Reading mode: Light Dark

I don't understand...

Go to last post
Peter Bendheim

Peter Bendheim

Senior Member
Messages
2,568
Reaction score
701
Location
Durban, ZA
Given the below quote of just USD3 for a gorilla glass screen I don't understand why so many cameras are fitted with cheap plastic screen covers requiring the application of cheap and nasty LCD protectors which are messy, ugly and full of bubbles...

"Sapphire, a crystalline form of aluminum oxide, probably won’t ever be as cheap as Gorilla Glass, the durable material from Corning that’s used to make screens on iPhones and other smartphones. A Gorilla Glass display costs less than $3, while a sapphire display would cost about $30. But that could fall below $20 in a couple of years thanks to increased competition and improving technology, says Eric Virey, an analyst for the market research firm Yole Développement. And since sapphire performs better than glass, that price could make it cheap enough to compete, he says."
--
Peter Bendheim
www.peterbendheim.com
 
Peter Bendheim said:
Given the below quote of just USD3 for a gorilla glass screen I don't understand why so many cameras are fitted with cheap plastic screen covers requiring the application of cheap and nasty LCD protectors which are messy, ugly and full of bubbles...

"Sapphire, a crystalline form of aluminum oxide, probably won’t ever be as cheap as Gorilla Glass, the durable material from Corning that’s used to make screens on iPhones and other smartphones. A Gorilla Glass display costs less than $3, while a sapphire display would cost about $30. But that could fall below $20 in a couple of years thanks to increased competition and improving technology, says Eric Virey, an analyst for the market research firm Yole Développement. And since sapphire performs better than glass, that price could make it cheap enough to compete, he says."
--
Peter Bendheim
www.peterbendheim.com
Click to expand...
All my screen protectors are made of glass. Its you that chooses to go the cheap plastic route.
 
Peter Bendheim said:
Given the below quote of just USD3 for a gorilla glass screen I don't understand why so many cameras are fitted with cheap plastic screen covers requiring the application of cheap and nasty LCD protectors which are messy, ugly and full of bubbles...


Peter Bendheim
www.peterbendheim.com
Click to expand...
The cheap plastic screen cover is the screen protector. It protects the LCD and the touch screen sensor. Right? It is cheap to replace and real life use of a camera seldom sees it damaged.

I don't have a screen protector on my T5i. I think someone on here said it is a $10 part if the outer screen is damaged.

If you do use a screen protector, put a layer of seran wrap on it to protect the screen protector :)
 
Maybe I didn't explain myself. Camera manufacturers could choose (as some do) to use a gorilla glass LCD rather than plastic - and in so doing save the user from applying further covering - like say the D3s which came with tempered glass or the 5dm3 - and therefore didn't need extra covering. The cost is marginal and saves extra protection. Is that clearer now to you so you don't need to make an insulting and personal comment. Where I live you would need to have the camera sent in for repair to replace the scratched monitor cover. My iPhone is unscathed after 4 years with no additional protection needed- clear now to you what I meant?
--
Peter Bendheim
www.peterbendheim.com
 
What is the problem here?

The OP makes a perfectly valid point and gets snide remarks. He patiently restates his case and gets further disrespect. Those who think they're being smart are actively rejecting the idea of a simple, inexpensive upgrade which will save many photographers hassle and worry. For this to have occured on the largest photography forum must make camera companies rub their hands in glee. What saps you are.
 
I don't get this either. I carry my RX100 in my pocket. I tried it without an aftermarket screen protector at first, but ended up getting a couple scratches on the screen within a couple weeks when I wasn't careful. I have one on my NEX and my DSLR. I don't know if there's a technical reason for not using more scratch resistant glass or if it's penny pinching. I have screen protectors on my wife's iPhone and my daughter's iPod Touch, but neither one of them saw the tiniest scratch prior to being covered (and my daughter has the frustrating habit of always setting the iPod screen down).

Just another illustration of how mobile phone manufacturers go crazy trying to make things better/easier for customers in order to make their products indispensible, while camera manufacturers just keep tweaking variants on the same old gadgets.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
Peter Bendheim said:
Given the below quote of just USD3 for a gorilla glass screen I don't understand why so many cameras are fitted with cheap plastic screen covers requiring the application of cheap and nasty LCD protectors which are messy, ugly and full of bubbles...
Click to expand...
Even if all cameras have saphire, many people, myself included, will probably still use a plastic cover.

its just such a cheap, easily replaceable insurance solution.
 
I agree with you on this.

Moreover, on my sonys, the screens seem to decay over time. My 2 yo NEX 5N screen looks awful and the RX100's are following suit.

Really, I think it's appalling that better materials are not used from the start.

Any savvy manufacturer would pop on a GG screen and be the first to make it a key marketing feature of any half decent model. Like a previous poster said, the cellphone manufacturers a bending over backwards to improve ergonomics, aesthetics and build quality. Most camera makers have a lot of work to do.
 
Peter Bendheim said:
Given the below quote of just USD3 for a gorilla glass screen I don't understand why so many cameras are fitted with cheap plastic screen covers requiring the application of cheap and nasty LCD protectors which are messy, ugly and full of bubbles...

"Sapphire, a crystalline form of aluminum oxide, probably won’t ever be as cheap as Gorilla Glass, the durable material from Corning that’s used to make screens on iPhones and other smartphones. A Gorilla Glass display costs less than $3, while a sapphire display would cost about $30. But that could fall below $20 in a couple of years thanks to increased competition and improving technology, says Eric Virey, an analyst for the market research firm Yole Développement. And since sapphire performs better than glass, that price could make it cheap enough to compete, he says."
Click to expand...
It goes further than that. Why does my £700 iPhone have a retina display (over 300dpi) but my £2000 Nikon hasn't? The LCDs on the back of cameras are usually terrible for judging pictures.
 
Dennis said:
I don't get this either. I carry my RX100 in my pocket. I tried it without an aftermarket screen protector at first, but ended up getting a couple scratches on the screen within a couple weeks when I wasn't careful. I have one on my NEX and my DSLR. I don't know if there's a technical reason for not using more scratch resistant glass or if it's penny pinching. I have screen protectors on my wife's iPhone and my daughter's iPod Touch, but neither one of them saw the tiniest scratch prior to being covered (and my daughter has the frustrating habit of always setting the iPod screen down).

Just another illustration of how mobile phone manufacturers go crazy trying to make things better/easier for customers in order to make their products indispensible, while camera manufacturers just keep tweaking variants on the same old gadgets.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
If YOU were the manufacturer whose warranty does not cover mechanical damages AND sell the replacement screen (with the shiny new cover) for $120+labour, would you bend hard to make it indestructible? Even if it cost 'punny' $3.

I'm the sucker who bought $3 protector and put it on my D7100 the first day (because I got used to D80 plastic protectors but D7100 never had one shipped with). We know what THEY want but we have a choice....

Penny pinching appears to be the correct answer, give yourself a 'great work' sticker.

cheers
 
ZorSy said:
If YOU were the manufacturer whose warranty does not cover mechanical damages AND sell the replacement screen (with the shiny new cover) for $120+labour, would you bend hard to make it indestructible? Even if it cost 'punny' $3.
Click to expand...
I could probably never be a good business person as I believe in providing quality, so long as it can be done profitably. I can't sympathize with the corporate world's never ending greed and need to make more money every quarter.
ZorSy said:
I'm the sucker who bought $3 protector and put it on my D7100 the first day (because I got used to D80 plastic protectors but D7100 never had one shipped with). We know what THEY want but we have a choice....
Click to expand...
Yup - I kept my D7000 plastic protector on from day 1 until I got around to getting a stick on protector. It's just part of buying gadgets. Sadly.
ZorSy said:
Penny pinching appears to be the correct answer,
Click to expand...
I don't think it is. Companies that are only out to take your money; that don't employ a strategy of creating products that will create loyalty in customers, don't get loyalty. Cost cutting is an act of desperation; it's what you do when you have no more ideas.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
ZorSy said:
Dennis said:
I don't get this either. I carry my RX100 in my pocket. I tried it without an aftermarket screen protector at first, but ended up getting a couple scratches on the screen within a couple weeks when I wasn't careful. I have one on my NEX and my DSLR. I don't know if there's a technical reason for not using more scratch resistant glass or if it's penny pinching. I have screen protectors on my wife's iPhone and my daughter's iPod Touch, but neither one of them saw the tiniest scratch prior to being covered (and my daughter has the frustrating habit of always setting the iPod screen down).

Just another illustration of how mobile phone manufacturers go crazy trying to make things better/easier for customers in order to make their products indispensible, while camera manufacturers just keep tweaking variants on the same old gadgets.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
If YOU were the manufacturer whose warranty does not cover mechanical damages AND sell the replacement screen (with the shiny new cover) for $120+labour, would you bend hard to make it indestructible? Even if it cost 'punny' $3.
Click to expand...
Servicing is not a major revenue stream for camera makers. It's not a conspiracy, but they design a product to a price point for a market.
ZorSy said:
I'm the sucker who bought $3 protector and put it on my D7100 the first day (because I got used to D80 plastic protectors but D7100 never had one shipped with). We know what THEY want but we have a choice....
Click to expand...
As far as I know the D7100 had a toughened screen, and therefore didn't need a protector in the same way as other Nikon cameras.
 
Dennis said:
ZorSy said:
If YOU were the manufacturer whose warranty does not cover mechanical damages AND sell the replacement screen (with the shiny new cover) for $120+labour, would you bend hard to make it indestructible? Even if it cost 'punny' $3.
Click to expand...
I could probably never be a good business person as I believe in providing quality, so long as it can be done profitably. I can't sympathize with the corporate world's never ending greed and need to make more money every quarter.
Dennis said:
I'm the sucker who bought $3 protector and put it on my D7100 the first day (because I got used to D80 plastic protectors but D7100 never had one shipped with). We know what THEY want but we have a choice....
Click to expand...
Yup - I kept my D7000 plastic protector on from day 1 until I got around to getting a stick on protector. It's just part of buying gadgets. Sadly.
Dennis said:
Penny pinching appears to be the correct answer,
Click to expand...
I don't think it is. Companies that are only out to take your money; that don't employ a strategy of creating products that will create loyalty in customers, don't get loyalty. Cost cutting is an act of desperation; it's what you do when you have no more ideas.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
I agree with you completelly - I post with a great dose of sarcasm in my words...Loyalty no longer lives in a good part of corporate world. The same is with people: some believe it's loyalty but I rather think inertia...
 
Gareth Bourne said:
ZorSy said:
Dennis said:
I don't get this either. I carry my RX100 in my pocket. I tried it without an aftermarket screen protector at first, but ended up getting a couple scratches on the screen within a couple weeks when I wasn't careful. I have one on my NEX and my DSLR. I don't know if there's a technical reason for not using more scratch resistant glass or if it's penny pinching. I have screen protectors on my wife's iPhone and my daughter's iPod Touch, but neither one of them saw the tiniest scratch prior to being covered (and my daughter has the frustrating habit of always setting the iPod screen down).

Just another illustration of how mobile phone manufacturers go crazy trying to make things better/easier for customers in order to make their products indispensible, while camera manufacturers just keep tweaking variants on the same old gadgets.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
If YOU were the manufacturer whose warranty does not cover mechanical damages AND sell the replacement screen (with the shiny new cover) for $120+labour, would you bend hard to make it indestructible? Even if it cost 'punny' $3.
Click to expand...
Servicing is not a major revenue stream for camera makers. It's not a conspiracy, but they design a product to a price point for a market.
Member said:
I'm the sucker who bought $3 protector and put it on my D7100 the first day (because I got used to D80 plastic protectors but D7100 never had one shipped with). We know what THEY want but we have a choice....
Click to expand...
As far as I know the D7100 had a toughened screen, and therefore didn't need a protector in the same way as other Nikon cameras.

--
http://www.flickr.com/ggbourne
Click to expand...
I live in corporate world, I work for one: it's hard to distinguish anymore if cost cutting is part of conspiracy or ir results looking like one. But corporate world in 2014 see service as a cost center and service managers are trying hard to present it being profitable as the part of the sales stream, thus broken link between (traditional) feedback into R&D (because you don't shoot yourself in the foot). Toughened does not mean scratch resistant and me, as the D7100 owner did chose to protect it anyway: 'toughened' is a marketing term.

I am not in favour illustrating one screw less being a stupid decission as I deal with it daily...have bills to pay and mouths to feed....
 
MikeyLikesNikon said:
From the 2013 report Nikon shipped more than 16 million interchangeable lens cameras...

http://nikon.com/about/ir/management/business_info/imaging/index.htm

Pls just give me 1%...
Click to expand...
That chart is misleadingly labeled, which understandably caused you to misinterpret it. It refers to the camera bodies + interchangeable lenses combined (and it's for FY 2013, which is the one year period ending March 31, 2013 -- i.e. mostly calendar year 2012).

The breakdown is:

7 million ILC cameras

9.7 million lenses for ILC cameras

You can see that breakdown clearly in the PDF that Nikon posted alongside the chart. Scroll down to section 6:

Loading…

nikon.com

For the most recent full year available (period ending March 31, 2014) the figures are:

5.7 million ILC cameras

8.2 million lenses for ILC cameras

And Nikon's sales projections for the current fiscal year (period ending March 31, 2015) are:

5.4 million ILC cameras

7.4 million lenses for ILC cameras
 
Dennis said:
I don't get this either. I carry my RX100 in my pocket. I tried it without an aftermarket screen protector at first, but ended up getting a couple scratches on the screen within a couple weeks when I wasn't careful. I have one on my NEX and my DSLR. I don't know if there's a technical reason for not using more scratch resistant glass or if it's penny pinching. I have screen protectors on my wife's iPhone and my daughter's iPod Touch, but neither one of them saw the tiniest scratch prior to being covered (and my daughter has the frustrating habit of always setting the iPod screen down).

Just another illustration of how mobile phone manufacturers go crazy trying to make things better/easier for customers in order to make their products indispensible, while camera manufacturers just keep tweaking variants on the same old gadgets.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
I refuse to reduce the quality of my experience by putting a screen protector on my phones or cameras. My Canon M had 2 good sized scratches on the screen in 3 months despite keeping it in it's own pouch and being careful with it and it never being placed screen down. My iphone 5s frequently ends up tossed around and put in the same pocket as my keys or coins (inadvertently), even dropped a few times. It has but a few tiny hairline scratches that can only be seen by holding it at just the right angle and squinting. Most would call it scratch free.

It seems especially egregious that the Canon scratched so much easier given that it was a touchscreen camera.

I understand trying to save a buck, but when $3 in savings results in $5 of customer dissatisfaction and negative marketing, you didn't come out ahead.

I do have hope in that the latest trend is producing higher quality products as the low end market dries up and goes phone camera only. Perhaps more attention to detail will make them consider screen durability.
 
Eamon Hickey said:
MikeyLikesNikon said:
From the 2013 report Nikon shipped more than 16 million interchangeable lens cameras...

http://nikon.com/about/ir/management/business_info/imaging/index.htm

Pls just give me 1%...
Click to expand...
That chart is misleadingly labeled, which understandably caused you to misinterpret it. It refers to the camera bodies + interchangeable lenses combined (and it's for FY 2013, which is the one year period ending March 31, 2013 -- i.e. mostly calendar year 2012).
Click to expand...
No, that 16 million is all cameras with lenses that attach for all camera makers, not just nikon products. Note the *'s in their report.
peripheralfocus said:
The breakdown is:

7 million ILC cameras

9.7 million lenses for ILC cameras

You can see that breakdown clearly in the PDF that Nikon posted alongside the chart. Scroll down to section 6:

http://nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/result/pdf/2014/14_4qf_d_e.pdf

For the most recent full year available (period ending March 31, 2014) the figures are:

5.7 million ILC cameras

8.2 million lenses for ILC cameras

And Nikon's sales projections for the current fiscal year (period ending March 31, 2015) are:

5.4 million ILC cameras

7.4 million lenses for ILC cameras
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top