Prev: Two Nikon lenses, 70-200mm/16-85mm used at opposite extremes
Next: How to get dust off film for scanning.
From: SMS on 6 Jun 2010 22:43
On 06/06/10 6:20 PM, dj_nme wrote:

<snip>

> I don't know (nobody really does), but I suspect that this market
> segment is now served by DSLR cameras that cost roughly what those
> "bridge" cameras cost when first released.

This is true. The cost of the lens mounts is really trivial when you
look at the cost of manufacturing, plus it encourages the manufacturers
to sell the camera bodies at low margins in the expectation of
high-margin lens sales in the future. Both Canon and Nikon are anxious
to lock users into their respective systems.

OTOH, apparently you have some users that are absolutely terrified of
D-SLRs but that are comfortable with super-zooms. Maybe not enough to
make much development in this segment worthwhile though.

It seems like Sony, Panasonic, and Olympus have realized that they are
simply not going gain much market share in the D-SLR duopoly, so they
are looking to create new market segments with their interchangeable
lens, non-D-SLR, larger sensor, product lines. Maybe they'll be
successful, but only if they can find enough naive buyers that don't
understand the the advantages of a D-SLR go far beyond the sensor size
and the lens interchangeability. The same buyers that rejected Disc,
APS, 110, and 4/3 are not likely to be taken in by the (EV)IL cameras
either, especially since most don't even include the EV part as standard
but as funky add-on.
From: Rich on 6 Jun 2010 23:13
On Jun 6, 3:45 pm, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> RichA wrote:
> > On Jun 5, 7:33 pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 17:41:15 -0500, Rich <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>> The metal bodied one, or the plastic?  Which will triumph?
> >> The cheaper one will sell more.  The more expensive one will be more
> >> profitable, because it will carry a greater profit margin that will
> >> make up for the lower unit sales.
>
> >> If the lenses were better, I could see myself buying an NEX5 to
> >> replace the Panasonic Lumix GF1.  The NEX lenses are the weak point of
> >> the system - for now.
>
> > I still might, and outfit it with adapters and conventional lenses.
> > The camera itself has possibilities.
>
> The problem is; it's not compact with conventional lenses plus adapters.
> The Samsung NX10 has all that but doesn't seem to have made much of a
> splash.

I don't need the ultra-compactness, don't need to pocket a camera but
I was hoping that younger people would be less biased against the
likes of Samsung and Sony as camera producers, unlike the old guard.
Granted, Nikon and Canon still control the quality apex's of the DSLR
world.
From: Bruce on 7 Jun 2010 03:26
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 11:20:09 +1000, dj_nme <dj_nme(a)optusnet.com.au>
wrote:
>Rich wrote:
>> SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in
>> news:4c0bcf6d$0$1649$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net:
>>
>>> On 06/06/10 9:32 AM, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>>> Also, I have heard a rumour from a usually reliable source that Sony
>>>> has designed, and is developing, a successor to the DSC-R1.
>>> An successor to the R1 would be a wonderful ZLR with its APS-C sized
>>> sensor.
>>>
>>> The NEX system was a good idea, but the execution was poor, and it
>>> will likely fail.
>>
>> The R1, like Olympus's smaller sensor C-8080 and a few others did not skimp
>> on the lenses and didn't they try to make them hyper portable. In
>> addition, lens elements in both apparently reached to almost the sensor
>> surface. It would be easy for them to make such cameras again, but would
>> they sell, and would people be willing to pay what they'd have to for them?
>
>I don't know (nobody really does), but I suspect that this market
>segment is now served by DSLR cameras that cost roughly what those
>"bridge" cameras cost when first released.


You're right, but some people (including me) are prepared to pay more
for such cameras than for an entry-level DSLR. The Sony DSC-R1 needs
bringing up to date with a larger LCD, better EVF and an improved
sensor, but for its time it was a spectacularly good camera.


>> Design freedoms aside, making a zoom lens that matches top DSLR zooms
>> doesn't get cheaper just because it's permanently attached to the camera.
>> Both the C-8080 and the R1 were over $1000 when new.
>
>That makes sense, the lens on these cameras have either a big zoom range
>or large elements and both lenses seemed to be built "up to a standard"
>and not so much "down to a price".


There is a considerable saving from not having a lens mount and all
the mechanical and electronic connections between a lens and a body.
And don't forget that the R1 had a lens that was far, far superior to
any of the kit lenses that are available for DSLRs. The R1 may have
been expensive, but it was still a lot cheaper than a DSLR plus a lens
of anything like equivalent quality.

The nearest equivalent would be the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L. That lens
alone would cost more than the R1 "body and lens".

From: Me on 7 Jun 2010 04:18
On 7/06/2010 1:26 p.m., dj_nme wrote:
> Rich wrote:
>> The metal bodied one, or the plastic? Which will triumph?
>
> If they can get the kinks out of the "pre-production" lenses sent out
> for review with the new cameras, then there is a chance that both can
> "survive" in the marketplace.
>
If you go to the DPReview site, they've got some samples from a "final
production" 16mm. It's bad - edge performance is abysmal and a lot of
CA, not better than the so-called "pre-production" lenses.
Peddling BS about the "pre-production" status of the original lens
samples sent to reviewers was a bad move.
Making such a crappy lens to release with a new system is a big mistake.
Sony can make some good stuff, but they really blew it on this.
From: dj_nme on 7 Jun 2010 08:26
Me wrote:
> On 7/06/2010 1:26 p.m., dj_nme wrote:
>> Rich wrote:
>>> The metal bodied one, or the plastic? Which will triumph?
>>
>> If they can get the kinks out of the "pre-production" lenses sent out
>> for review with the new cameras, then there is a chance that both can
>> "survive" in the marketplace.
>>
> If you go to the DPReview site, they've got some samples from a "final
> production" 16mm. It's bad - edge performance is abysmal and a lot of
> CA, not better than the so-called "pre-production" lenses.
> Peddling BS about the "pre-production" status of the original lens
> samples sent to reviewers was a bad move.

I did believe that the excuse of "it's a pre-production model" for the
bad performance of the original version of the lens seemed rather lame.
Obviously I'm not alone in that belief.

> Making such a crappy lens to release with a new system is a big mistake.
> Sony can make some good stuff, but they really blew it on this.

Every other new system has lived (or died) depending on what the lenses
are like.
It's a shame that Sony seems to have forgotten this.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Two Nikon lenses, 70-200mm/16-85mm used at opposite extremes
Next: How to get dust off film for scanning.