Marty4650

Marty4650

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

Comments

Total: 835, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: but is a Lexus not a Toyota, an Infinity a Nissan, and an Acura a Honda!

Same direction, but different degree.

There is nothing Lexus does that can match a Hasselblad Lunar. No one ever paid ten times the price for rebadged Toyota called a Lexus.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 00:19 UTC
In reply to:

cgarrard: Dang it. There goes our humorous press releases.

I'm a sad panda.

Lets be honest. Hassleblad provided more humor and laughter here than "What The Duck" ever did.

They will be sorely missed....

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 00:16 UTC

I wonder if Hassleblad finally realized what all the laughter was about?

Of course, the real joke is on anyone who spent $8,000 to buy a Sony NEX-7 dressed up in a Hassleblad suit.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 00:14 UTC as 191st comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

cosmonaut: Being a former Olympus faithful I believe Olympus makes some steller lenses for the price. My old 12-60mm had Zeiss quality for a fraction of the cost. My only complaint with Olympus was their dismal sensor improvements over the years and their abandonment of the E mount.

Mike, the interesting thing is that the 2013 4/3 sensor made by Panasonic and used in the EM1 is really a good sensor. Just about as good as the 2012 Sony sensor used in the EM5.

If Panasonic had a 4/3 sensor that good back in 2010, then 4/3 DSLRs might still be in production today.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 5, 2014 at 14:20 UTC
In reply to:

cosmonaut: Being a former Olympus faithful I believe Olympus makes some steller lenses for the price. My old 12-60mm had Zeiss quality for a fraction of the cost. My only complaint with Olympus was their dismal sensor improvements over the years and their abandonment of the E mount.

I might be wrong, but I think the E1 (2003) had a Kodak sensor, and the E5 (2010) had a Panasonic sensor. I don't think any 4/3 DSLR had a Sony sensor.

To my knowledge, the first Sony sensor was used in the EM5 in 2012.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 5, 2014 at 02:52 UTC
In reply to:

stanislaff: I have and still use two Olympus DSLR and one Pro lens - 14-54 II. I was waiting for E-M1 to be sure that I would use my 14-54 while having an up-to-date sensor. Regarding the huge price of E-M1 and the absence of cheaper alternatives able to use fully my main lens I realize, that I will never switch to u4/3, cause price-wise and IQ-wise there are a lot of better solutions, then invest into pro lenses and bodies from Olympus. Size and weight is not an issue for me, moreover I already have Samsung NX1000 as a travel camera, so I decide to buy a FF DSLR in the near future. The prices of E-M1, pro 7-14, 12-40 and 40-150 are just prohibitively high.

Lenses are sold to customers you already have. They are locked in.

Cameras can be sold to new customers who don't necessarily own any 4/3 lenses. In fact, most MFT users never had any 4/3 lenses.

So while on chip PDAF is a real nice feature for 4/3 lens owners, it might be a useless feature for the majority of the MFT users who don't own any 4/3 lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 4, 2014 at 13:55 UTC
In reply to:

stanislaff: I have and still use two Olympus DSLR and one Pro lens - 14-54 II. I was waiting for E-M1 to be sure that I would use my 14-54 while having an up-to-date sensor. Regarding the huge price of E-M1 and the absence of cheaper alternatives able to use fully my main lens I realize, that I will never switch to u4/3, cause price-wise and IQ-wise there are a lot of better solutions, then invest into pro lenses and bodies from Olympus. Size and weight is not an issue for me, moreover I already have Samsung NX1000 as a travel camera, so I decide to buy a FF DSLR in the near future. The prices of E-M1, pro 7-14, 12-40 and 40-150 are just prohibitively high.

I suppose we aren't seeing this feature in their new cameras (except the flagship EM1) because Olympus would rather sell you new lenses than make it easier to use your old ones.

Strictly a business decision.

Would they sell enough more EPL7's to offset the loss of replacement lens sales? Who knows? In any case, Olympus has had two chances to include this feature, the EM10 and the EPL7, and decided to pass on it.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 4, 2014 at 13:22 UTC
In reply to:

stanislaff: I have and still use two Olympus DSLR and one Pro lens - 14-54 II. I was waiting for E-M1 to be sure that I would use my 14-54 while having an up-to-date sensor. Regarding the huge price of E-M1 and the absence of cheaper alternatives able to use fully my main lens I realize, that I will never switch to u4/3, cause price-wise and IQ-wise there are a lot of better solutions, then invest into pro lenses and bodies from Olympus. Size and weight is not an issue for me, moreover I already have Samsung NX1000 as a travel camera, so I decide to buy a FF DSLR in the near future. The prices of E-M1, pro 7-14, 12-40 and 40-150 are just prohibitively high.

@Markus

There can be no worse strategy than launching 4/3 on June 24, 2003 by releasing an $1800 high end camera (E1) along with four very expensive lenses (ranging in cost from $500 to $6,500).

Clearly, Olympus was aiming very high, and thought they were creating a pro system right out of the box.

Then, just a few years later they were selling two lens E500 amd E510 kits for $500 to try to compete with Canon and Nikon entry level kits, and losing money on every camera they sold.

Compare that to the way M4/3 was launched. The strategy was almost the exact opposite. They started with cheaper cameras and lenses... then kept adding more for higher end users.

I don't see how you can call this a failure. M4/3 holds around a 45% market share among MILC cameras.

@Stan

I suppose you can consider a $1,300 camera "dangerously close" to a $2,000 full frame camera, but in reality is competitively priced against $1,300 APSC sensored cameras. And quite a bit cheaper than FF and FF lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 4, 2014 at 10:43 UTC
On Richard Franiec offers Canon PowerShot G7 X custom grip article (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

marc petzold: Richard Franiec does a great job with his custom grips, users of the specific camera model should be thankful. i've bought during the past 2 years 3 custom grips from Richard, for my Sigma DP1s, DP2s, and also the Merrill DP2M.

The haptics of my Sigmas really improved because of Richards custom grip for that.

If you say 35 bucks is too expensive for a well-made, CNC-machined custom grip, you should really look for a cheaper hobby..collecting beer coaster, mustard jars or something else...because it's totally worth it.

For instance, the cheap 15 bucks Sony RX100 series grip is really crap, and make out of cheap material, neither CNC-machined nor aluminium. I'd never buy this, if i'd own a RX100 series digicam.

I agree. It is alarming that so many people want to whine about the price of something that so many others think is worth the money.

If you don't want it... then don't buy it.
If you want it but can't afford $35, then look elsewhere.

No one is forcing anyone to buy this grip.

If Richard is getting rich off this, then he deserves to get rich off it. He solved a real problem for some people.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 3, 2014 at 15:42 UTC
In reply to:

stanislaff: I have and still use two Olympus DSLR and one Pro lens - 14-54 II. I was waiting for E-M1 to be sure that I would use my 14-54 while having an up-to-date sensor. Regarding the huge price of E-M1 and the absence of cheaper alternatives able to use fully my main lens I realize, that I will never switch to u4/3, cause price-wise and IQ-wise there are a lot of better solutions, then invest into pro lenses and bodies from Olympus. Size and weight is not an issue for me, moreover I already have Samsung NX1000 as a travel camera, so I decide to buy a FF DSLR in the near future. The prices of E-M1, pro 7-14, 12-40 and 40-150 are just prohibitively high.

Stan...

and that is the problem that plagued 4/3. And it still plagues M4/3 but to a much lesser extent because M4/3 really DOES have a size and weight advantage, while 4/3 did not.

4/3 failed because it had a smaller sensor that required ridiculously overbuilt lenses to achieve telecentricy. You got to buy very expensive lenses, and you ended up with a kit just as large as any APSC kit, and sometimes as large as FF. Simply put, you paid a high price for parity, thanks to the smaller sensor, and you never did get a size or weight advantage.

M4/3 fixed that by providing really smaller cameras and lenses that didn't need the best glass on earth to get decent results. Of course, none of this was possible without a much better 4/3 sensor, which is something 4/3 never had.

Every single one of those M4/3 lenses that you find prohibitively high are actually cheaper, smaller and lighter than their 4/3 counterparts.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 3, 2014 at 15:36 UTC
In reply to:

Jogger: The old ZD 7-14/f4 was an optical marvel; it was over-engineered and huge to ensure that light arrived at the sensor perpendicularly (to meet their telecentricity requirement).

The mZD 7-14/2.8 will likely rely on massive amounts of software correction. Which isnt really an issue, depending on the price... but, i suspect it will be overpriced for what it is.

Or... it could cost less than the 4/3 version, and be faster to boot. There might be something to be said for software correction rather than overbuilding lenses. It just depends on how much you are willing to spend to get what you want.

In the end, the only thing that matters is the image quality produced by the lens. If it is outstanding, then it won't matter how it got that way, as long as the lens delivers.

We will see in time.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 3, 2014 at 14:01 UTC
In reply to:

maxnimo: Okay, I'm trying hard to not burst into laughter, but what would a serious photographer use a 7-14mm lens for?

The only thing I can think of is a sneaky, dishonest realtor who wants to make a small room appear huge.

This is one dead horse that has been beaten to death!

The truth is, some amateurs think anything wider than 28mm is a waste of money. Which is why they are amateurs.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 3, 2014 at 11:39 UTC
In reply to:

maxnimo: Okay, I'm trying hard to not burst into laughter, but what would a serious photographer use a 7-14mm lens for?

The only thing I can think of is a sneaky, dishonest realtor who wants to make a small room appear huge.

@ maxnimo.... they do that by using 3/4th sized furniture. It can make any room look a lot larger.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 2, 2014 at 20:34 UTC
In reply to:

Dheorl: I'm impressed at how little screaming about equivalence there's been. Maybe that phase has at last passed.

Perhaps the Equivalence Squad has worn themselves out?

Or... more likely.... they have had sufficient entertainment and don't feel the need to keep spreading their gospel?

In any case, they will probably be back. It is much too soon to start celebrating.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 2, 2014 at 20:33 UTC
In reply to:

Mike FL: I'm looking for replacing my SRL for a while, and interested in EM1 and XT1. But there is only one possible problem; "Fujifilm, Olympus and Panasonic are doomed...".

http://www.digitalcameranews.co.uk/2013/12/30/fujifilm-olympus-and-panasonic-are-doomed-according-to-credit-suisse-analyst/

We will see, but no one could stop it from coming when it comes as we saw it from the past...

I cited Nikon as the "best example" of a camera company, because around 78% of their revenues come from selling cameras and lenses. This means the impact of a declining market for cameras and lenses would have the most impact on them.

The purest example is probably Leica, but even they make binoculars and riflescopes. And Sigma is another good example. All the others derive most of their revenue and profit from something else.

Ricoh is a copy machine company.
Olympus is an endoscope and microscope company.
Canon is a business machines company

Panasonic, Fuji, Sony, and Samsung are all industrial giants that derive most of their cash flow from other divisions.

These companies cannot be bankrupted by their camera divisions, because their camera divisions are really very small relative to their other enterprises.

But... they can make the decision to sell off their imaging divisions. But I don't really see that happening. Who would buy them?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 2, 2014 at 20:30 UTC
On Richard Franiec offers Canon PowerShot G7 X custom grip article (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

Prairie Pal: If all manufacturers put grips on every model that we thought needed it, then they effectively REDUCE our options to ONE. On the other hand, leaving enough real estate for third parties to design a grip increases our options to TWO; grip or no trip (or more depending how many different grip designs are spawned.
Omitting a nicely designed grip may also be the makers' way of crippling the model in some way to avoid customers becoming so enamored with it that they refuse to budget up to the next camera level. The money is in the upsell.

You can see from the replies here that the buyers are split on this issue. Some prefer a well designed grip. Some others say "it makes the camera too big for my skinny jeans!"

So perhaps the best course is to make the grip optional. Either that, or create two models for every small small camera. One with a grip, and one without?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 2, 2014 at 13:07 UTC
In reply to:

Mike FL: I'm looking for replacing my SRL for a while, and interested in EM1 and XT1. But there is only one possible problem; "Fujifilm, Olympus and Panasonic are doomed...".

http://www.digitalcameranews.co.uk/2013/12/30/fujifilm-olympus-and-panasonic-are-doomed-according-to-credit-suisse-analyst/

We will see, but no one could stop it from coming when it comes as we saw it from the past...

Nick, I agree. With a smaller market after the loss of the cheap compact camera segment, there may not be room for 11 different competitors.

But they will not go bankrupt, they will simply close down their digital imaging division or sell it to someone else. Like Pentax changing hands twice in recent memory.

And who stays and who goes will have nothing to do with their camera market shares, because the only real "camera company" is Nikon. All the others are huge companies who make most of their money doing something else. So the real question will be, "how much are they willing to lose making cameras, and for how long?"

If "making profits selling cameras" mattered a lot, then Olympus would have stopped making cameras over five years ago. But they still make them, and they still introduce new models and lenses. So there must be something else involved.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 2, 2014 at 13:00 UTC
In reply to:

Mike FL: I'm looking for replacing my SRL for a while, and interested in EM1 and XT1. But there is only one possible problem; "Fujifilm, Olympus and Panasonic are doomed...".

http://www.digitalcameranews.co.uk/2013/12/30/fujifilm-olympus-and-panasonic-are-doomed-according-to-credit-suisse-analyst/

We will see, but no one could stop it from coming when it comes as we saw it from the past...

I'd say the camera makers have already given up on the cheap compact camera market. There just isn't much room for profit in making $89 cameras that don't need more lenses. These products were losing money long before the popularity of the smart phone.

Moving to higher end products might be a blessing for Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic, and not a curse.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 2, 2014 at 11:49 UTC
In reply to:

MPA1: I hope the next iteration of the EM-1 gets much better high ISO performance and two card slots - then I can finally get my DSLR kit sold off.

Most of us are quite happy with the results we get at ISO 3200 from that sensor. If you need to shoot in pitch darkness, then you probably need to go FF or Medium Format.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 2, 2014 at 01:15 UTC
In reply to:

narddogg81: olympus would make a lot more money if they would just become a premium 3rd party lens manufacturer and made lense in all the other mounts. they make fantastic glass

@ nardogg.... I have often had the same thought. Those who have used the lenses regard the best Zuiko lenses in the same category with Leica and Zeiss.

I bet there are plenty of Sony users who would love to have Zuiko lenses made in E mounts.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 2, 2014 at 01:12 UTC
Total: 835, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »