Olympus dalliance with DSLRs over?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: nospam on 25 May 2010 18:07 In article <862v3vF3ulU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > >> A camera system can be more sophisticated and capable, > >> with the extra function buried in on board electronics > >> and amortized over multiple lenses. > > > a lens system can be just as sophisticated and capable, if not more so, > > since it can be tuned to the specifics of each lens, not one size fits > > all. > > In body IS isn't one size fits all. yes it is > It reads the necessary parameters > from the lens, the most important being focal length, and adjusts > itself. sure but it's still the *same* system that has to cover everything from a super-wide to a super-tele and everything in between. the amount of sensor excursion to properly stabilize a super-telephoto is impossible, whereas each lens can be individually tuned, as needed.
From: Vance on 25 May 2010 18:39 On May 25, 9:46 am, Outing Trolls is FUN! <o...(a)trollouters.org> wrote: > On Tue, 25 May 2010 09:29:49 -0700, SMS <scharf.ste...(a)geemail.com> wrote: > >On 24/05/10 7:55 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote: > > >> But the IS in the Canon 70-200/4.0 IS is seriously amazing. Sharp images at > >> 1/15th (with a lot of care and elbows supported or locked) at 200mm, > >> reliably sharp images at 1/30 and 200mm. I doubt in-camera IS will be > >> competing, ever. And, of course, in-camera IS doesn't stabilize the > >> viewfinder image. > > >Yes, that's an incredible lens. > > >In-camera IS on D-SLRs (and other interchangeable lens cameras) is more > >cost effective, but has serious performance disadvantages, as all the > >experts agree. > > Point us to "all these experts" that agree to this. > > Oh that's right. You can't. They only exist in your imagination. Just like > that computer-controlled geyser that you helped to install in Yellowstone > Nat. Park on one of your imaginary trips. > > You really should quit. We all already know you're a delusional > pretend-photographer troll. You prove it with every post you ever make. Speaking of pretend photographers, I may have done you a disservice with the orange juice shot. You have never pretended that you knew a damn thing about lighting, being an all natural goodness nature type photographer of vast experience who can take any camera and produce tremendously attractive images - but only in available light. That makes sense. So, with that ability to judge the existing light and get the shot when it is appropriate and your fine sense of composition, let's see a good avialable light image out of you. Since this is rec.photo.digital, I've posted some of my 'happy snaps' for you Nothing special, just personal, recreational shots and only one not natural light. I like B&W, so I included a few for the hell of it. The bicyclist was shot with the popup flash and the guy in the Civil War uniform was a grab shot. What you got, Sparky? Lieing's not allowed. You do it so much better than me that it wouldn't be fair. http://picasaweb.google.com/Vance.Lear/ForTrolls#slideshow/5475330339350251298 Vance
From: nospam on 25 May 2010 19:05 In article <4bfc55ae$0$1601$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > And as it turns out, they would have been better looking for other games > to play. Konica-Minolta, Olympus, and Pentax have been spectacularly > unsuccessful in digital SLRs. actually they've done ok. not terrific, but not as bad as contax, kodak, fuji and everyone's favourite poster-child of failure, sigma. it's amazing how much sigma is pouring into that sinkhole.
From: Peter on 25 May 2010 19:30 "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2010052321244916708-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > I have a D300s which replaced a stolen D300, which I was quite satisfied > with. I have a G11 which serves well as my compact spare. If I am going to > upgrade at this stage it would be to pick up a D700, or its successor. Yeahbut, the low high ISO noise of the D3s........... No, I will wait for at least one year. -- Peter
From: J. Clarke on 25 May 2010 19:46
On 5/25/2010 7:05 PM, nospam wrote: > In article<4bfc55ae$0$1601$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS > <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > >> And as it turns out, they would have been better looking for other games >> to play. Konica-Minolta, Olympus, and Pentax have been spectacularly >> unsuccessful in digital SLRs. > > actually they've done ok. not terrific, but not as bad as contax, > kodak, fuji and everyone's favourite poster-child of failure, sigma. > it's amazing how much sigma is pouring into that sinkhole. Olympus and Pentax may be doing OK, but Konica-Minolta doesn't exist as a camera company anymore--their product lines will continue to exist as long as Sony thinks that there's a hope of making a profit in that market and not a moment longer. |