EX2F availability now September 12, 2012

According to B&H's web site this morning.

This tells me one thing:

'Don't buy this camera until all the reviews are out and until the usual first 'price' drop takes place.'

I am really disappointed.

Glad I bought My WB150F as my 'EX2F tele-extender' which now compliments my TL500 for travel and street pics.

Nikonworks wrote:

According to B&H's web site this morning.

This tells me one thing:

'Don't buy this camera until all the reviews are out and until the usual first 'price' drop takes place.'

I am really disappointed.

I would think it unwise to buy any new camera til the reviews are out , especially the Samsung after seeing the few poor samples posted so far .

While I hope that those samples were not from a reliable source and not a true representation of the camera itself , they sure don't help to create much of a desire to own it either.

Billx08 wrote:

Those samples were so bad that they're highly suspect and may have been intended to reduce its desirability. Of course they don't make the EX2F more desirable, but anyone that has faith in the validity of those suspect samples is easily gulled.

Time will tell, try not to get a stroke worrying about it in the meantime.

Anyone who has to stoop that low having to use an alias on a public forum has to truly be a real snake . Being banned on rare occasion doesn't mean a whole lot as fairness isn't always metted out in every case but the snake doesn't fall into that category. He has no respect for himself or anyone else. Anyone who hates a camera company as he hates Samsung has to be one sick individual.

I mean few of us , if any, personally know each other and aren't likely to ever meet but most of us have been brought up to have some measure of respect for each other regardless of the fact we are strangers.
Too bad they can't keep him out permanently .

Hi!
Very well put!!
Thanks

Veducci wrote:

Anyone who has to stoop that low having to use an alias on a public forum has to truly be a real snake . Being banned on rare occasion doesn't mean a whole lot as fairness isn't always metted out in every case but the snake doesn't fall into that category. He has no respect for himself or anyone else. Anyone who hates a camera company as he hates Samsung has to be one sick individual.

I mean few of us , if any, personally know each other and aren't likely to ever meet but most of us have been brought up to have some measure of respect for each other regardless of the fact we are strangers.
Too bad they can't keep him out permanently .

Billx08 wrote:

The Jacal wrote:

Billx08 wrote:

Those samples were so bad that they're highly suspect and may have been intended to reduce its desirability. Of course they don't make the EX2F more desirable, but anyone that has faith in the validity of those suspect samples is easily gulled.

Time will tell, try not to get a stroke worrying about it in the meantime.

Reading comprehension problems, hmm? What I wrote shows very clearly that those suspect samples aren't worth worrying about.

How are they suspect? I'm not saying they're not, but how do you know?

You should worry that people don't start to think "snake" when they read your replies.

If people are really concerned about this, all they have to do is to look at my posting history to see that I'm not. However, I don't see why I "should worry".

Also, it's interesting to note that I get such a bellicose response from such a simple reply.

I really don't care if the lunatics start to run the asylum, nobody will win. Please open your eyes and try and be objective.

Veducci wrote:

Anyone who has to stoop that low having to use an alias on a public forum has to truly be a real snake .

So I'm guessing that Veducci is your only name then.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7467981@N05/

Tell the truth and shame the Devil, even though he doesn't really exist.

The Jacal wrote:

I really don't care if the lunatics start to run the asylum, nobody will win. Please open your eyes and try and be objective.

My response when seeing the EX2F to S100 comparison thread was this:

"This particular review is so poor that it has me mystified, as I have seen other much better examples, so I am waiting for a final version FW camera to be tested by a reputable site."

So I would say that I tend to agree with Billx08 that these examples are so poor that I smell a rat. If the examples are just as bad when a quality review is done to a production camera then i will say that it is very bad and I would not recommend to anyone to buy it. But as someone else has already said, for a company to release an upgrade of the EX1 that did not at least equal its performance would be sales suicide. We are already seeing people in the pana forum saying that the LX7 may not be as good as the LX5, but I would wait and see production model tests.

While we are on conspiracy theories, we have already seen that alternate brand trolls are entering forums and causing disruption against their competitors, so it is conceivable that company run reviews sites be set up to give competitors a poor review. Anything seems to go in this industry now that it has got tough, not to mention that it is good policy to not believe anything you see on the internet.

Brian

sigh

brianj wrote:

The Jacal wrote:

I really don't care if the lunatics start to run the asylum, nobody will win. Please open your eyes and try and be objective.

I'm not sure if there's any confusion here, but this wasn't aimed at you.

My response when seeing the EX2F to S100 comparison thread was this:

"This particular review is so poor that it has me mystified, as I have seen other much better examples, so I am waiting for a final version FW camera to be tested by a reputable site."

I did notice, it was a measured response, not accusatory or finger pointing. Unlike others.

So I would say that I tend to agree with Billx08 that these examples are so poor that I smell a rat.

You smell a rat, sure, me too, but you didn't go on to flame the poster about it like Bollox08 did. That is my ongoing point here. "Don't shoot the messenger".

If the examples are just as bad when a quality review is done to a production camera then i will say that it is very bad and I would not recommend to anyone to buy it. But as someone else has already said, for a company to release an upgrade of the EX1 that did not at least equal its performance would be sales suicide. We are already seeing people in the pana forum saying that the LX7 may not be as good as the LX5, but I would wait and see production model tests.

Totally agree 100% And I never said otherwise.

While we are on conspiracy theories, we have already seen that alternate brand trolls are entering forums and causing disruption against their competitors, so it is conceivable that company run reviews sites be set up to give competitors a poor review. Anything seems to go in this industry now that it has got tough, not to mention

Again, I'm with you on this one and never said anything different.

that it is good policy to not believe anything you see on the internet.

Yeah, good one. This actually comes back to my original point.

Billx08 wrote:

The Jacal wrote:
. . .

Those samples were so bad that they're highly suspect and may have been intended to reduce its desirability. Of course they don't make the EX2F more desirable, but anyone that has faith in the validity of those suspect samples is easily gulled.

Time will tell, try not to get a stroke worrying about it in the meantime.

Reading comprehension problems, hmm? What I wrote shows very clearly that those suspect samples aren't worth worrying about.

How are they suspect? I'm not saying they're not, but how do you know?

Because as I wrote, "Those samples were so bad that they're highly suspect". It's not too unusual for new models to produce slightly lower IQ, but the operative word that describes the degradation is " slight ". If you have to ask "how do you know" because you don't see how bad the samples were, that says something about your ability to judge. I think that it's more about rhetoric though since you left yourself an "out" by writing "I'm not saying they're not".

You mentioned "those suspect samples" , not the 'possibly suspect samples' or 'the stragely bad samples', no, it was those suspect samples

I really don't care if the lunatics start to run the asylum, nobody will win. Please open your eyes and try and be objective.

I have been. It's you that seems to want to run the asylum, after helping snake to turn the forum into an asylum. Your frequently posted "mission" shows only that even without this forum, you're captive in your own internal asylum.

There's the anger.
If I may I would like to remind you of this.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1001&message=42251374

Billx08 wrote before his meds:

The Jacal wrote:
. . .

How are they suspect? I'm not saying they're not, but how do you know?

Because as I wrote, "Those samples were so bad that they're highly suspect". It's not too unusual for new models to produce slightly lower IQ, but the operative word that describes the degradation is " slight ". If you have to ask "how do you know" because you don't see how bad the samples were, that says something about your ability to judge. I think that it's more about rhetoric though since you left yourself an "out" by writing "I'm not saying they're not".

You mentioned "those suspect samples" , not the 'possibly suspect samples' or 'the stragely bad samples', no, it was those suspect samples

Of course, and it's a perfectly reasonable thing to say. Calling them "suspect" doesn't say that I know that they're bad, just that they might be, and in this case they're bad enough that most reasonable photographers could substitute "probably are" for "might be".

'Probably' and 'might' are vastly different.

If you think that there's nothing suspicious about those samples then you either know little about photography or you don't know the English language very well.

I didn't say they weren't. I know plenty about photography and a fair bit about the industry.
Oh, and I've been learning English since the early seventies.

The samples are suspect, and whether you are able to understand that or not is your problem, not ours.

'Might' be my problem or is 'probably' my problem? See above.

Some of DPR's NX Studio Sample photos contained in their NX review were also suspect and I said so at the time that they were initially posted. DPR first denied that, giving all sorts of reasons why they were perfectly fine when the samples showed that the NX200 produced some really awful images. DPR eventually capitulated and re-shot the samples using a 60mm NX lens instead of the manual focus Pentax 50mm lens that was originally used. The new NX sample photos were vastly superior, with DPR admitting that they produced higher resolution than the NEX7's images. This wasn't the fault of the otherwise excellent NEX7. It was due to the lower quality NEX lens that was used to shoot its Studio images. It would probably have been much worse if DPR used the same Pentax lens on the NEX7 for the Studio sample images.

Don't know why you're mentioning this, can't use a different lens on the EX2.

I really don't care if the lunatics start to run the asylum, nobody will win. Please open your eyes and try and be objective.

I have been. It's you that seems to want to run the asylum, after helping snake to turn the forum into an asylum. Your frequently posted "mission" shows only that even without this forum, you're captive in your own internal asylum.

There's the anger.

You only see the anger reflected in the mirror I've held up in front of you.

That's very philosophical, well done.

If I may I would like to remind you of this.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1001&message=42251374

Good post, thanks for the reminder. If anyone bites at your link I'd like to help them with a bit of explanatory context. What I wrote about a forum "troll" didn't refer to either of the two names quoted in the reply. It referred to KingDon, the longtime forum troll who created the EX2F vs S100 comparison thread that contained the suspect images (without identifying info or EXIF data) in his OP. If the EX2f is as bad as those images indicate, I won't be buying one and you can sneer all you want at those that do.

"It wasn't me, it was an older boy" would have been quicker.

If it's only slightly better than the EX1/TL500, I'll also give it a pass.

Your choice.

But you'll still be here spitting your anger and venom at your imagination's foes, both real and imaginary.

Almost Orwellian, nice.

But I'd recommend this as an even better link for those with some free time on their hands to check out :

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1001&message=42285877

Ah, your moment of glory, don't forget my response though.

Billx08 wrote:

The Jacal wrote:
. . .

You mentioned "those suspect samples" , not the 'possibly suspect samples' or 'the stragely bad samples', no, it was those suspect samples

Of course, and it's a perfectly reasonable thing to say. Calling them "suspect" doesn't say that I know that they're bad, just that they might be, and in this case they're bad enough that most reasonable photographers could substitute "probably are" for "might be".

'Probably' and 'might' are vastly different.

There's a slight difference but I gave the reason why it was a justifiable substitution. What you previously wrote implied that calling the samples "suspect" should only be done if one knows that they are bad. That's where the problem with comprehension lies.

no, there's a huge difference.

If you think that there's nothing suspicious about those samples then you either know little about photography or you don't know the English language very well.

I didn't say they weren't. I know plenty about photography and a fair bit about the industry.
Oh, and I've been learning English since the early seventies.

Yes, and Frederick Forsythe's books probably were very helpful. I've read a couple (not including TDotJ) and think that he's overrated, almost a hack of a writer of suspense novels. But they were is more recent novels, so perhaps he became bored as he aged.

As opposed to becoming 'boring'.

The samples are suspect, and whether you are able to understand that or not is your problem, not ours.

'Might' be my problem or is 'probably' my problem? See above.

Both are correct. English is like that, you know.

Yes I do know, and you are wrong.

In your case though, you probably don't.

Why shouldn't I.

Some of DPR's NX Studio Sample photos contained in their NX review were also suspect and I said so at the time that they were initially posted. DPR first denied that, giving all sorts of reasons why they were perfectly fine when the samples showed that the NX200 produced some really awful images. DPR eventually capitulated and re-shot the samples using a 60mm NX lens instead of the manual focus Pentax 50mm lens that was originally used. The new NX sample photos were vastly superior, with DPR admitting that they produced higher resolution than the NEX7's images. This wasn't the fault of the otherwise excellent NEX7. It was due to the lower quality NEX lens that was used to shoot its Studio images. It would probably have been much worse if DPR used the same Pentax lens on the NEX7 for the Studio sample images.

Don't know why you're mentioning this, can't use a different lens on the EX2.

Yet another demonstration of cluelessness or missing the point. It's not about interchangeable lenses, but about the fact that anyone, even trusted, reliable sources can sometimes post suspect images. In DPR's case, the original, full resolution images could be downloaded and they contained full EXIF data, which is how I determined that the aperture stated wasn't actually used, since the MF lens mounted with an adapter doesn't provide aperture information, but it could be inferred by knowing the shutter speed, the ISO used, and comparing it with other samples shot using different ISO values. The EX2f sample came with no source, no EXIF data, and were multi-shot crop composites that almost any fanboy could have kludged in minutes.

I was being flippant. Sense of humour override?

If it's only slightly better than the EX1/TL500, I'll also give it a pass.

Your choice.

Sure, and that's as it should be. But you're now going after me much more than the "fault denying" Samsung fanboys that you've told us over and over again are the Bête Noires that you love to rail against.

Who else am I going after? Do tell.

But you'll still be here spitting your anger and venom at your imagination's foes, both real and imaginary.

Almost Orwellian, nice.

As previously noted, I don't think that you're snake even though you might be ( ) but I really should ask, "Winston, is that you?"

There are one or two things I don't think you are either.