Backlash against pro camera prices? Finally??
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Ray Fischer on 17 Feb 2010 21:37 RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: > rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> RichA �<rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >Looks like DPreview shaved some points off the D3s review owing to the >> >> One wonders why you continue to follow the web site so closely given >> your regular complaining and your contempt for their work. > >I have contempt for some of what they do, their blatant pandering to >mfgs, but the core of their reviews, the data, is useful. But according to you the data must be biased as well since they (according to you) pander to manufacturers. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Rich on 18 Feb 2010 01:56 rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:4b7ca7f9$0$1657 $742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net: > RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >>> RichA �<rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >Looks like DPreview shaved some points off the D3s review owing to the >>> >>> One wonders why you continue to follow the web site so closely given >>> your regular complaining and your contempt for their work. >> >>I have contempt for some of what they do, their blatant pandering to >>mfgs, but the core of their reviews, the data, is useful. > > But according to you the data must be biased as well since they > (according to you) pander to manufacturers. > Most people who go on the site are going to read the text they post, that is where the excuses and manipulation of facts comes into play. Firmware "fixes" for problems become "enhancements," clear problems with images become "minor" or "hardly noticeable." But using English in a creative way (it is the most expressive language on the planet) isn't the same as falsifying test data, which as far as I know, they don't do. So if you stick to the test data, and avoid the English, you are safe.
From: Bruce on 18 Feb 2010 07:29 On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:56:27 -0600, Rich <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >... using English in a creative way >(it is the most expressive language on the planet) ... I think some French speakers would take issue with that assertion.
From: John McWilliams on 18 Feb 2010 10:25 Bruce wrote: > On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:56:27 -0600, Rich <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> ... using English in a creative way >> (it is the most expressive language on the planet) ... > > > I think some French speakers would take issue with that assertion. > Oui, mais eux soyez faux! English, 'Merican, Strine, etc. langauages gots it all! -- john mcwilliams
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 19 Feb 2010 13:30 C Werner <none(a)noaddress.com> wrote: > On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:24:20 -0500, John A. <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: >>On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:11:10 -0600, C. Werner <none(a)noaddress.com> >>If the price puts it out of reach of amateurs, yeah, it's part of what >>makes it a pro camera. > Again proving that it has nothing to do with the image it can provide. Proving? Nope. A camera that's expensive enough no amateur could aford it and doesn't deliver the image quality a pro needs (by *whatever* standard of the *pros* of the time) does make the camera a business failure, not a pro camera. Proving again that image quality has everything to do with pro cameras, just not in the same way *you* think it should. > We > all know that some cameras that are within the price range of amateurs beat > much of the "pro-priced" equipment. We all know that price is not the only factor, just as red is not the only colour. >>The other part is it having features and/or >>capabilities needed by/desired by/advantageous to pros that can't be >>had at a lesser cost. > Well, then there must be a new category. Says you. > Cameras with highly desirable > features that no pro can obtain at any price on their "pro" gear, but are > only available on "amateur priced" cameras. We all know that price is not the only factor, just as red is not the only colour. > Look to all the Canon Powershot > models that are supported by CHDK. And Pros are forbidden by law to go and buy and own and use such a camera? Funny world! > Some regretful "professionals" are > clamoring and begging to have those features ported to their "pro" gear, > even offering the programmers many hundreds of dollars and taking up > community collections from fellow "pros" to make this possible for them. > But it's impossible due to the crippling limitations of their > "professional" focal-plane shutters and optical viewfinders. For an idiot you do well, but the truth is that it has nothing at all to do with focal plane shutters or optical view finders --- after all, there are pro cameras with additionally offer an electronic shutter with the mechanical shutter and life view with the optical view finders. > They have to > sadly walk away and try to find new reasons to cherish their > over-pro-priced and far less capable "pro" gear. Because they are not allowed to buy amateur cameras, lest they be tortured to death in your world? >>On the other hand, having such features and capabilities that make it >>valuable to pros surely drives up the price. It could easily be only a >>single feature that pushes it into that category, even if the camera >>is otherwise unremarkable or even sub-average. > Again the need for a new category. Where free and low-cost are more > desirable for "professional gear". Again you do not grasp. You fail to understand freedom. Free beer and free speech are quite different. > Here's many dozens of features, hundreds > if you include all the available scripts or understand the value in > authoring your own. <http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_User_Manual> Features > that any pro would pay all the money in the world for, in a heartbeat, but > it's only available for free on "amateur-priced" cameras. If they'd pay all the money in the world, they couuld simply BUY Canon, Nikon, and all the other camera makers and ORDER them to build a camera as they like it. Since that hasn't happened yet, obviously no pro would pay even the tiny amount of money in the world to own a top notch camera manufacturer. > Some of these > CHDK supported P&S "amateur-priced" cameras easily beating the images > coming from this year's "pro-priced" DSLR gear, with or without CHDK > installed. The G9 through G11 easily beating the image output from this > year's Canon 7D. Let's try them at ISO 3200. Let's try them where fast AF and fast shot series are needed. Let's try them where a reduced DOF is wanted. Fail, really Fail, and completely Fail. They don't beat anything, in the best of circumstances they might manage to just equal such gear. A 4x6 inch print from the cheapest lab with enforced autocorrection is going to hide all the faults of the P&S. > The SX1 through SX20 easily beating the image performance > of many introductory models of "pro gear". Ah, where did they beat the image performance of a 1D (of contemporary age) and L lenses in the hands of a capable photograph? > All of them beating the image output of all the professional-priced cameras > of only 3 to 5 years ago. We'll go shooting, you and I, you choose your G11 or SX20, I'll take my 20D (that's 6 years ago). The topics will be choosen by me: musicians playing in near darkness, to be captured with very little DOF, as in 'you can observe the tips of the eyelashes leaving the DOF while the pupil is perfectly in focus'. Expect ISO 6400 to 12800 at 1/120s and F/2.8 --- and worse. I've got f/1.4 glass, do you? > A pro of any walk in life from just the last > decade would have claimed he hit the motherload-of-all-cameras if he had > any one of these CHDK cameras in his hands. Each and every Powershot model > providing images far better than anything that any fellow "pro" could > purchase at any price at that time. You obviously never came into contact with large format cameras, nor even medium format cameras, and good film. > Are you starting to comprehend the ludicrous absurdity and contradictions > of anyone claiming they are buying a "professional-level" camera today? Any > camera declared as a "professional camera" just due to the price of it. > Any of you? Of course it's ludicrous to call a camera a pro camera *just* because of the price and independent of anything else, and to equate the expection of pro with exceptional image quality, and only that. That's why only YOU do it. The rest of the world knows the difference between a non-performing expensive camera and a performing expensive camera so well that they don't even think of non-performing ones. > I find solace throughout this blatant absurdity and hypocrisy with a simple > phrase, "Never underestimate the stupidity of humanity." Yep, and you take it to mean that everyone but you must be stupid. Which is proof of how apt the phrase is. -Wolfgang
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: Backlash against pro camera prices? Finally?? Next: Need w/a attachment for Canon A710IS |