DxOMark has built up a huge database of camera and lens tests, and you can make your own comparisons on the DxO website by choosing from the tested hardware on the database. Here’s a comparison I put together today:
I use my 5-year old DX40 as a benchmark, and it serves that purpose very well. I bought that camera in as-new condition a year ago for <$300. With an 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 kit lens, which tend to sell for $200 for a good copy on eBay, it’s a $500 camera. With the addition of the $200 (new) 55-200mm f/3.5-5.6 tele zoom, you’ve got everything covered for $700.
So it’s a valid comparison, except for the lack of video in the D40x. I don’t use cameras like these for video so it’s not an issue. The obvious question to Nikon is: why bother making a camera that costs the same as the D40x did when it was new, and can’t compete with its 5-year-old sibling on Image Quality?
Of course, both Nikon and Fuji are chasing a different market here: enthusiasts looking for interesting compact cameras, all-in-one without interchangeable lenses. Below is an obvious comparison in that ballpark, and here is the DxO assessment in full of the new Fujifilm x10
Neat cameras they may be, funky even or cool as we say these days, but they don't produce images of the same quality asthe old gear. I suspect IQ wasn't the most important criterion.
Have lots of fun
Kim
Comments