Lack of refinement hurts entry-level DSLRs
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Neil Harrington on 30 Mar 2010 16:27 "John Turco" <jtur(a)concentric.net> wrote in message news:4BB063A6.6E3556D1(a)concentric.net... > Neil Harrington wrote: > > <heavily edited for brevity> > >> Take for example Kodak (American) 35mm cameras of the '40s and '50s. The >> big >> sellers were the Pony and Signet models made mostly of sheet metal and >> plastic. You can say those cameras were the result of decisions by the >> "marketing people" and you'd probably be right. > > <edited> > > Hey, don't knock Kodak's pretty Pony! I own a mint 135 model (35mm; circa > 1955) > and used it once or twice, in the mid-1980's. > > Sweet, little Bakelite-and-metal camera, with a silky-smooth shutter and > sharp, > Kodak "Anaston" coated lens. Yes, a friend of mine had one about that time and she was happy with it. Googling just now I see I was wrong about the Signet -- that wasn't sheet metal as I thought, though my recollection from the time is that it LOOKED sort of sheet metally. I have a Kodak Stereo which is Bakelite and sheet metal. Mine is mint except for a small ding in the sheet metal top deck. Still works perfectly, though I haven't done anything with it in several years. I guess I'll put it up on eBay before film disappears altogether. :-/
From: Neil Harrington on 30 Mar 2010 16:37 "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" <noone(a)nospam.com> wrote in message news:hostuf$hca$1(a)mouse.otenet.gr... > > ? "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> ?????? ??? ?????? > news:hom7up04pf(a)news7.newsguy.com... >> >> Then there's the Electra, that was produced for 5 years, ending in 1961 >> with 150 built. Then Lockheed put hard points and a torpedo bay on it >> and filled it with electronics and sold another 750 of them to the >> various navies of the world--it's still in production almost 50 years >> later. > That means nothing, the .50 BMG is still in production after a whole > century, with the original Browning's design. I don't think quite a century -- they didn't have .50s in WW I as far as I know. I believe it was developed around 1920 primarily as an aircraft MG. But the .45 automatic will be a century old next year. Now that's a milestone!
From: Neil Harrington on 30 Mar 2010 16:47 "Toxic" <staring(a)my_hd.tv> wrote in message news:pan.2010.03.30.20.42.21(a)cdc.gov... > Neil Harrington wrote: >> >>Googling just now I see I was wrong about the Signet -- that wasn't > sheet >>metal as I thought, though my recollection from the time is that it > LOOKED >>sort of sheet metally. > > I have a signet as well and it looks like cast pot metal. That's probably about right.
From: stephe_k on 31 Mar 2010 00:14 tony cooper wrote: > On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 03:13:11 -0400, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" > <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> Yeah that sounds like a big profit item for chevy.. *rolls eyes* >> > Your claim was that Corvette was not a profitable car in the 50s and > 60s. You support this claim by citing information about the small > amount of profit outlook in 2008. You do understand that there have > been some changes in the marketplace in 40 years, don't you? > > You missed the post about the 1950's? They were in production for 6 years before they even started to make ANY profit. Why do you think the corvettes in the 1960's were limited production? Because it was a high profit car they didn't want to make money on? They limited the production because it wasn't a profitable car, especially the ultra high perf models. And if you READ the post they say "and has a very small margin of profit" for even the 2008 models. If they made this small a margin on all their cars, they would go broke. But you don't seem to want to actually read what I post... :-) Stephanie
From: stephe_k on 31 Mar 2010 00:27
Savageduck wrote: > On 2010-03-30 05:48:38 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> > said: > >> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 03:13:11 -0400, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" >> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: >>>> stephe_k(a)yahoo.com <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> In the 50's/60's a corvette was NOT a profitable car, it was to sell >>>>> their other products. The same for those Acura NSX and the toyota >>>>> Supra. >>>>> Those were all to show their engineering expertise not to make money >>>>> selling that specific model. >>>> >>>> Provide proof they lost money. >>>> >>>> -Wolfgang >>> >>> http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/corvette/history.html >>> >>> "Garish or not, the '58 Corvette was a hit and Chevy built 9,168 >>> examples. For the first time, say some sources, GM made a profit with >>> the Corvette." >>> >>> http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Corvette/156760 >>> >>> "The Chevrolet Corvette is GM�s highest quality car, costs more than >>> $50,000, and has a very small margin of profit. With such a large >>> financial loss in 2007, GM can no longer afford the small profit margin >>> and declining sales on such a high priced product." >>> >>> >>> Yeah that sounds like a big profit item for chevy.. *rolls eyes* >>> >> Your claim was that Corvette was not a profitable car in the 50s and >> 60s. You support this claim by citing information about the small >> amount of profit outlook in 2008. You do understand that there have >> been some changes in the marketplace in 40 years, don't you? > > Not only that, oppapers.com is hardly an authoritative automotive > industry analytical publication. It is a commercial source for term > papers for pseudo-students. Calling the Corvette "GM's highest quality > car" speaks to an ignorance of the Corvette and GM Divisions. Uh that was a GM spokesperson saying this. So I guess you know more than the spokesperson for GM? "General Motors (GM) Spokesman John McDonald said"... > The Corvette has never been a mass market car. There are few automotive > products which become profitable during their launch years. The 1953 > Harley Earl Corvette prototype was a concept show car, and due to > response was brought to production within 6 months. And I suppose a concept car isn't a marketing thing either.. Or putting said concept car into the showroom. > > The Corvette in its many versions through its development remains a > desired niche market, American performance car with limited production. > That limited production has brought high prices and good profit margins > for the entire line over the last 25 years, regardless of the vagaries > of the economy. Maybe -YOU- can back up this claim of "good profit margins"? In one paragraph you discount 2008 information as "changes in the marketplace", but then here say that this is a money maker "regardless of the vagaries of the economy." So which is it? > GM has benefitted by using the Corvette developed engines in other > models such as Cadillacs and Camaros. And claiming these cars had a "corvette engine" I'm sure wasn't ever used for marketing them. > > As far as being GM's "highest quality car" the Cadillac Division would > probably argue the point. And we should expect the Cadillac guys to say their rivals do have a higher quality product? Again my quote was from a GM spokesperson, not that publication. So lets see your information on the Corvette being a big profit item for GM and not just a showcase for their technology as I believe it has been. Stephanie |