Prev: 4/3rds fixed 3x zoom lens camera coming
Next: It's been a slice...
From: Rich on 1 Jul 2010 17:45
bugbear <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in
news:m4CdnTk6EtL0ZrfRnZ2dnUVZ8oudnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk:

> RichA wrote:
>> The Pentax KX has some great image attributes, but its build quality
>> is toy-like.
>
> What FUNCTIONAL problems have been observed?
>
> BugBear
>

Shutter/mirror slap blur that the in-body I.S. can't deal with. I'm sure
there are some other quality issues, but what really turned me off was that
the battery door (AA's!!!) felt like it would snap off with the slightest
pressure.
From: Robert Coe on 3 Jul 2010 11:26
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 19:34:09 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:
: On Jun 29, 6:11�pm, John Navas <jn...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
: > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:40:28 -0700 (PDT), in
: > <36c0881d-810e-4c83-b719-27fce90d1...(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
: >
: > RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
: > >The Pentax KX has some great image attributes, but its build quality
: > >is toy-like. �The Panasonic G2 is a horrible cost-cutting exercise,
: > >production shifted from Japan to China, kit lens debilitated, overall
: > >feel is cheaper than the excellent G1. �Olympus even discontinued an
: > >MMF-1 4/3rs to m4/3rds adapter for the MMF-2, which is cheaper and has
: > >a lot more plastic. �Plus, the E-PL1 is a cheap, plastic m4/3rds
: > >offering.
: >
: > There's nothing inherently wrong with plastic, often just the opposite,
: > witness the Boeing Dreamliner.
: >
:
: Theoretical discussions about plastic's integrity aside, the net
: result of cost-cutting in the lesser brands is to further lower them
: compared to the two top brands resulting in the two top brands become
: even more popular than they are now, if that's possible.

As long as it doesn't degenerate to just one brand, we're probably OK. The
competition between Canon and Nikon benefits the users of both brands, and the
two have been effectively ignoring the lesser fish for quite some time.

That's not to say that other strong competitors would necessarily be unwelcome
(as long as they didn't destabilize the Nikon-Canon competition). It's just
that we can probably live without them.

Bob
From: John Navas on 3 Jul 2010 11:33
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 11:26:43 -0400, in
<valu261he3btg7pqacr5pv4fen1ep2pu5i(a)4ax.com>, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM>
wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 19:34:09 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>: Theoretical discussions about plastic's integrity aside, the net
>: result of cost-cutting in the lesser brands is to further lower them
>: compared to the two top brands resulting in the two top brands become
>: even more popular than they are now, if that's possible.
>
>As long as it doesn't degenerate to just one brand, we're probably OK. The
>competition between Canon and Nikon benefits the users of both brands, and the
>two have been effectively ignoring the lesser fish for quite some time.

In dSLR cameras, perhaps, although I personally don't think so, but
certainly not in compact cameras.

>That's not to say that other strong competitors would necessarily be unwelcome
>(as long as they didn't destabilize the Nikon-Canon competition). It's just
>that we can probably live without them.

I repectfully disagree.

--
Best regards,
John

Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: 4/3rds fixed 3x zoom lens camera coming
Next: It's been a slice...