Dennis

Lives in United States CT, United States
Works as a Software
Joined on Oct 25, 2002

Comments

Total: 244, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

magneto shot: just shoot film guys. i was having a real blast doing it in between digital.
check out http://marcuslowphotos.com/2015/09/

Why ?

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2015 at 17:41 UTC

There's money in consumables. Not so much in cameras that nobody really needs to replace.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2015 at 17:40 UTC as 14th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Donnie G: Absolutely hilarious! Canon's business has a hiccup because it only managed to earn $665 million during its 3rd qtr and the trolls have diagnosed that result as being proof of cancer. Meanwhile, the other camera businesses, with the exception of Nikon, will struggle, as a group, to earn a combined $600 million for the entire year, and those same trolls will conclude that those businesses are as healthy as it gets. Too funny! LOL :))

There isn't a "trend" towards bigger or smaller. There are millions of consumers out there. They all want something different. Even this:
http://connect.dpreview.com/post/6965706821/samsung-launches-enormous-galaxy-view-tablet

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2015 at 16:46 UTC
In reply to:

Dennis: Just a photographer wrote:

> They refused to see that change was necessary too.
The world has changed and so has the business of camera making.

> Soon there is not much left of this market, and only consists out of people that take photography more seriously.

So Canon added higher profit margin models to its lineup and made more money, despite shrinking volumes. Sounds like they're adapting.

I know some people think that the answer is obviously to get into the smart phone business or ... you know ... "go mirrorless". But a growth path isn't obvious at all, and successfully adapting to a shrinking market is better than nothing.

I should add that I don't own a single Canon camera (I do own a Canon printer) so not saying any of this out of fandom - I own Nikon and Sony at the moment.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2015 at 16:45 UTC
In reply to:

Dennis: Just a photographer wrote:

> They refused to see that change was necessary too.
The world has changed and so has the business of camera making.

> Soon there is not much left of this market, and only consists out of people that take photography more seriously.

So Canon added higher profit margin models to its lineup and made more money, despite shrinking volumes. Sounds like they're adapting.

I know some people think that the answer is obviously to get into the smart phone business or ... you know ... "go mirrorless". But a growth path isn't obvious at all, and successfully adapting to a shrinking market is better than nothing.

Donnie,
I think people miss the importance of profit. As you say, Canon could be biding its time. And when it is ready to do something, it doesn't have to be the "thing to end all things". It's just a matter of balancing your investment with expected revenues for ROI and market share. The mirrorless guys are growing because they had so few sales to start with, they can't help it. But they're spending a lot of money to create systems that give them their still small market shares.
The big debate is over where the market goes. Some believe that mirrorless is destined to "overtake" the legacy systems. The various players will achieve equilibrium with Canon having top market share, Nikon #2, Sony #3 and so on. Canon may lose some in the process, but will remain profitable, having spent little money. Sony and the mirrorless guys will have spent lots of money to get there. And Nikon & Canon will have mirrorless technology without all expense of new systems.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2015 at 16:43 UTC
In reply to:

The Squire: How much longer can Canon keep 'protecting' their DSLR revenues by under-investing in ILCs? There wont be much revenue to protect soon...

Canon could easily be the next Kodak.

DSLRs *are* ILCs.

Anyway, it isn't remotely obvious that going mirrorless is the answer to anyone's ills.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2015 at 16:11 UTC
In reply to:

Dennis: Just a photographer wrote:

> They refused to see that change was necessary too.
The world has changed and so has the business of camera making.

> Soon there is not much left of this market, and only consists out of people that take photography more seriously.

So Canon added higher profit margin models to its lineup and made more money, despite shrinking volumes. Sounds like they're adapting.

I know some people think that the answer is obviously to get into the smart phone business or ... you know ... "go mirrorless". But a growth path isn't obvious at all, and successfully adapting to a shrinking market is better than nothing.

Whoops - meant to post that under Donnie Gs post ... now it's out of context. Oh well.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2015 at 16:07 UTC

Just a photographer wrote:

> They refused to see that change was necessary too.
The world has changed and so has the business of camera making.

> Soon there is not much left of this market, and only consists out of people that take photography more seriously.

So Canon added higher profit margin models to its lineup and made more money, despite shrinking volumes. Sounds like they're adapting.

I know some people think that the answer is obviously to get into the smart phone business or ... you know ... "go mirrorless". But a growth path isn't obvious at all, and successfully adapting to a shrinking market is better than nothing.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2015 at 16:07 UTC as 22nd comment | 4 replies
On article The travel photography of HDR guru Trey Ratcliff (235 comments in total)
In reply to:

aris14: Photography is art. Stop.
The tools of this art are sophisticated devices called cameras and in nowadays tons of software. Stop.
The easiness of producing an image using a camera (its main tool) is colossal compared to other arts. Stop.
Furthermore this image may not require any particular education, culture or skills. Stop.
The aim of photography as art is common with all other fine arts. Stop.

Ι respect everyone's opinion for what he likes or not. Stop.
I do not pay any respect to all those who consider their opinion as an expert or specialist opinion just because they shoot some pix, the same way I would not pay any respect to the guy who paints my room and feels that he has an authoritative opinion for the work of Leonardo, Picasso, Dali, Turner (to name but a few), just because he can use a brush. Full stop.
Full stop.

Was there a point to pretending you're sending a telegram ? Were the "stops" supposed to make people think there's some weight behind your words ? Anyway, I stopped after "photography is art". Seemed like a good place.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2015 at 14:31 UTC
In reply to:

PowerG9atBlackForest: Does it matter what it says on the tin as long as you are happy with what is in?

I don't see the issue. Everyone knows that a Sony lens with a Zeiss label that costs $1000 and has autofocus is not the same thing as a Zeiss ZF lens ... just as everyone knows that an Otus and a Batis are two different things. If someone is dumb enough to see the blue label and assume greatness without looking at reviews/specs/price then he deserves what he gets.

I'm not sure what 28-70/2.8 you meant, Vanitas ... there was a 28-75/2.8, but Sony's version is somewhat different; at a minimum, it adds a focus motor (albeit the noisy SAM motor). But this isn't rebranding; it's Zeiss branding a Sony lens with its stamp of approval (and its assistance in design, test & QC). No different from the Zeiss or Leica lenses on millions of digicams.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 16:50 UTC
In reply to:

PowerG9atBlackForest: Does it matter what it says on the tin as long as you are happy with what is in?

I've seen a couple people say it matters because of the "higher asking price". Sony lenses are priced in line with Canon & Nikon ... higher in some cases, lower in others, and the Zeiss-branded lenses are not out of line with Sony's other lenses (the ones without the Zeiss label). I really don't think Sony is charging "extra" for the blue label. Just compare the lenses - look at the prices, look at the performance, and make your decisions. Some people choose Canon or Nikon, some choose Sony.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 14:54 UTC
In reply to:

PowerG9atBlackForest: Does it matter what it says on the tin as long as you are happy with what is in?

Nope. The Zeiss logo on some Sony lenses implies a higher level of quality than the average kit zoom, but then again, so does the price. These lenses simply need to be evaluated like any other lens, taking into account price and performance.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 12:51 UTC
On article Feature film shot on iPhone 5 coming to cinemas (64 comments in total)

The "signature look" is that of a small sensor; plenty of DOF in every shot - looks like a stylized documentary. Every shot has the same FOV.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2015 at 18:26 UTC as 34th comment
On article Nikon offers AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm F2.8-4E ED VR (334 comments in total)
In reply to:

oselimg: Ok, it has f2.8-4, credit given where it's due. This is an "enthusiast" lens not a main stream one therefore $1060 ok. However it's only 1/2 stop faster at the wide end and 1 stop at the long end compared to mainstream alternatives which in most cases is not significant. No wedding photographer will dare shooting with f4 at the longer end. if it had f2.8 throughout it would have made sense especially at the long end and even slightly bigger premium would've been justified if it were, performance wise, the "jack of all trades". With todays sensor performances I think the target audience wouldn't hesitate increasing the ISO one step instead of paying $$$ premium. 7 blades aperture is another Achilles heel for this zoom.

" But your comment still begs the question that who this lens is for"

Everyone who wanted this lens in the first place but had to settle for the 16-85. I would have bought this lens. Unfortunately, it's a bit late ... I tend to use one of my smaller cameras for midrange stuff now, and the DSLR mostly for my 70-200/2.8.

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 12:26 UTC

" will have filled some of the company's followers with despair"

Hasselblad has followers ? You mean on Facebook ?

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 16:51 UTC as 85th comment
On article Canon PowerShot G3 X gets official introduction (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dennis: What does Canon have against viewfinders ? Afraid it might compete with their DSLRs ?

BarnET, I agree, I don't think the Canon is competitive ... but at least, at $1250 with the EVF, it's the same price so you can at least move on to specs & features from there ...

And for some, it will boil down to the lens (speed versus reach) while for others, the name on the label.

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 20:52 UTC
On article Canon PowerShot G3 X gets official introduction (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dennis: What does Canon have against viewfinders ? Afraid it might compete with their DSLRs ?

p.s. Optional EVF is an ok compromise; I'd still prefer one built in, figuring it has to cost more to have it separate (and I'd expect it might be more prone to getting broken off), but now it's a $1250 camera that competes with the new $1300 RX10.

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 13:46 UTC
On article Canon PowerShot G3 X gets official introduction (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dennis: What does Canon have against viewfinders ? Afraid it might compete with their DSLRs ?

Well, it's pretty intriguing compared to an SLR. A 200/5.6 lens giving you the FOV of a 600 ... and f/5.6 on a sensor that does decent ISO 1600 (and usable 6400) ... at least based on my experience with the RX100. You don't get 600mm reach in anything remotely compact on a DSLR, unless you use a shorter lens and crop. Cameras like this (and the RX10 and FZ1000) hit a sweet spot for some, based on sensor size.

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 13:37 UTC

The people running the established camera companies have to feel so old ...

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 13:31 UTC as 141st comment
Total: 244, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »