Lack of refinement hurts entry-level DSLRs
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Neil Harrington on 24 Mar 2010 09:55 <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hoc9q2$hlj$2(a)news.albasani.net... > 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? You may have a point there for all I know, I just don't know enough about how that works to comment on it. > And yes this is true of DSLR's too. Because the marketing people told them > to do this. How do you know this?
From: Laurence Payne on 24 Mar 2010 10:16 On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:55:36 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote: >> If this was true, why have people been about to create "hacked" firmware >> that unlocks features that are hardwired into the camera? > >You may have a point there for all I know, I just don't know enough about >how that works to comment on it. > >> And yes this is true of DSLR's too. Because the marketing people told them >> to do this. > >How do you know this? Well, what do you want? A managed economy where committees decided what products were required and who they should be allocated to? Or a market economy where you stay afloat by selling at whatever price points the market wants and making appropriate product as economically as possible?
From: Chris H on 24 Mar 2010 10:16 In message <792dnb7wS-rBnDXWnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil Harrington <never(a)home.com> writes >> >> 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 -- especially with regard to the >nonsensical megapixel race. Any corporation is in business to make money, >and if consumers insist on buying useless megapixels that's what they'll >give them in P&S cameras. But DSLRs are certainly not designed by marketing >people. Actually they are designed by engineers to a specification drawn up my marketing people. The specifications are also worked out by the strategists. >It's a highly competitive industry -- just look at all the once-popular >brands that have fallen by the wayside. The best brands survive and prosper, >but that's not easy to do. The "best brands"? I agree. Which is not always the best cameras. As you have illustrated the brands are devised by marketing and the cameras made by engineers. IT is the marketing people who direct the industry. The marketing people do however have to ask the Engineers what is possible (or probably) in the coming months and years. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Neil Harrington on 24 Mar 2010 11:48 "Laurence Payne" <lp(a)laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote in message news:be7kq514s9rh224kb6hg6h1sm5gbidc6tg(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:55:36 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> > wrote: > >>> If this was true, why have people been about to create "hacked" firmware >>> that unlocks features that are hardwired into the camera? >> >>You may have a point there for all I know, I just don't know enough about >>how that works to comment on it. >> >>> And yes this is true of DSLR's too. Because the marketing people told >>> them >>> to do this. >> >>How do you know this? > > > Well, what do you want? A managed economy where committees decided > what products were required and who they should be allocated to? Or a > market economy where you stay afloat by selling at whatever price > points the market wants and making appropriate product as economically > as possible? I have no idea why you're asking me this. Product prices are not decided by auction, you know. A company produces something and sets a price on it. If it sells at that price, the company prospers and produces more. If it doesn't sell, the company lowers the price and/or drops production. That *is* a market economy.
From: Neil Harrington on 24 Mar 2010 12:21
"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:oB6c2LJU7hqLFACK(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... > In message <792dnb7wS-rBnDXWnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil > Harrington <never(a)home.com> writes >>> >>> 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 -- especially with regard to the >>nonsensical megapixel race. Any corporation is in business to make money, >>and if consumers insist on buying useless megapixels that's what they'll >>give them in P&S cameras. But DSLRs are certainly not designed by >>marketing >>people. > > Actually they are designed by engineers to a specification drawn up my > marketing people. The specifications are also worked out by the > strategists. All of which seems reasonable and efficient to me in so far as it is true, but it's true only to a limited extent. Obviously the SLR did not appear because "marketing people" wanted it, or the focal plane shutter, or the pentaprism, or the zoom lens, and so on and so forth. Engineers and designers create products; marketing people do not. > >>It's a highly competitive industry -- just look at all the once-popular >>brands that have fallen by the wayside. The best brands survive and >>prosper, >>but that's not easy to do. > > The "best brands"? I agree. Which is not always the best cameras. As > you have illustrated the brands are devised by marketing and the cameras > made by engineers. IT is the marketing people who direct the industry. I don't see it as an either-or thing, but rather as an efficient system in which engineers, designers, production people and marketers work together to turn out a successful product in a very competitive field. Obviously marketing people are important to the process since the product does have to be marketed, and marketed profitably if the company is to prosper or even just survive. I've owned several brands which no longer exist, and they were good very cameras in their day. It's too bad they're gone, but such is life. There were a lot of good makes of automobile that are gone now, too. > > The marketing people do however have to ask the Engineers what is > possible (or probably) in the coming months and years. I think it's the other way around: technological breakthroughs and development come first; marketing comes later. |