In addition to the professional photography I am also enjoys spending time on the road with a more manageable clippers and exactly that has been missing me (my Olle Ixus times except 65). Quenched have me in recent years, the small sensors and high pixel amounts to just this.
After Canon woke up (less MP-Wahn) and Nikon has followed suit, I was almost glücklich.Und than the Fuji X was 10 announced with a larger chip, I got the first, real buying appetites. Unfortunately this camera has disappointed in the tests, I would like to see the ellipsoidal spots on my pictures.
The Nikon was the best compromise, systemic struck me how to deal with this camera from the start easily and the thickness Lightning also fits on it.
After 2000 images of child animal, from night to day, from Frankfurt to Venice 4 points for:
You can take pictures anytime, anywhere, the settings are logically and to perform quickly, because the controls where they belong and wonderful to use.
No Gefuzzel through any menus, ASA, WB, program functions, personal preferences, everything quickly there and away again.
The folding screen is easy to use, certainly goes even more, but the display is so good that you do not often need it, a good and stable solution.
On the subject of image quality I quote out my vocational school teacher: "Zoom is always a compromise."
28-200mm (converted to small picture) are a lazy. The more telephoto the softer, like always. This also applies to all so-called "travel zoom" in SLR-sector and this will not change, at least not with respect to the laws of optics.
So you should not expect too much, at the telephoto end wirds just muddy, useful, but mushy.
My recommendation to Nikon would be to make at 105mm conclusion. Then, the lens maker and not the marketing Heini had once won. This is more serious than not to use the zoom range when shooting because a fret the images else later.
Second shortcoming: The minimum focusing distance is a little longer once you zooming excessively. The camera freaks long back and forth until she has it, sometimes she gets the sharpness not go, even though you are far enough away and officially the contrasts. This property is admittedly annoying and not have been foreseen, it smells like a quirk in the system, even though I can not prove it.
For even star deduction there (not for the soft telephoto images that were to be expected).
Now even the viewfinder, the infamous: There is the possibility to take the camera to the body, which may reduce camera shake, so it's good to have him with him. But the optical parallax (you do not get what you see) makes him what has already been described here goes: "Not Leica but Agfa Clack".
Nevertheless why no deduction; I once developed a Leica M viewfinder seen ... I knew here is what I get.
A direct comparison of photos taken with a Nikon D300 for example (Hello hello apples pears) I have to say: Thank you! The thickness is better, of course, but the little girl does her job well, regardless of whether noise, colors, contrasts ... the internal image processing is fairly subtle, but brightened somewhat artificial in very dark area can only be seen by the expert eye. And Computer Arts goes, the images do not "dirty" from the camera.
All in all, / to play an all-rounder for almost all cases, it's fun to use them and "ranzudrehen" better pictures with her and is happy about photos that you would not have done for lack of camera for the road.
Wishlist: For the next Kleene I would have liked a larger sensor and a more rational look with less focal spread, but I would pay even a hundred more.
(And the Niko Marketing I wish a long nose for Brennweitenspagat and their adulation on the viewfinder.)
