Olympus dalliance with DSLRs over?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: John Navas on 25 May 2010 21:48 On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:38:40 +0900, "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote in <0eadneznStAx5mHWnZ2dnVY3goWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>: >"John Navas" <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message >news:s5uov5l528v2pqnnlnhv0smba57v4bq3d5(a)4ax.com... >> Not true, as I've already explained. > >Explanations are nice, but actual performance is what counts. Of course, but explanations assist the understanding . >> Photography is about photographs, not equipment. > >A good photographer uses his equipment to the best of its abilities, so it's >only incompetent photographers who aren't limited by their tools. No offense intended, but that's complete and total nonsense. -- Best regards, John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: nospam on 25 May 2010 22:06 In article <f76dnQoW4diV5mHWnZ2dnVY3go-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, David J. Littleboy <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote: > > that depends on the lens. for some, a stabilized version is not much > > more than a non-stabilized version. the canon 70-200 is $100 more than > > the sony 70-200 and the sony used to be more money, as i recall. > > Well, comparing to Sony isn't all that meaningful, since they're such a > small player prices are rather random. the comparison is: canon slr + canon 70-200mm f/2.8 stabilized, versus sony slr (with stabilization) + sony 70-200mm f/2.8 non-stabilized. at the end of the day, you have a camera with a stabilized 70-200mm lens and the price isn't that much of a difference. other factors matter more, like canon (or nikon) making much better cameras than sony. > For Canon users, the premium for IS is quite steep. They sweeten it up a bit > by giving you slightly better optics. (Well, usually: IMHO, the 24-105/4.0 > IS isn't sharp enough to justify the price and weight. Sigh.) it depends on the lens. look at nikon's 70-200 f/2.8 vr ii, it's a *lot* more expensive than the previous model. on the other hand, nikon's 55-200mm vr is something like 60-70 dollars more than the non-stabilized version and it's also a much better lens, optically (busting the myth that in-lens stabilization compromises optical quality).
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 25 May 2010 22:58 On Tue, 25 May 2010 15:39:48 -0700 (PDT), Vance <vance.lear(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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 Between your typical tourist's snapshots and mmyvusenet's cretinous downs-syndrome-afflicted church, sick-animal, and tomato snapshots; I'll give you a very slight advantage. But only very slight. I can think of no other snapshooters that are on a comparable level with you.
From: Bruce on 26 May 2010 06:24 On Tue, 25 May 2010 19:46:01 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: >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. That depends critically on whether NEX succeeds or not. If NEX succeeds, and makes money, the slow-selling (and hugely loss-making) Alpha range of DSLRs will be dead.
From: John Navas on 26 May 2010 11:51
On Wed, 26 May 2010 11:24:27 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in <1ktpv5pf4of9h9aaq5ube0bmmg927rdd8b(a)4ax.com>: >On Tue, 25 May 2010 19:46:01 -0400, "J. Clarke" ><jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: >>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. > >That depends critically on whether NEX succeeds or not. > >If NEX succeeds, and makes money, the slow-selling (and hugely >loss-making) Alpha range of DSLRs will be dead. I think that's a bad bet, but only time will tell. -- Best regards, John "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford |