mean that if you over-enthusiastically zoom to that end of the range you risk turning off your camera accidentally and missing your shot? So you'd have to constantly make sure you don't do that. And it means you could never leave the zoom set while conserving power. Every time you would normally switch off a DSLR to give it a break, you'd have to take the time to zoom back in, potentially missing shots. It sounds Abdul.

It is a retractable zoom so it need a mechanism for holding out/in the lens, and I believe the resitance on the zoom ring increases considetable when you start to retract it. So I do not think you will accidently turn off the camera.

[Philoslothical]

That still sounds very uncomfortable to use, to me, but thanks for the clarification.

[Wasp]

The megazoom on the Nikon P1000 seems particularly dumb. It is huge and expensive. You can get a decent real camera with a proper sized sensor for the asking price, with lenses you can actually use. Who needs a 3000mm (equivalent) lens anyway? I get by just fine with a 400mm and 1.4x or 1.7x teleconverter.



Even DP Review could find few reasons to like it.

Nikon Coolpix P1000 Review: Digital Photography Review

[DonV]

That still sounds very uncomfortable to use, to me, but thanks for the clarification.

It is to me for sure; I just don't see the point in a "retractible" lens. They are not that much smaller/shorter and they are "never" ready!

---------- Post added 07-06-21 at 02:37 PM ----------

The megazoom on the Nikon P1000 seems particularly dumb. It is huge and expensive. You can get a decent real camera with a proper sized sensor for the asking price, with lenses you can actually use. Who needs a 3000mm (equivalent) lens anyway? I get by just fine with a 400mm and 1.4x or 1.7x teleconverter.



Even DP Review could find few reasons to like it.

Nikon Coolpix P1000 Review: Digital Photography Review

Well, 400mm x 1.7 is not enough for me! Maybe 600mm x 2.

But, I doubt anyone can hold a 3000mm lens still enough to take a picture.