Marty4650

Marty4650

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

Comments

Total: 1931, showing: 401 – 420
« First‹ Previous1920212223Next ›Last »
In reply to:

random78: Olympus often seems to get more limelight in the history of Micro-Four Thirds and mirrorless. However I think the real breakthrough product was the Panasonic G1. Obviously it was the first mirrorless camera, but also it had three important features which ensured that mirrorless will be taken as a serious camera system rather than a glorified P&S. First it offered an EVF experience which was a credible alternative to OVF. The EVFs before G1 were extremely poor whereas G1 had an amazing EVF for that time. Second it had a pretty fast AF in single shot. Third it had a full set of controls expected by DSLR users. The E-P1 from Olympus didn't have any of these features. I am pretty sure that if it was the first mirrorless instead of G1, it would have been dismissed by most reviewers as a 'P&S' camera with a large sensor which did not have what it takes to meet the needs of a 'serious' photographer. G1 ensured that people viewed mirrorless as mini-DSLR, rather than big P&S.

To add some clarification..... Olympus took the lead on Four Thirds. Both Panasonic DSLRS and the Leica DSLR were variants of the FOURTH Olympus Four Thirds DSLR the E330. The one that followed the E1, E300, and E330 three years later!

But it was reversed with M4/3. Panasonic led the way with their G1 in Sept 2008. Olympus rapidly followed Panasonic with their first M4/3 camera the EP1 nine months later in June 2009.

The timing tends to suggest that Olympus created Four Thirds mostly by itself, and M4/3 was more of a collaboration led by Panasonic.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 12:35 UTC
In reply to:

BobT3218: Wow, were they really still making 4/3 lenses up till now so long after the last 4/3 camera (E-5) was produced? That's customer service taken to extreme.

Anyway, I still have an E-450. Not a great camera by any means. I got it more or less because it was touted as the smallest DSLR ever built. I don't know if that was actually true then, Oly is prone to exaggeration, or still true now but I'm hanging on to it. With the 25mm pancake and the reverse cone lens hood, it can probably pass as the largest sensor compact ever made.

Bob... I seriously doubt there was a single four thirds lens made after 2010. Perhaps a few made from left over parts, but most sold as new were just "new old stock" that was languishing in inventory.

In fact, those $7,000 300mm and 90-250mm SHG lenses were either built to order or built in extremely small batches since so few were sold even at the system's height in 2006.

With the market flooded with cheap kit lenses selling for next to nothing, and high end lenses selling for 30% of their original price, there is absolutely no incentive to make more lenses. Other than using up parts that already exist in inventory.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 12:22 UTC
In reply to:

108: So Olympus settled on the 4/3 sensor size ( how exactly ? ) and designed the lenses accordingly . I have often wondered if it wasn't the other way around , like they determined how to manufacture lenses so as to get the best result possible and then came up with the sensor size that would match .

Also remember.... Olympus did NOT have to design a digital system to help market their already designed AF film lenses like Canon, Nikon and Pentax did. Because they had none. (Well, OK, they had a few fairly mediocre film lenses for the OM-AF77).

Back in 2003, digital sensors were pretty expensive things. That was around the time that an entry level Canon 300D cost $1,000. So using a smaller sensor made economic sense and gave Olympus a cost advantage.

So Olympus had the luxury of designing their new system from the ground up. This cut both ways.... because it also meant APSC had a pretty big quality advantage until around 2012, when sensor technology improved enough and the Sony 16MP four thirds sensor make M4/3 very competitive with APSC.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 12:14 UTC
In reply to:

Old Cameras: "Settlement" implies it never went to trial, which is unfortunate. Something tells me that no wrong doing was admitted, just a wad of crumpled cash offered up to make it all go away. They needed to be judged and found guilty with a prescription for change.

If it goes before a jury, then Garcia could very likely win the case and get all $500,000. So the city settled with him to "save some money."

And the odds are Garcia had to give 1/3rd of that settlement to his lawyer...

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 01:46 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: Would be grand if they would willingly lower their profits a few percent and improve working conditions in their factories.

Perhaps Apple could pay their workers more, but they sure don't need to. That dollar an hour or so they earn is twice as much as they made before the started working for Foxconn.

When Apple has trouble finding workers in China, then they might do something about their wages and their working conditions. But so far, they have had no problem finding all the workers they need.

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2017 at 22:27 UTC
In reply to:

Ben O Connor: Such a dream type of a customers apple has. They have willing to pay up to 1.000€ for a phone, which has NOTHING ELSE but more memory than its 32gb version (799€) and that 800€ basic model has NOTHING BETTER than android ones internally...

Well, good news for Apple and Chinese economy!

Ben.... the odds are every brand phone sold "helps the Chinese economy."

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2017 at 22:22 UTC

The remarkable thing here is that a 14% market share can result in 79% of profits for the entire industry!

This tells you the iPhone is grossly overpriced. But if you are a serious Apple fan, you don't care how expensive it is, because you will line up for hours to buy the latest model at full list price. So perhaps Apple knows exactly what they are doing by pricing their products so high.

The problem for Android is they just don't have a cult following.....

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2017 at 18:45 UTC as 88th comment | 12 replies
In reply to:

sop51: I'll always remember poring over the dozens and dozens of pages of cheesy ads in the back of the magazine, from places like Abe's of Maine, Wall Street Camera, B&H, Adorama and so many others, making wish lists of all the bodies and lenses I would buy. Of course, a magnifying glass was needed to read the tiny print, but my eyes were better back then.

I miss Spiratone. And all their gadgets....

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2017 at 16:04 UTC

Forget the camera. Where can I buy the pie?

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2017 at 13:18 UTC as 55th comment

The keyword here is "magazine" and not "photography."

ALL magazines are in deep trouble today. Literally hundreds have disappeared and were replaced by websites.

And please notice the cover price. In 1937 it was 25 cents, today most special interest magazines cost $6.95 or more, which even after accounting for inflation is a lot more. And they are competing against websites that are essentially free.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2017 at 12:40 UTC as 104th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

(unknown member): Eventually, will this thing end-up on the used lens market?

I cannot imagine why a part deep inside a lens would be designed to "crumple." Especially one that took six hours to find and replace. Most times labor costs more than parts.

If there were "crumple designed parts" they would be on the outside of the lens, or at least near the exterior..

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2017 at 00:52 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Eventually, will this thing end-up on the used lens market?

If this is indeed a design flaw.... then Sony should have the same piece made in high grade stainless steel, and use it whenever the lens comes back for repair.

But it isn't the replacement part that adds much cost. It would probably be a twenty cent part. It is the huge amount of hand labor needed to get to it.

It really is a shame Sony didn't use a better grade part on such an expensive lens. It would have been much easier to build it right the first time. But I suppose that is how business economics works today. You use the cheapest part you feel will "be sufficient."

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2017 at 20:02 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Eventually, will this thing end-up on the used lens market?

"minty condition..... used only one time... changing systems, so my loss is your gain"

Of course, they leave out the part where it was dropped down a flight of stairs.

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2017 at 19:48 UTC
In reply to:

Stacey_K: I honestly don't care how good a lens is optically, when they have something like that thin aluminum plate in them that will bend and screw up the lens if you just bump it into something, I have ZERO interest in owning it. It's the reason I don't own the 24-70 F2.8G nikon, it has a design flaw where the zoom ring screws up if the lens is ever bumped. They need to understand these things are going to be used. You don't have to be able to drive nails with them but they do need to be able to survive a bump without needing a $1000 repair.

Lenses probably COULD be built to withstand two foot drops onto concrete, but would you be willing to pay twice as much for a lens that was heavier and bigger?

And you can buy a car with bulletproof glass and a bomb resistant floor plate, but few people actually need one or are willing to pay for them.

It really just depends on how much risk you are willing to assume. I've owned hundreds of lenses for half a century, and never destroyed one by dropping it. Maybe I am just lucky, or maybe I am typical?

Of course, it might be cheaper to buy the best lenses, then buy accident insurance for them, rather than buying bulletproof lenses.

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2017 at 17:24 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Eventually, will this thing end-up on the used lens market?

Odds are... any lens taken apart and reassembled by Lensrentals has just had the best QC examination possible. Any thing wrong will be corrected. Anything out of spec will be fixed.

I'd rather buy a lens from Lensrentals than one from ebay, KEH or Craigslist.

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2017 at 17:21 UTC
In reply to:

mosc: I didn't understand the advantage of this over an FZ20 and I still don't understand the appeal of this segment today. Maybe I've just never been a big fan of slow telephoto lenses (f4.2 1/2.5" was dark even then). The Canon S1 IS I owned at the time this came out was anchient but the lens was very similar and the size wasn't that different. 40mm thick is less than 66mm thick... but neither one is going into my pocket. I got a little elph a bit later on because it had 1/2.33" 28mm f2.8 and even that was too big for a pocket. Cell phones are THIN and still people complain about those in their pocket. I don't see the size difference as that significant.

I owed both the FZ20 and a TZ1, and while they had much in common, there were several differences:

- TZ1 was much smaller, and half the weight
- TZ1 cost considerably less than the FZ20
- TZ1 was two years newer, and could go up to ISO 1600
- TZ1 had a larger LCD screen with more resolution
- TZ1 had better video, even though both were pretty bad

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2017 at 23:25 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: I had this camera, and I loved it. Sure, this was no low light shooter, but it was great in good light, and had a very useful range for travelers and casual shooters.

This is the camera that created a whole new category. And just to show you how far the concept has been pushed we have the latest successor the ZS100, which also has a 10X zoom range, and is better in every way possible, but costs three times more.

And is probably well worth it....

The TZ1 didn't have any EVF, so I think it is fair to say the ZS100 is a big improvement over it.

And like you said, "the Canon G7X II isn't a 10X zoom." It is a 3X, and in an entirely different category of camera.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2017 at 21:10 UTC

I had this camera, and I loved it. Sure, this was no low light shooter, but it was great in good light, and had a very useful range for travelers and casual shooters.

This is the camera that created a whole new category. And just to show you how far the concept has been pushed we have the latest successor the ZS100, which also has a 10X zoom range, and is better in every way possible, but costs three times more.

And is probably well worth it....

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2017 at 13:34 UTC as 43rd comment | 2 replies

Ahhhh.. the Rolex of convertible laptops!

This will probably be a big seller in Dubai.

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2017 at 13:06 UTC as 19th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

leonche64: This is the right direction. Sony went from 20+ models a year down to around 8 and the move was financially beneficial to them. Not many people are missing the pink and purple $120 models.

Isn't that the truth!

If anyone needs any further proof that the market is shrinking, then just look at the number of new cameras models on Dpreview's timeline for the past few years:

2012 - 166
2013 - 131
2014 - 101
2015 - 73
2016 - 58

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2017 at 12:58 UTC
Total: 1931, showing: 401 – 420
« First‹ Previous1920212223Next ›Last »