Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Any point and shoot camera that out does a Nikon D400?
- Thread starter waloshin
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Right now, all of them; any camera is better than no camera. By the time it comes out, no.
The Leica X1 is outstanding, about as good as you'll get in a P&S.
The Sony NEX, although not a P&S, is pretty damn small, and very good, the lens range isn't very big though, and the existing ones aren't that great.
Neither will be as good an FX DSLR, but unless you are a pro and need that kind of quality, does it matter?
MT
The Sony NEX, although not a P&S, is pretty damn small, and very good, the lens range isn't very big though, and the existing ones aren't that great.
Neither will be as good an FX DSLR, but unless you are a pro and need that kind of quality, does it matter?
MT
This is a bizarre question; the D400 doesn't even exist.
So I guess any point and shoot "out does" it by virtue of existing...
If you want the best small camera, it's probably the M9, but it's not point and shoot (although it fits your definition since it's a rangefinder). If I were a rich hobbiest the choice would be so easy for me in favor of that camera (or if I were using film, any other Leica rangefinder or the Mamiya 7). Lots of point and shoot cameras are way better than most give them credit for being, though--and are fine for prints up to 11X17. They're worse in low light and worse with shallow focus (assuming you have a fast lens on a dSLR) than dSLRs, but remarkably close at 100ISO deep focus.
If you want a point and shoot that competes with entry-level dSLRs in good light you can find one. But no one can tell you how it will compare with a camera Nikon hasn't (yet?) announced, particularly since you didn't offer metrics by which you want those cameras judged beyond one "outdoing" the other. (At what: resolution, low-light performance, convenience, existing as a physical object?)
So I guess any point and shoot "out does" it by virtue of existing...
If you want the best small camera, it's probably the M9, but it's not point and shoot (although it fits your definition since it's a rangefinder). If I were a rich hobbiest the choice would be so easy for me in favor of that camera (or if I were using film, any other Leica rangefinder or the Mamiya 7). Lots of point and shoot cameras are way better than most give them credit for being, though--and are fine for prints up to 11X17. They're worse in low light and worse with shallow focus (assuming you have a fast lens on a dSLR) than dSLRs, but remarkably close at 100ISO deep focus.
If you want a point and shoot that competes with entry-level dSLRs in good light you can find one. But no one can tell you how it will compare with a camera Nikon hasn't (yet?) announced, particularly since you didn't offer metrics by which you want those cameras judged beyond one "outdoing" the other. (At what: resolution, low-light performance, convenience, existing as a physical object?)
Last edited:
"Any point and shoot camera that out does a Nikon D400?"
That isn't even a question. :/
But as others have said, the Nikon D400 doesn't even exist (yet) so every point and shoot out does the camera because it's non-existent.
However, no point and shoot out does a DSLR, no matter what brand. They're just in completely different leagues. DSLR sensors are way bigger, and DSLRs can use multiple lenses.
However, Nikon and Sony etc, are bringing out a camera that's a very small DSLR called EVIL (I don't know what it stands for.) you might wana check that out when they're released - I believe Sony already has one out.
That isn't even a question. :/
But as others have said, the Nikon D400 doesn't even exist (yet) so every point and shoot out does the camera because it's non-existent.
However, no point and shoot out does a DSLR, no matter what brand. They're just in completely different leagues. DSLR sensors are way bigger, and DSLRs can use multiple lenses.
However, Nikon and Sony etc, are bringing out a camera that's a very small DSLR called EVIL (I don't know what it stands for.) you might wana check that out when they're released - I believe Sony already has one out.
I think that you are right. The photos in Wally's 'Bug Thread' were taken with a D40, so P&S suggestions should be taken with this in mind. Perhaps he may like to consider one from the Hello Kitty range of Point and Shoots.
KGB
D40! That makes sense.
"Outdoes" is still some ambiguous criteria. Virtually any point and shoot outdoes that camera in terms of size...
In terms of image quality, I honestly don't know, but I've heard great things about the Leica M9 (if you can afford it), some of the fixed-lens big sensor cameras (if you don't mind being stuck with one focal length), the Sony NEX, and the Canon S90 (the only true point and shoot of the bunch). The S90 makes the most sense, in some ways, since with the others the small size is cancelled out if you want to carry more than one lens (or one decent zoom lens) with you.
Unless you need shallow focus or great low light performance, the S90 should be as good as an older, low-end dSLR. If you're comparing stock lens against stock lens, it may be better in almost every way. Point and shoots are way underrated.
"Outdoes" is still some ambiguous criteria. Virtually any point and shoot outdoes that camera in terms of size...
In terms of image quality, I honestly don't know, but I've heard great things about the Leica M9 (if you can afford it), some of the fixed-lens big sensor cameras (if you don't mind being stuck with one focal length), the Sony NEX, and the Canon S90 (the only true point and shoot of the bunch). The S90 makes the most sense, in some ways, since with the others the small size is cancelled out if you want to carry more than one lens (or one decent zoom lens) with you.
Unless you need shallow focus or great low light performance, the S90 should be as good as an older, low-end dSLR. If you're comparing stock lens against stock lens, it may be better in almost every way. Point and shoots are way underrated.
It's impossible to answer your question.
In terms of image quality, the D40 will be a lot better than any point and shoot with the possible exception of those that use a µ4/3 or an APS-C-sized sensor (e. g. Sigma's DP1 and DP2). But in terms of portability, almost all point and shoots will fare better than a D40.
To me the question is: which camera will you have on you if you want to take pictures? My best friend has a D70 which is basically never uses, because it's too heavy. Then he bought a Panasonic GF-1 with the pancake lens and he really brings it along much, much more often.
In terms of image quality, the D40 will be a lot better than any point and shoot with the possible exception of those that use a µ4/3 or an APS-C-sized sensor (e. g. Sigma's DP1 and DP2). But in terms of portability, almost all point and shoots will fare better than a D40.
To me the question is: which camera will you have on you if you want to take pictures? My best friend has a D70 which is basically never uses, because it's too heavy. Then he bought a Panasonic GF-1 with the pancake lens and he really brings it along much, much more often.