Prev: Two Nikon lenses, 70-200mm/16-85mm used at opposite extremes
Next: How to get dust off film for scanning.
From: Rich on 5 Jun 2010 18:41
The metal bodied one, or the plastic? Which will triumph?
From: Bruce on 5 Jun 2010 19:33
On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 17:41:15 -0500, Rich <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>The metal bodied one, or the plastic? Which will triumph?


The cheaper one will sell more. The more expensive one will be more
profitable, because it will carry a greater profit margin that will
make up for the lower unit sales.

If the lenses were better, I could see myself buying an NEX5 to
replace the Panasonic Lumix GF1. The NEX lenses are the weak point of
the system - for now.

From: RichA on 6 Jun 2010 04:56
On Jun 5, 7:33 pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 17:41:15 -0500, Rich <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >The metal bodied one, or the plastic?  Which will triumph?
>
> The cheaper one will sell more.  The more expensive one will be more
> profitable, because it will carry a greater profit margin that will
> make up for the lower unit sales.
>
> If the lenses were better, I could see myself buying an NEX5 to
> replace the Panasonic Lumix GF1.  The NEX lenses are the weak point of
> the system - for now.

I still might, and outfit it with adapters and conventional lenses.
The camera itself has possibilities.
From: Bruce on 6 Jun 2010 12:32
On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 01:56:17 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Jun 5, 7:33�pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 17:41:15 -0500, Rich <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The metal bodied one, or the plastic? �Which will triumph?
>>
>> The cheaper one will sell more. �The more expensive one will be more
>> profitable, because it will carry a greater profit margin that will
>> make up for the lower unit sales.
>>
>> If the lenses were better, I could see myself buying an NEX5 to
>> replace the Panasonic Lumix GF1. �The NEX lenses are the weak point of
>> the system - for now.
>
>I still might, and outfit it with adapters and conventional lenses.
>The camera itself has possibilities.


With conventional lenses on the NEX, there is no AF, and no focus
confirmation. Plus, it won't be easy to focus manually using that
screen, especially with fast lenses. So I won't be buying one for
now, and I will probably wait until Sony (or an independent brand)
produces some better lenses. When the best lens in the range is the
18-55mm kit zoom, you realise that Sony has problems to solve.

Also, I have heard a rumour from a usually reliable source that Sony
has designed, and is developing, a successor to the DSC-R1.

My two R1s have been excellent workhorses. They have been totally
reliable and the 24-120mm (equivalent) Carl Zeiss lens is excellent.
It performs far better than both versions of the 24-120mm and 24-85mm
AF Nikkors and is almost as good as the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS,
although the latter has the advantage of in-lens anti-shake.

If Sony can build a 14.2 MP DSC-R2 with the NEX sensor and a 5X (or
moreX) zoom of equivalent quality with in-lens anti-shake, I will
happily buy two for my construction and real estate work.

From: SMS on 6 Jun 2010 12:40
On 06/06/10 9:32 AM, Bruce wrote:

> Also, I have heard a rumour from a usually reliable source that Sony
> has designed, and is developing, a successor to the DSC-R1.

An successor to the R1 would be a wonderful ZLR with its APS-C sized sensor.

The NEX system was a good idea, but the execution was poor, and it will
likely fail.
 |  Next  |  Last
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.