Prev: Two Nikon lenses, 70-200mm/16-85mm used at opposite extremes
Next: How to get dust off film for scanning.
From: SMS on 7 Jun 2010 08:36
On 07/06/10 5:26 AM, dj_nme wrote:

> Every other new system has lived (or died) depending on what the lenses
> are like.
> It's a shame that Sony seems to have forgotten this.

Consumers got tired of sub-standard "new systems" a long time ago,
witness the various attempts to create smaller, "foolproof" alternatives
to 35mm film (126, 110, Disc, APS), and the whole 4/3 debacle.
From: dj_nme on 7 Jun 2010 10:14
SMS wrote:
> On 07/06/10 5:26 AM, dj_nme wrote:
>
>> Every other new system has lived (or died) depending on what the lenses
>> are like.
>> It's a shame that Sony seems to have forgotten this.
>
> Consumers got tired of sub-standard "new systems" a long time ago,
> witness the various attempts to create smaller, "foolproof" alternatives
> to 35mm film (126, 110, Disc, APS), and the whole 4/3 debacle.

I agree totally.
Mostly these smaller systems seem to have been designed to gouge money
from unsuspecting consumers.
Especially the 35mm film alternatives you listed, which made the film
much more expensive and in the case of Disc film, totally shunned by the
infrastructure (main-street, consumer photolabs) that was supposed to
process it for the consumer (many of the photolabs sent it off to Kodak
for processing).
From: SMS on 7 Jun 2010 12:28
On 07/06/10 7:14 AM, dj_nme wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>> On 07/06/10 5:26 AM, dj_nme wrote:
>>
>>> Every other new system has lived (or died) depending on what the lenses
>>> are like.
>>> It's a shame that Sony seems to have forgotten this.
>>
>> Consumers got tired of sub-standard "new systems" a long time ago,
>> witness the various attempts to create smaller, "foolproof"
>> alternatives to 35mm film (126, 110, Disc, APS), and the whole 4/3
>> debacle.
>
> I agree totally.
> Mostly these smaller systems seem to have been designed to gouge money
> from unsuspecting consumers.

<snip>

The various attempts to create a P&S camera "almost as good as a D-SLR"
continue this trend of selling products mostly to people that don't
understand the limitations.

You've got many people buying ZLR P&S cameras based on megapixels, LCD
size, and lens range, who are then surprised and upset that the problems
they had with their smaller P&S cameras are still there (noise, AF lag,
CA, etc). And to be fair you've got other buyers of ZLR cameras that are
well aware of the limitations but the advantages (mainly cost) outweigh
the limitations.

Some people will say that "unsuspecting consumers" are the legal prey of
these companies, but in reality it should not be necessary to become
knowledgeable about pixel dimensions, focusing technology, and optics to
avoid buying poorly designed products.

Fortunately, the "unsuspecting consumer" is unlikely to make the same
mistake twice, and when they are totally exasperated with the ZLR
they'll go buy a D-SLR and give the ZLR away or sell it to the next victim.

When someone asks me to take their picture with their P&S camera, it's
usually outside, and I always make a point of saying something like "I
can't find the viewfinder" just to see their reaction. Invariably it's
something like "I didn't realize that it didn't have one when I bought
this camera, I won't make that mistake again."
From: Neil on 8 Jun 2010 04:00
On 07/06/2010 15:55, LOL! wrote:

>
> Buying into a DSLR is like charging you $10,000 for a car but
> $10,000-$500,000 per tire. Talk about the "unsuspecting consumer"!

>

Why are you quoting a price for a lens that is not in the current lists?
It is in the historic list to special order.

Neil
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Two Nikon lenses, 70-200mm/16-85mm used at opposite extremes
Next: How to get dust off film for scanning.