Lack of refinement hurts entry-level DSLRs
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Savageduck on 27 Mar 2010 16:46 On 2010-03-27 11:57:37 -0700, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> said: > <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hojtnv$g8b$1(a)news.albasani.net... > >> >> And back to the thread topic, nasa decided the "feature set" not rockwell :-) >> > > Yes and consumer demand determines the feature set, at a pricing point. > It's part of the job of marketing to determine the demand and pricing > points. It's part of the job of engineering and cost accounting to > determine if the product can be profitably produced at the demand > pricing point. > > A Bentley would sell a lot more vehicles if they lowered the pricing point. > Salt used to be the classic example of a commodity with an inelastic > demand. Now some gourmet food companies have come up with the concept > of sea salt to be ground in a salt grinder at the table. That is a > similar product with a highly elastic demand. When you understand this, > you may respond with a meaningful comment. I can remember when Bentley was Rolls Royce's ...er "lesser" 1930's taken over line. That was before the 1998 split and sale to VW & BMW. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Peter on 27 Mar 2010 17:51 "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2010032713465219336-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2010-03-27 11:57:37 -0700, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> said: > >> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:hojtnv$g8b$1(a)news.albasani.net... >> >>> >>> And back to the thread topic, nasa decided the "feature set" not >>> rockwell :-) >>> >> >> Yes and consumer demand determines the feature set, at a pricing point. >> It's part of the job of marketing to determine the demand and pricing >> points. It's part of the job of engineering and cost accounting to >> determine if the product can be profitably produced at the demand pricing >> point. >> >> A Bentley would sell a lot more vehicles if they lowered the pricing >> point. >> Salt used to be the classic example of a commodity with an inelastic >> demand. Now some gourmet food companies have come up with the concept of >> sea salt to be ground in a salt grinder at the table. That is a similar >> product with a highly elastic demand. When you understand this, you may >> respond with a meaningful comment. > > I can remember when Bentley was Rolls Royce's ...er "lesser" 1930's taken > over line. That was before the 1998 split and sale to VW & BMW. > IIRC the Bentley and Rolls were identical, except for the logo. The Bentley was about 10% lower in price. -- Peter
From: Robert Coe on 27 Mar 2010 18:31 On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:00:17 -0400, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: : Neil Harrington wrote: : > <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ho72pc$96n$1(a)news.albasani.net... : >> RichA wrote: : >>> Pentax's KX suffers from strong mirror slap that blurs images at some : >>> shutter speeds. I.S. cannot compensate for it. The K7 (higher-end : >>> model) has dampening. Nikon's D3000 is seriously noisy at high ISOs. : >>> The D5000 (model above) is much better. For $699 or so, you can't : >>> expect miracles, but I remember that $699 would buy a pretty decent : >>> film body, that didn't have drawbacks and could shoot images (unless : >>> they needed a 5fps motor drive) on-par with pro bodies since film was : >>> film. : >> : >> Not shocking since the marketing people "design" most things today. : > : > That's overstating the case. Cameras today are better than ever, and it's : > because of the people designing them -- not "marketing people." Of course : > the people in marketing have some input as to product, but I'm sure this is : > mostly with respect to P&S models -- : : If this was true, why have people been about to create "hacked" firmware : that unlocks features that are hardwired into the camera? And yes this : is true of DSLR's too. Because the marketing people told them to do this. Or because the manufacturer uses a generic firmware pattern for all its cameras and programs out the features that don't work correctly, or haven't been adequately tested, on any given model. If you want to install a firmware hack that brings a bunch of those features to life, that's fine, because the manufacturer doesn't have to stand behind them if they don't work as advertised. Bob
From: Ted Banks on 27 Mar 2010 18:53 On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 14:15:57 -0400, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: ><stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hoj778$fg6$1(a)news.albasani.net... > >> >> Did you even bother to read to context of this tread? It was about them >> DISABLING features a lower price camera that already has the capabilities >> of in hardware, to entice the consumer to purchase a more expensive model >> that they have enabled said feature on. Where did you figure this >> "violates the laws of physics" disabling hardware using the firmware? They >> seem to be able to do this quite easily. >> > >Nope. It's called lowering production and inventory costs. Much less >expensive to put in the additional features and disable them in lower priced >models. Well Brainiac, please explain how that works. The lower-priced crippled units should actually cost more than the higher-priced units because they require an additional step of a programmer's time to disable features that were in the firmware code in first place. Then add in the time needed to debug it to make sure everything else works when you disable those features. It also takes time to edit any documentation originally authored for all the features on that particular camera platform to remove any mention of those features from manuals and advertising. That's the only cost issues involved before shipment. It costs more in time and effort to disable a pre-existing feature (covering up one's tracks), therefore the crippled camera should cost more. Q: If it doesn't cost anything more to put those features into the higher-priced units than the lower-priced unit, then why do they have the higher price? Because the average consumer and people like you are fools? A: Yes.
From: Peter on 27 Mar 2010 21:28
"Ted Banks" <email(a)email.com> wrote in message news:no1tq592odb1f1pemo2op44ugrh1oj41ia(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 14:15:57 -0400, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> > wrote: > >><stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>news:hoj778$fg6$1(a)news.albasani.net... >> >>> >>> Did you even bother to read to context of this tread? It was about them >>> DISABLING features a lower price camera that already has the >>> capabilities >>> of in hardware, to entice the consumer to purchase a more expensive >>> model >>> that they have enabled said feature on. Where did you figure this >>> "violates the laws of physics" disabling hardware using the firmware? >>> They >>> seem to be able to do this quite easily. >>> >> >>Nope. It's called lowering production and inventory costs. Much less >>expensive to put in the additional features and disable them in lower >>priced >>models. > > Well Brainiac, please explain how that works. > > The lower-priced crippled units should actually cost more than the > higher-priced units because they require an additional step of a > programmer's time to disable features that were in the firmware code in > first place. Then add in the time needed to debug it to make sure > everything else works when you disable those features. It also takes time > to edit any documentation originally authored for all the features on that > particular camera platform to remove any mention of those features from > manuals and advertising. That's the only cost issues involved before > shipment. It costs more in time and effort to disable a pre-existing > feature (covering up one's tracks), therefore the crippled camera should > cost more. > > Q: If it doesn't cost anything more to put those features into the > higher-priced units than the lower-priced unit, then why do they have the > higher price? Because the average consumer and people like you are fools? > > A: Yes. > If you know how to read, start here. http://www.amazon.com/Cost-Accounting-Managerial-Charles-Horngren/dp/0131495380 -- Peter |