Marty4650

Marty4650

Lives in United States NC, United States
Works as a Retired Industrial Engineer
Joined on May 20, 2005

Comments

Total: 659, showing: 401 – 420
« First‹ Previous1920212223Next ›Last »
On Just posted: Fujifilm X-E1 Review article (527 comments in total)

Cameras can be rated by objective measures (like AF speed and accuracy, Dynamic Range, ISO capability, lines of resolution, etc.) but there will always be a subjective element involved. We sometimes fall in love with a camera, and when we do that we tend to overlook the flaws and emphasize the good things.

I remember around six years ago Phil Askey reviewed the Leica M8. He found numerous flaws with it, and objectively rated it as "recommended" which was just about the LOWEST rating Dpreview was using at that time. Despite this, he loved using the camera, so he immediately went out and bought one with his own money. And it certainly wasn't a cheap camera to buy.

I think something like that has happened here. The Fuji X-E1 is a very nice camera that produces really great image quality. It is exceptionally well built, there are some very nice lenses for it, and despite all the stated flaws, it is probably a joy to use.

Hence... the Gold Award. I call it emotional grade inflation.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2013 at 16:12 UTC as 97th comment | 8 replies
On Just posted: Fujifilm X-E1 Review article (527 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: "despite it's sub-par movie mode and less than stellar autofocus performance, it earns our coveted gold award, by a whisker"... and this is also despite all the times it locked up and crashed.

Every camera has pluses and minuses, but these minuses aren't minor issures. These are very serious and major flaws. And it seems Dpreview overlooked them because the camera was "thoroughly enjoyably" to use.

I'm looking forward to the new Dpreview Platinum Award for cameras without any serious flaws. Because Gold is now the new Silver.

I don't doubt that this is a great camera, just whether it deserved a Gold Award. That is if "Gold" is supposed to mean "the very best."

I never use the video feature myself.... and fast AF isn't essential for everyone, but we have seen Dpreview downgrade other cameras for having these exact same problems.

And the frequent crashes are baffling. Surely this shouldn't happen with a camera that is rate as the very best of it's kind.

The XE-1 is a really nice camera.... but if it gets a Gold Award, then Gold just doesn't mean what it used to mean. In the schools, they call this "grade inflation" where every student is an exceptional student.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2013 at 15:25 UTC
On Just posted: Fujifilm X-E1 Review article (527 comments in total)

"despite it's sub-par movie mode and less than stellar autofocus performance, it earns our coveted gold award, by a whisker"... and this is also despite all the times it locked up and crashed.

Every camera has pluses and minuses, but these minuses aren't minor issures. These are very serious and major flaws. And it seems Dpreview overlooked them because the camera was "thoroughly enjoyably" to use.

I'm looking forward to the new Dpreview Platinum Award for cameras without any serious flaws. Because Gold is now the new Silver.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2013 at 13:04 UTC as 110th comment | 12 replies
On Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 review article (546 comments in total)
In reply to:

Timmbits: So is this made in China then, with the sensor speckles and all?

I'm old enough to remember when "Made in Japan" was a joke back in the 1960s. Within 20 years the joke turned out to be on us, as Japan began producing more reliable and better built goods than we did.

The same thing is happening with China today. Laugh while you can, but very soon China will be laughing at us.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 21, 2013 at 16:35 UTC
On Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 review article (546 comments in total)
In reply to:

RedFox88: So a camera with a longer list of Cons than Pros gets a Gold Award? Really now. And they call an aspect of this camera a Pro and a Con: charging. Pro: USB charging is convenient, Con: no included charger makes it difficult to keep a spare battery charged. Did more than one person write this review without review at the end?

ET2...

The "why" is so obvious that I'm amazed you can't see it.

Being able to charge a battery in the camera is okay, but it means you can't use your camera while you are charging your battery. Plus, if you wanted to carry a spare battery with you, then you must use your camera to charge that one too. Meaning you can't leave the house and start shooting until you have both batteries charged.

If you have a separate charger you can charge as many spares as you want, WHILE you are using your camera.

But the bigger point is... after spending almost three thousand dollars for a camera, wouldn't you feel slighted if you had to spend $10 more to buy a stand alone charger?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 21, 2013 at 16:30 UTC
On Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 review article (546 comments in total)
In reply to:

RedFox88: So a camera with a longer list of Cons than Pros gets a Gold Award? Really now. And they call an aspect of this camera a Pro and a Con: charging. Pro: USB charging is convenient, Con: no included charger makes it difficult to keep a spare battery charged. Did more than one person write this review without review at the end?

It just strikes me as odd that you would need to buy a "cheap $10 charger on ebay" after you just spent $2,800 for a camera.

Would it kill Sony to throw a charger in the box?

If this trend continues you might have to pay extra for the box too. That is, if you want one.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 21, 2013 at 03:46 UTC
On Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 review article (546 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: I still can't believe that Sony branded this camera as a Cyber-Shot. Had they called it a Zeiss, then no one would be concerned about the price. It would seem to be a bargain with a Zeiss nameplate on it.

Calling a high end camera a Cyber-Shot is about like Porsche coming out with a new top model and calling it an Volkswagen. It just makes no sense at all.

And remember.... Sony is the same company that took a $1,000 Sony NEX7 and re-branded it as a $5,000 Hasselblad! Do these people have any idea what they are doing?

Richard.... then I should have said "As yourself why Toyota takes a Camry, and calls it a Lexus."

Point being.... they understand the value of branding.

Associating a $2800 high end camera with a brand name that means "cheap P&S camera" doesn't do much for Sony. Even if their intent was to enhance the value of the Cyber-Shot name.

I think Sony doesn't get it. Their very first mistake was branding their high end cameras as "Sony" rather than as either Minoltas or even Konicas.

Panasonic DOES get it, which is why they tried very hard to brand their camera line as Lumix, so as not be confused with rice cookers, toaster ovens, and vacuum cleaners, also made by Panasonic.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 20, 2013 at 21:21 UTC
On Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 review article (546 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: I still can't believe that Sony branded this camera as a Cyber-Shot. Had they called it a Zeiss, then no one would be concerned about the price. It would seem to be a bargain with a Zeiss nameplate on it.

Calling a high end camera a Cyber-Shot is about like Porsche coming out with a new top model and calling it an Volkswagen. It just makes no sense at all.

And remember.... Sony is the same company that took a $1,000 Sony NEX7 and re-branded it as a $5,000 Hasselblad! Do these people have any idea what they are doing?

@stevens37y.....

Ask yourself why Leica doesn't call some of it's cameras "Panasonics?" Even though they are designed by Panasonic, and built by Panasonic, on Panasonic production lines by Panasonic workers?

Ask yourself why Lexus takes a Toyota Camry, then loads it up with luxury options, and then sells it as a Lexus model for $20,000 more.

These people understand the value of branding.
Even if Sony and you don't.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 20, 2013 at 19:51 UTC
On Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 review article (546 comments in total)

I still can't believe that Sony branded this camera as a Cyber-Shot. Had they called it a Zeiss, then no one would be concerned about the price. It would seem to be a bargain with a Zeiss nameplate on it.

Calling a high end camera a Cyber-Shot is about like Porsche coming out with a new top model and calling it an Volkswagen. It just makes no sense at all.

And remember.... Sony is the same company that took a $1,000 Sony NEX7 and re-branded it as a $5,000 Hasselblad! Do these people have any idea what they are doing?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 20, 2013 at 17:29 UTC as 72nd comment | 11 replies
On Samsung announces Wi-Fi-only version of Galaxy Camera article (24 comments in total)
In reply to:

BingoCharlie: Makes more sense than one with a $120/year 3G service plan. When is someone so desperate to upload photos that they can't wait for wifi access?

I still can't figure out why people can't wait until they get home and just plug the memory card into their computers.

Is it really that vital that you post a photo of your lunch on facebook before you eat it?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 19, 2013 at 23:43 UTC

This pretty much explains those crop circles, that the Martians left so they could calibrate their telescopes from Mars.....

Direct link | Posted on Feb 19, 2013 at 23:36 UTC as 3rd comment
On Casio Europe releases 20.1 MP Exilim EX-ZS30 camera article (56 comments in total)

Stylish?

These look like generic P&S cameras. They could be made by Vivitar or Polaroid, or whatever factory in China grinds them out.

That writing on the front advertising the megapixel count is really impressive. And so 2003.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 19, 2013 at 23:29 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply

I imagine that Casio must be facing hard times. The P&S market is rapidly disappearing, and they don't seem to have anything else to sell.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 19, 2013 at 23:27 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply

This is actually a pretty good idea.

The same concept has been used for decades in the auto selling business. The salesmen call it "take home the puppy" because most times the customer ends up falling in love with the puppy, and wanting to keep it. And then it becomes an easy sale.

Someone at Panasonic is thinking creatively.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 15, 2013 at 17:20 UTC as 21st comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

fmian: Does anyone know what kind of deposit is required? I would imagine it's at the full price of the camera in case the 'borrower' does not come back.
Why cannot one just find a retailer with a good return policy instead?
Paxtons in Sydney offers a 45 day return policy. No questions asked.
Surely 45 days is better than 48 hours?
Also, not sure about the UK, but in Australia it's within a consumers rights to return a product they are not satisfied with. I believe the allowed time is 1-2 weeks.
At least, that is the rules we abided by when I was working for HN.

The problem with a "good return policy" is you end up creating hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of used cameras that you can't sell as new anymore. So they would have to be sold as open box items and discounted.

It really works out better for Panasonic to give each store a couple of loaners.... and if you want to buy the camera, then you return the loaner and get a brand new one. Then the loaner gets loaned out again.

When the dust settles you have fewer cameras you have to discount....

Direct link | Posted on Feb 15, 2013 at 17:17 UTC

The disappointing part of this story is that Olympus is losing money selling M4/3 cameras and lenses. This is really troubling.

Lets face it... they probably sold very few E5 cameras last year. It's hard to lose $170 million on DSLR sales when you don't sell very many of them. MILC cameras and lenses probably account for 95% of the sales of the imaging division today.

Considering the fact that M4/3 cameras and lenses aren't cheap, I don't know how they can raise their prices much. And M4/3 outsells every other mirrorless format.

I wonder if Sony, Nikon, Samsung and Fuji are losing money on their MILC cameras too? I would imagine that Canon and Pentax are losing money on theirs, due to extremely low volumes.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2013 at 08:41 UTC as 42nd comment | 8 replies

Is the lens hood standard, or do you have to pay extra to get one?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2013 at 21:47 UTC as 12th comment | 3 replies

This is the right direction for compact cameras in the future.

In order to exist, compact camera must move upscale to distance itself from the ubiquitous and free camera phones.

* the smaller the better
* nice 5X zoom range
* relatively fast lens for it's class
* raw capture ability
* nice build quality

If the selling price ends up under $300, Olympus will have a real hit on their hands.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2013 at 21:42 UTC as 35th comment | 2 replies
On CP+ 2013: Casio Interview article (44 comments in total)

Casio does make some nice cameras, but the competition is stiff in the compact camera market.

If the plan is to "make larger sensor compacts" then Nakayama probably knows that others are doing this too, and doing it pretty well.

The camera phones will eat up the bottom of the market, which is why everyone else seems to be moving upscale. Having software solutions may not cut it.

It sounds to me like Casio is in deep trouble. And it doesn't appear that they have a real strategy for the future.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2013 at 22:00 UTC as 22nd comment
On CP+ 2013: Interview with Canon's Masaya Maeda article (490 comments in total)
In reply to:

vodanh1982: The question is "Does the Canon CEO use a camera?"

I'm sure he has every one of those cameras sitting in a closet somewhere. But when he goes on vacation, he takes his Olympus OM-D with him.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 2, 2013 at 22:52 UTC
Total: 659, showing: 401 – 420
« First‹ Previous1920212223Next ›Last »