Prev: Movado Certa Ladies Watch 0605616
Next: Here Comes the 3-D Camera: Revolutionary Prototype Films World in Three Dimensions
From: nospam on 13 May 2010 10:58
In article <h82dncGa3aDwjXHWnZ2dnUVZ8kGdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, GM1925
<abc(a)xyz.co.me> wrote:

> If that's the market they are going after, then surely they would have
> developed a greater range of decent prime lenses prior to launch? It
> strikes me as they are not really sure where they are going with this.

i'm sure they have more lenses planned. it was *just* announced,
certainly you dont' expect a full suite of lenses like what canon or
nikon has, do you? you can also use existing lenses with an adapter.

> At the moment, they are not competing with SLR's, they are not competing
> with P&S's, they are not competing with camera phones and they are not
> competing with Leica M-Series.

it's a new category. it has the advantages of an slr (bigger sensor)
but the size of a p&s. it is big if you stick a huge lens on the front,
but at least you *can* if it's needed, and without fussing with screw
on adapters that aren't very good quality.

> Maybe they know something I don't?

looks that way. the micro 4/3rds versions have been very big sellers.
From: David J Taylor on 13 May 2010 11:08
"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:valnu5148qt9gvdvos440jnakj46q7kor5(a)4ax.com...
[]
> But there is another factor, which may be even more significant.
>
> Sony's target market for the NEX is owners of compact P&S cameras who
> want to trade up to something with better image quality. The large
> sensor will give them that, together with greater creative control
> over depth of field.
>
> But wait a minute ... owners of compact P&S cameras who want to trade
> up will not consider restricted depth of field to be a plus point.
>
> The small sensors of their previous P&S cameras will have given them
> virtually unlimited depth of field. Even shots where the camera
> focused on something other than the subject are likely to have given
> them sharp results.
>
> Move these people to a NEX camera and focus accuracy suddenly becomes
> more critical. They won't be accustomed to that.
>
> Yesterday I was in a camera store where a young woman was complaining
> loudly about the quality of photos she had taken at a friend's
> wedding. Some of the prints were horribly out of focus. The sales
> assistant pointed out that the out of focus images all had a hedge in
> the background that was perfectly sharp, but the people in the
> foreground were blurred.
>
> The customer was outraged. She was very angry that the camera had
> delivered such poor quality images - her composition had been good and
> the lighting was near perfect. She had bought the camera from the
> same store just prior to the wedding and demanded a refund!
>
> There is the problem.
>
> The camera was a Panasonic Lumix G1 in a particularly fetching red. I
> don't know if she got her refund - I left the store just as things
> were turning ugly. ;-)
>
> But this problem will get worse with the NEX range because correct
> focusing will be even more critical than with 4/3. People who have
> been used to never having to worry about focusing with their P&S
> cameras are going to complain bitterly about their expensive new
> camera which produces "blurry" images.
>
> The owners of the camera store where I bought my DSC-R1 (and then a
> second one a few months later) believe that its lack of sales success
> was down to the large (21.5 x 14.4mm, almost APS-C) sensor which gave
> limited depth of field especially when the Carl Zeiss lens was at or
> near its f/2.8 maximum aperture. Apparently, those who had traded up
> from the F828, which had a very tiny (8.8 x 6.6mm) sensor, complained
> bitterly about the "poor performance" of the R1's lens.
>
> Yet the R1's Carl Zeiss 24-120mm (equivalent) lens is spectacularly
> good. Any "poor performance" is down to users' failure to understand
> that it needs to be focused carefully and accurately. People who are
> used to the small sensors in P&S cameras that tolerate poor focusing
> technique simply don't know or understand this.
>
> And I think that will severely limit the appeal of the NEX.

I agree with you there, Bruce. Interesting that my wife (who I regard as
a good photographer, certainly better than me) gave the smaller depth of
field as the main reason for her moving from a (good quality) bridge
camera to DSLR....

Cheers,
David

From: J. Clarke on 13 May 2010 11:20
On 5/13/2010 10:16 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article<7fmdnfrpdalOlXHWnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, GM1925
> <abc(a)xyz.co.me> wrote:
>
>> If I need a bag to carry it, then why not just carry an SLR?
>
> because you don't necessarily need a bag (it's quite small with a
> pancake lens) and an slr is bigger and heavier.

Bigger yes, but not much heavier, thanks to that klunky low-tech metal body.

And that pancake lens is a 17mm. If that will do for you, fine. But
put a lens with a reasonable zoom range on it and it's no longer all
that small or all that light.

From: Paul Furman on 13 May 2010 12:47
J. Clarke wrote:
> On 5/13/2010 10:16 AM, nospam wrote:
>> In article<7fmdnfrpdalOlXHWnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, GM1925
>> <abc(a)xyz.co.me> wrote:
>>
>>> If I need a bag to carry it, then why not just carry an SLR?
>>
>> because you don't necessarily need a bag (it's quite small with a
>> pancake lens) and an slr is bigger and heavier.
>
> Bigger yes, but not much heavier, thanks to that klunky low-tech metal
> body.
>
> And that pancake lens is a 17mm. If that will do for you, fine. But
> put a lens with a reasonable zoom range on it and it's no longer all
> that small or all that light.

Seems like the old P&S film cameras only with the bonus of being able to
change lenses. Those had what a 40mm f/3.5 lens or something like that?
And little hole to look through for framing rather than the big mirror
box. People liked them, they fit in a purse, didn't cost much and for
basic shooting conditions, they used the same film as a fancy pro camera
so could produce the same quality image.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
From: Bruce on 13 May 2010 13:13
On Thu, 13 May 2010 16:08:25 +0100, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:valnu5148qt9gvdvos440jnakj46q7kor5(a)4ax.com...


<big snip>


>> And I think that will severely limit the appeal of the NEX.
>
>I agree with you there, Bruce. Interesting that my wife (who I regard as
>a good photographer, certainly better than me) gave the smaller depth of
>field as the main reason for her moving from a (good quality) bridge
>camera to DSLR....


For every person like your wife, there are probably a thousand who
would the prefer the far greater depth of field of small sensors.

I think the almost unlimited depth of field of small-sensor digital
cameras is probably the reason why so many people are happier with the
results they get from digital. Put simply, their pictures are nearly
always in focus.

With 35mm film, accurate focusing was essential because depth of field
was limited. And accurate focusing is beyond most people, who expect
to be able to point and shoot and get perfect results.

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Prev: Movado Certa Ladies Watch 0605616
Next: Here Comes the 3-D Camera: Revolutionary Prototype Films World in Three Dimensions