Marty4650

Marty4650

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

Comments

Total: 1100, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Marty4650: No manufacturer would admit to discontinuing a camera because there are "better and more upgraded" models in that market.

Heck, five years AFTER Olympus discontinued Four Thirds, they are still claiming it has NOT been discontinued! They even list a five year old model on their website, and still offer lenses for a system they abandoned.

There is something very wrong with that email.

But as long as Samsung doesn't issue a firm denial, the speculation will continue.

@ Narrentz... Yes, not "officially" but they discontinued the system de facto.

The last newly designed 4/3 camera or lens was released in 2008. The EM1 appeared five years later in 2013.

The E600, E450, and E5 from 2010 were all tweaks of previous older cameras (E620, E420, E3)..

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2015 at 14:37 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: No manufacturer would admit to discontinuing a camera because there are "better and more upgraded" models in that market.

Heck, five years AFTER Olympus discontinued Four Thirds, they are still claiming it has NOT been discontinued! They even list a five year old model on their website, and still offer lenses for a system they abandoned.

There is something very wrong with that email.

But as long as Samsung doesn't issue a firm denial, the speculation will continue.

The most baffling part of this is that Samsung makes some really nice cameras and lenses. And they should be doing better in some markets than they are doing.

We do know they sell very well in their home market, and also in parts of Europe and a few other places, but lag behind in other regions. So it must come down to marketing.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2015 at 03:34 UTC

No manufacturer would admit to discontinuing a camera because there are "better and more upgraded" models in that market.

Heck, five years AFTER Olympus discontinued Four Thirds, they are still claiming it has NOT been discontinued! They even list a five year old model on their website, and still offer lenses for a system they abandoned.

There is something very wrong with that email.

But as long as Samsung doesn't issue a firm denial, the speculation will continue.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2015 at 01:14 UTC as 391st comment | 10 replies
On article Good genes: Samsung NX500 review posted (512 comments in total)
In reply to:

tecnoworld: "This does mean that you'll fare better with a, say, Sony a5100 and 35mm F1.8 combo for blurry background portraits of your newborn than a similar NX500 and Samsung prime combo."

The 45/1.8 is very fast and very high iq (see dxomark rating for the lens).

otto....

We M4/3 users get focal lengths like 17.5mm and 42.5mm.

But, we enjoy being odd.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 10, 2015 at 01:50 UTC
On article 2015 Roundups: Fixed Prime Lens Cameras (223 comments in total)

That is an impressive list of "upcoming roundups."

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2015 at 10:50 UTC as 30th comment | 3 replies
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras around $500 (272 comments in total)
In reply to:

vesa1tahti: They call EVFs to be modern technology. Maybe it is, because it is new. But OVFs are much better in practical use, in any situation. I've used Olympus VF-4 with my E-PM2, but it is much worse in use than e.g. D7200's OVF.

My Panasonic FZ20 had an EVF ten years ago, so this isn't new technology. I will concede that the technology has gotten better, but it isn't new by any means.

OVFs are better at doing some things. And some OVFs are better at those things than others are.

EVFs are better at doing other things. And can do a few tricks that no OVF can do.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 4, 2015 at 16:45 UTC
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras around $500 (272 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: The M in MSRP stands for "manufacturer's" so shouldn't you be using the price that the manufacturer sets rather than one set by B&H or Adorama?

I think your whole problem was that you wanted to break it into more "roundups" because there are probably a lot more than 7 cameras with an MSRP "around $500."

You probably would be better off going back to categories based on intended use, rather than price. "Entry Level, Intermediate, Enthusiast, Rugged, Superzoom, etc."

Any idiot who can operate a mouse can check prices very easily. Your website makes it a snap.

I agree. If you create too many categories you end up with each one having just one or two choices in it. Some may even be unique. (Roundup of Fixed Lens Full Frame Cameras, for example.)

But here we have a case of a poorly conceived roundup, that said it was about "ILC's" under $500, but ignored many that belong in this category. Then was amended to claim it was about "ILCs around $500" without making it clear about list prices or street prices, and then finally it was amended again to REMOVE the lone DSLR from the group. And probably because it is a $700 camera! But they left another $700 camera in the group!

It seemed like DPR really didn't know what group of cameras they intended to "round up" until after they published their roundup, heard all the complaints, and made adjustments accordingly.

DPR needs to learn a lesson from this. Anything done in haste is likely to be flawed. Next time devote more attention to defining your goal before plowing forward.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 4, 2015 at 16:16 UTC
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras around $500 (272 comments in total)

The M in MSRP stands for "manufacturer's" so shouldn't you be using the price that the manufacturer sets rather than one set by B&H or Adorama?

I think your whole problem was that you wanted to break it into more "roundups" because there are probably a lot more than 7 cameras with an MSRP "around $500."

You probably would be better off going back to categories based on intended use, rather than price. "Entry Level, Intermediate, Enthusiast, Rugged, Superzoom, etc."

Any idiot who can operate a mouse can check prices very easily. Your website makes it a snap.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 4, 2015 at 03:30 UTC as 46th comment | 4 replies
On Connect post DSCO by VSCO simplifies GIF-creation (18 comments in total)
In reply to:

RichRMA: But who are they popular with? They just seem annoying when you run into them, especially if someone is silly enough to use them as say an avatar then you might see them all the time.

They are extremely popular with 13 year old girls.

This is something very few adults have any interest in.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 31, 2015 at 11:12 UTC

This could have been the camera of the year in 2008!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2015 at 04:27 UTC as 122nd comment | 6 replies

Nice looking lens. And they priced it right. Weather sealed.... f/2.0.... normal lens. Hopefully, it will be optically superb.

Fuji.... the Leica everyone can afford!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2015 at 12:26 UTC as 39th comment | 6 replies

OK, face it.

This is a mouth watering camera, and we all want one. I just can't aford one. But if I could....

Direct link | Posted on Oct 20, 2015 at 20:58 UTC as 56th comment | 10 replies
On article Hands-on with the Sony a7S II (286 comments in total)
In reply to:

bluevellet: I like the euphemism about unified design and ergonomics and implying this requires effort.

You could also call it "effective engineering cost control" by using the same parts for all three cameras.

At these prices, I doubt very many people will own all three models, so the effect of "consistency" is more of a cost savings for Sony, than a benefit for most users.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 19, 2015 at 13:15 UTC
On article Second time lucky? A closer look at Sony's new RX1R II (542 comments in total)

The built in flash was necessary when we used film that was limited to ISO 400. But today you can comfortably shoot at ISO 6400, so it really isn't as necessary.

Plus.... the camera does have a hot shoe. Anyone who can afford a $3,200 camera can probably also afford a decent flash unit.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 15, 2015 at 03:24 UTC as 69th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Marty4650: Expensive but a bargain in it's category.

If you want a full frame 35mm fixed lens compact camera, then your only options are this one and a Leica Q for twice the price.

I give Sony a lot of credit.

I don't know where you folks are getting your prices from.

I clicked the link on Dpreview to "get price from Amazon" and it shows a price of $6,349 for the Leica Q.

http://www.amazon.com/Leica-Typ-116-black-anodized/dp/B00ZRS5UXM%3FSubscriptionId%3DAKIAJHZHL2PTF4QQSIQA%26tag%3Ddpreviewbuybox-20%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26creative%3D165953%26creativeASIN%3DB00ZRS5UXM

And THAT PRICE is very close to twice the price of this Sony camera.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 19:12 UTC

Expensive but a bargain in it's category.

If you want a full frame 35mm fixed lens compact camera, then your only options are this one and a Leica Q for twice the price.

I give Sony a lot of credit.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 15:43 UTC as 235th comment | 9 replies
In reply to:

vroger1: Rather than edit my last message- it is rather galling to realize that the basic reason for these digicams is that Canon won't compete with itself and its EOS line. The future is written out there. Mirrored digicams will inevitably decline in popularity as mirrorless become the new standard. Canon will either get on board or will be left in the dust.

OK, time for a reality check.

Personally, I am a huge fan of MILC cameras, but they will never be a dominant format. This is something that appeals to people who want reasonably good IQ in a smaller and lighter kit. Aside from size and weight, there is nothing a MILC camera can't do that a DSLR can't do better.

Lets be brutally honest here. Every single "major MILC player" tried to sell DSLRs and failed. Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, Fuji, and even Samsung all had DSLRs on the market, and they all had single digit market shares. They could not compete in the DSLR market so they did precisely what they needed to do. They did something different.

And at least for now, they are all very fortunate that both Canon and Nikon don't take MILC seriously. Because if they did, they might own that market too.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 13, 2015 at 21:51 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: The Canon EOS M series was NOT designed to compete in the MILC market.

It's sole function is to provide Canon brand loyalists with a MILC camera to prevent them from buying a competitive brand. And when you look at it that way, it has been a raging success.

If you want a better MILC camera and a better value, then Sony, Fuji, Olympus, Samsung, and Panasonic all have one for you. It just won't have a Canon name on it.

The fallacy of "not competing with yourself" is that even if you refuse to do it, someone else will.

Whenever a new format comes along, EVERYONE jumps on the bandwagon, just in case it catches on. Even Leica built a few SLRs when the SLR storm hit the market in the 1980s. I also recall everyone jumping on the APS bandwagon, for a format that lasted exactly four years before dying. Even Rolleiflex made a 110 instamatic camera!

This notion that "Canon doesn't want to compete with itself" really baffles me. Aren't they ALREADY competing with themselves by having seven different types of DSLR? In 2014, Canon released six new Superzoom cameras! And then released EIGHT MORE so far in 2015.

Isn't that something like "competing with themselves?"

There is NOTHING sacred or mystical about a mirror. This is 100% about selling things to people who want them. Why would Canon NOT want a piece of this market, no matter how big or small it might end up being?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 13, 2015 at 19:48 UTC
In reply to:

vroger1: Rather than edit my last message- it is rather galling to realize that the basic reason for these digicams is that Canon won't compete with itself and its EOS line. The future is written out there. Mirrored digicams will inevitably decline in popularity as mirrorless become the new standard. Canon will either get on board or will be left in the dust.

I don't see DSLRs disappearing.

Yes, there will be a gradual and slight shift in market shares, as some users adopt a new type of cameras, but MILC cameras are about as much of a threat to DSLRS as SUVs were to four door sedans.

Both types still exist, and both have their own customer base.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 13, 2015 at 14:40 UTC

The Canon EOS M series was NOT designed to compete in the MILC market.

It's sole function is to provide Canon brand loyalists with a MILC camera to prevent them from buying a competitive brand. And when you look at it that way, it has been a raging success.

If you want a better MILC camera and a better value, then Sony, Fuji, Olympus, Samsung, and Panasonic all have one for you. It just won't have a Canon name on it.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 13, 2015 at 14:37 UTC as 25th comment | 8 replies
Total: 1100, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »