mindmaster wrote:This camera would be great if the f stops weren't so god awful this camera is completely inadequate for anything except bright daylight. And under indoor conditions it is going to wash out colors and lose contrast. Its worth about $0 unless your sole use is shooting the kiddos day baseball games.
Good grief, are people spoiled today or what?
When I started with photography (circa 1960 or thereabouts), I used Kodachrome (ASA 10!) with an F. 3.5 lens -- which, somehow, I was able to use handheld, sans flash, and got excellent results.
Later on, I used Tri X Pan (ASA 400) for what was then called "available light" work, again, handheld, no flash, blah blah blah.
Lest this be construed as bragging, I point out that this sort of work was FAR from exceptional -- it was simply how we ALL worked with our gear, and got excellent results.
I'll close by pointing out the irony of the complaints of the slowness of this camera's lens, which, at something ("35mm equivalent") over 600mm is bloody FAST. A 35mm camera with a 600mm lens is going to be HUGE by comparison, and MUCH more expensive, and most likely a LOT slower (in terms of lens speed).
I've had a lot of fun with people, giving them 8x10 - 16x20 prints ("silver" prints, i.e., digital images printed on chromogenic photographic paper) I shot with my wife's shirt-pocket sized Olympus Stylus 300 (3.2MP). Much better image quality than most of the "pro gear" work I've seen.
In the vast majority of situations, it's the photographer, NOT the camera, that really matters.