Fuji SLR forum on Dpreview is dying
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: I bet no one knows enough to answer THIS question... !
Next: I've read about "adaptive optics" as used by the US military,intelligence agencies, etc in satellite imagery, but what about using opticsto correct out of focus pictures? Is this possible?
From: Outing DSLR-Trolls is FUN! on 17 Jul 2010 01:10 On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:55:54 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 16, 7:28�pm, Outing DSLR-Trolls is FUN! <od...(a)trollouters.org> >wrote: >> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:45:44 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3...(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Jul 15, 6:38�pm, Me <u...(a)domain.invalid> wrote: >> >> On 15/07/2010 3:05 p.m., RichA wrote: >> >> >> > Front page messages stretch back 2 weeks. �Used to encompass only a >> >> > couple hours like current, more robust forums. �Pretty soon, like the >> >> > Kodak SLR forum. �Time for Fuji to step-up and produce some kind of >> >> > changeable lens camera. >> >> >> Fujifilm is about 3x the size (revenue) of Nikon, almost as large as Canon. >> >> In the end, perhaps they've observed from their activities in all areas, >> >> that in many cases market players in position #1 and #2 can make good >> >> money, and in position #3 and less, you end up selling on price, or if >> >> you're lucky, cater to a small niche with low volume but good margins, >> >> always at risk that a major player would one day decide to attack and >> >> take that niche position. >> >> If they've guessed the cost of Sony's attempt to get to #2, looked at >> >> the success of that investment, then they can probably find better areas >> >> in which to invest. >> >> IIRC they're still working on "organic CMOS" sensor technology. >> >> >Then why stay in the field at all? �Why keep making hulking plastic >> >superzoom P&S's that the DSLR has just about killed off? >> >> <http://dpreview.com/reviews/q110superzoomgroup/> >> >> "Compact Camera Group Test: >> SLR-like 'super zoom' cameras >> >> It's now more than a year since we published our last superzoom group test >> and despite the hype surrounding mirrorless system cameras such as Micro >> Four Thirds or the Sony NEX, and the fact that entry level DSLRs are >> becoming more and more affordable, superzoom cameras are as popular with >> consumers as ever. It is easy to see why. The combination of a large zoom >> range from wideangle to super telephoto, DSLR-like ergonomics and an >> attractive price point guarantee that these cameras appeal to a very broad >> audience." >> >> [note that the derogatory "P&S" term is not used, a term first popularized >> by insecure DSLR-Trolls on USENET.] > >As long as the cameras have a flash set on automatic. I know those >baseball stadiums get a bit dark at night. As long as you knew anything at all about the cameras that you incessantly lie about. Many of them cannot fire the flash unless it is manually opened. How many of those flashes going off in a stadium are owned by DSLR owners as ridiculously stupid as you are? They have the same built-in flash systems as all compact and superzoom cameras. Judging by the quality of intellect that promotes DSLRs, I'd say most of the flashes going off in stadiums are coming from idiot DSLR owners as fuckingly dumb as yourself.
From: Bruce on 17 Jul 2010 04:03 On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:45:44 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Then why stay in the field at all? Why keep making hulking plastic >superzoom P&S's that the DSLR has just about killed off? Because they sell well and are profitable. And they haven't been "killed off" by anything.
From: SMS on 17 Jul 2010 08:50 On 16/07/10 3:45 PM, Rich wrote: > Then why stay in the field at all? Why keep making hulking plastic > superzoom P&S's that the DSLR has just about killed off? The superzooms are highly profitable. The manufacturing cost is very low. For D-SLRs they're making big money on lenses and accessories, but the cameras are more costly to manufacturer with the larger sensors, lens mounts, mirrors, optical viewfinders, and shutters. The person who chooses a relatively large superzoom over a relatively lard D-SLR typically does not understand anything about the physics of sensors, optics, focusing systems, dynamic range, viewfinders, or photography in general, and they don't want to learn either. They may be disappointed with their equipment in terms of lag times and low light performance, but they don't understand the reasons that they're disappointed, and they've spent a lot less money than a D-SLR buyer. Our favorite troll is ample proof of this. As one Reagan official said (at the time Reagan was trying to get rid of the Consumer Products Safety Commission), 'Imperfect products should be available because consumers have different preferences for defect avoidance.'
From: Rich on 17 Jul 2010 09:51 On Jul 17, 8:50 am, SMS <scharf.ste...(a)geemail.com> wrote: > On 16/07/10 3:45 PM, Rich wrote: > > > Then why stay in the field at all? Why keep making hulking plastic > > superzoom P&S's that the DSLR has just about killed off? > > The superzooms are highly profitable. The manufacturing cost is very > low. For D-SLRs they're making big money on lenses and accessories, but > the cameras are more costly to manufacturer with the larger sensors, > lens mounts, mirrors, optical viewfinders, and shutters. > > The person who chooses a relatively large superzoom over a relatively > lard D-SLR typically does not understand anything about the physics of > sensors, optics, focusing systems, dynamic range, viewfinders, or > photography in general, and they don't want to learn either. They may be > disappointed with their equipment in terms of lag times and low light > performance, but they don't understand the reasons that they're > disappointed, and they've spent a lot less money than a D-SLR buyer. Our > favorite troll is ample proof of this. We don't know about how profitable they are. Assembly is probably the single most costly part of a camera today (aside from perhaps the sensor and prism in a DSLR) and it seems to be a superzoom P&S might cost even more than a DSLR to assemble. > As one Reagan official said (at the time Reagan was trying to get rid of > the Consumer Products Safety Commission), 'Imperfect products should be > available because consumers have different preferences for defect > avoidance.' With Walmart and the Chinese, you have all the inferior, defective products you can handle. And you buy them willingly.
From: Rich on 17 Jul 2010 17:24
Outing DSLR-Trolls is FUN! <odtif(a)trollouters.org> wrote in news:lhe24615rqcra7o6i23m2ef3ekbkipa671(a)4ax.com: > On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:55:54 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>On Jul 16, 7:28�pm, Outing DSLR-Trolls is FUN! <od...(a)trollouters.org> >>wrote: >>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:45:44 -0700 (PDT), Rich >>> <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >On Jul 15, 6:38�pm, Me <u...(a)domain.invalid> wrote: >>> >> On 15/07/2010 3:05 p.m., RichA wrote: >>> >>> >> > Front page messages stretch back 2 weeks. �Used to encompass >>> >> > only a couple hours like current, more robust forums. �Pretty >>> >> > soon, like the Kodak SLR forum. �Time for Fuji to step-up and >>> >> > produce some kind of changeable lens camera. >>> >>> >> Fujifilm is about 3x the size (revenue) of Nikon, almost as large >>> >> as Canon. In the end, perhaps they've observed from their >>> >> activities in all areas, that in many cases market players in >>> >> position #1 and #2 can make good money, and in position #3 and >>> >> less, you end up selling on price, or if you're lucky, cater to a >>> >> small niche with low volume but good margins, always at risk that >>> >> a major player would one day decide to attack and take that niche >>> >> position. If they've guessed the cost of Sony's attempt to get to >>> >> #2, looked at the success of that investment, then they can >>> >> probably find better areas in which to invest. >>> >> IIRC they're still working on "organic CMOS" sensor technology. >>> >>> >Then why stay in the field at all? �Why keep making hulking plastic >>> >superzoom P&S's that the DSLR has just about killed off? >>> >>> <http://dpreview.com/reviews/q110superzoomgroup/> >>> >>> "Compact Camera Group Test: >>> SLR-like 'super zoom' cameras >>> >>> It's now more than a year since we published our last superzoom >>> group test and despite the hype surrounding mirrorless system >>> cameras such as Micro Four Thirds or the Sony NEX, and the fact that >>> entry level DSLRs are becoming more and more affordable, superzoom >>> cameras are as popular with consumers as ever. It is easy to see >>> why. The combination of a large zoom range from wideangle to super >>> telephoto, DSLR-like ergonomics and an attractive price point >>> guarantee that these cameras appeal to a very broad audience." >>> >>> [note that the derogatory "P&S" term is not used, a term first >>> popularized by insecure DSLR-Trolls on USENET.] >> >>As long as the cameras have a flash set on automatic. I know those >>baseball stadiums get a bit dark at night. > > As long as you knew anything at all about the cameras that you > incessantly lie about. Many of them cannot fire the flash unless it is > manually opened. > > How many of those flashes going off in a stadium are owned by DSLR > owners as ridiculously stupid as you are? They have the same built-in > flash systems as all compact and superzoom cameras. Judging by the > quality of intellect that promotes DSLRs, I'd say most of the flashes > going off in stadiums are coming from idiot DSLR owners as fuckingly > dumb as yourself. Then you'd be wrong. Which isn't an altogether new experience for you. |