Lack of refinement hurts entry-level DSLRs
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Neil Harrington on 22 Mar 2010 19:46 <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 -- 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. > If the D3000 took the same IQ shots as a more expensive model, why would > anyone buy the more expensive version of "the same thing"? The D3000 and the D5000 are not "the same thing." The D5000 has additional features such as an articulating LCD monitor and live view, and higher resolution. Such extras cost money. I bought my D3000 because I didn't want those extras in a small-body Nikon, though I may in a higher level model. > In film bodies the higher end models have a better viewfinder, better > metering etc too. I agree that with film cameras, they had a harder time > dumbing down cheaper models IQ when used with the same optics, yet another > reason the manufactures struck gold with digital cameras. 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.
From: RichA on 22 Mar 2010 21:14 On Mar 22, 1:04 pm, "Neil Harrington" <ne...(a)home.com> wrote: > "RichA" <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:eeac76d5-8335-4579-a6ac-2dfc7c264ccd(a)33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > > > 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. > > But $699 then was more money than $699 is now, of course. > > I recently added a D3000 to my Nikon collection and really like the little > guy a lot. I haven't done any high-ISO shooting with it and don't have a > D5000 anyway so I can't make that comparison. But its image quality is great > in the shooting I've done with it so far. I like these small-body Nikons a > lot, and this is my third -- I have the D40 and D60 also. While they don't > have all the features of my larger Nikons there are many times when I don't > need those capabilities and really appreciate their compactness and light > weight. > > Thank heaven for polycarbonate, Rich! ;-) A polycarbonate Canon T50 cost $140 for the body. An all-metal Olympus OM-1n cost $263.00. A Nikon FM (metal) cost $350.00. You get what you pay for.
From: Robert Coe on 22 Mar 2010 22:35 On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:04:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> 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. Contact us again when you've read the FM for your new A900. Bob
From: Ray Fischer on 23 Mar 2010 02:05 RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Mar 22, 1:04�pm, "Neil Harrington" <ne...(a)home.com> wrote: >> "RichA" <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:eeac76d5-8335-4579-a6ac-2dfc7c264ccd(a)33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... >> >> > 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. >> >> But $699 then was more money than $699 is now, of course. >> >> I recently added a D3000 to my Nikon collection and really like the little >> guy a lot. I haven't done any high-ISO shooting with it and don't have a >> D5000 anyway so I can't make that comparison. But its image quality is great >> in the shooting I've done with it so far. I like these small-body Nikons a >> lot, and this is my third -- I have the D40 and D60 also. While they don't >> have all the features of my larger Nikons there are many times when I don't >> need those capabilities and really appreciate their compactness and light >> weight. >> >> Thank heaven for polycarbonate, Rich! � ;-) > >A polycarbonate Canon T50 cost $140 for the body. An all-metal >Olympus OM-1n cost $263.00. A Nikon FM (metal) cost $350.00. You get >what you pay for. So if you spend $3000 for a Sony SLR instead of $40,000 for a medium format camera then you're obviously just being cheap. Right? -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: stephe_k on 24 Mar 2010 02:00
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? And yes this is true of DSLR's too. Because the marketing people told them to do this. Stephanie |