From: RichA on
On May 16, 4:25 am, "N" <N...(a)onyx.com> wrote:
> "RichA" <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d73ad005-c9b1-427a-8c78-6e605cc6069f(a)e21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On May 14, 7:29 am, "N" <N...(a)onyx.com> wrote:
> >> "Rich" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:dPadnYLij-_qC3HWnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> >> > Check out the tests on the Ricoh with the back-illuminated sensor.  It
> >> > is
> >> > a
> >> > PIECE OF JUNK for any ISO over 200, which is NO surprise.  Current
> >> > sensors
> >> > are not inefficient.  Not NEARLY so much as the nuts hyping back
> >> > illumination are pretending.  Does back illumination work, at all? Yes,
> >> > it
> >> > can, but not with TINY, CRAPPY sensors like the "dime a dozen" 1/2.3.."
> >> > Back illumination might be interesting on a bigger sensor, and it is
> >> > viable
> >> > for scientific CCDs with huge pixels, but for now, you can't make a
> >> > silk
> >> > purse out of a sow's ear no matter what tricks you try.
>
> >> What's your opinion of a Nikon P100?
>
> >> --
> >> N
>
> > Haven't seen it yet, I'll check it out though.
>
> It's getting bad reviews.
>
> --
> N

I thought all Nikon P&S's did? It's not their forte, at least now.
Back in 2001 or so, Nikon (990/995), Olympus(C3040) and Maybe Minolta
produced the best P&S's and Kodak ruled the largest market share.