Dennis

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

Comments

Total: 435, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Kerensky97: File this in "Missing the point"

Any camera will shoot better than a Holga too. That doesn't stop people from buying them. And they buy them specifically because they DON'T want to use their smartphone.

People need to quit thinking this was meant to be a "DSLR Killer" or the "New Era of Photography". It's a gimmick. And there is a market of people who want gimmick cameras.

@fmaxwell,
It's not trying to *be* an old film camera; it's trying to be a $125 toy that appeals to people who want to goof around with a camera like this, thinking they're getting some of the experience of film cameras. Asking it to be anything more is asking the company that now owns the Yashica name to do something it never had any intention of doing.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2017 at 23:24 UTC
In reply to:

Kerensky97: File this in "Missing the point"

Any camera will shoot better than a Holga too. That doesn't stop people from buying them. And they buy them specifically because they DON'T want to use their smartphone.

People need to quit thinking this was meant to be a "DSLR Killer" or the "New Era of Photography". It's a gimmick. And there is a market of people who want gimmick cameras.

There was every reason. They identified a market consisting of people who think the idea of a digital camera that emulates an old film camera (in the sense that you can't instantly review your pictures) is fun. What's so hard to understand ?
The same reason a software company came up with an iOS app called "Gudak" that emulates Kodak Instamatic film cameras by making you wait 3 days after you take 36 pictures before you can see them. Arguing that "there's no reason to do that" seriously misses the point. Somebody thinks it's fun. The fact that you (and other photographers) think it's dumb doesn't make it any less fun or any less clever of the company (who - as the author pointed out - already has $1 million in funding).

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 02:22 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: The only reason people are disappoined is because of the pre introduction hype.

This is just a toy. And it isn't even a very good toy. Just a very mediocre camera wearing a retro disguise. Sure, they give you a make believe film cartridge that changes the ISO and settings. I doubt many people can get excited about that.

It isn't "the next new thing" or some fantastic innovation. Whoever purchased the Yashica brand should be ashamed of themselves for overhyping this piece of junk and having the nerve to call it a camera.

If you crave retro, then buy a Fuji X100F, or maybe an Olympus Pen-F. Better yet, go to ebay and buy a Yashica Electro 35 GSN. You can get one for around $10. You don't even need to put film in it. Just carry it around as a fashion accessory to impress your hipster friends.

Exactly - the camera is a harmless toy. The feedback they're getting, they probably deserve, for the preannouncement hype that apparently setup unreasonable expectations.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 21:47 UTC
In reply to:

Kerensky97: File this in "Missing the point"

Any camera will shoot better than a Holga too. That doesn't stop people from buying them. And they buy them specifically because they DON'T want to use their smartphone.

People need to quit thinking this was meant to be a "DSLR Killer" or the "New Era of Photography". It's a gimmick. And there is a market of people who want gimmick cameras.

@minibabe
Yes, people (including you) ARE missing the point. You say you don't have to cripple functionality to go retro, but the point of this camera is to cripple functionality. Retro or not. Not having an EVF or LCD for reviewing pictures is part of the marketing pitch. Criticizing that as "retro done wrong" most definitely misses the point. It's like criticizing a camply, cult classic B movie for bad acting. I seriously doubt there was ever any intent to make a "good" camera; one that competes with ... anything, really. This is made for some niche market that finds some hipster chic appeal in that. Yes, everything is wrong about this camera. Except for the people for whom it's right. It's the 2017 version of the Rollei Digi Mini.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 21:45 UTC

Talk about an overanalysis of a toy ! This article misses the boat with this line: "In the pursuit of brash consumerism, this newly branded Yashica has forgotten a large part of why we take photos in the first place: joy."
The whole point of the camera is silly fun. For the right people. There's no instant review. It's an attempt to give snapshooters some of the novelty of shooting film without the hassles of shooting film.
The "Gudak" app for iOS takes a similar approach - it turns most of the LCD into a fake disposable camera back, leaving you with a tiny view of your subject. You shoot 24 or 36 frames and then wait 3 days before you can see the pictures.
These gimmicks are intended to add nothing to photo taking beyond novelty.
Don't take it so seriously. I won't buy one. I don't imagine more than a handful of dpreview readers will. The ones who do will be out $125 (1/8 the cost of an iPhone X) and have a toy camera to enjoy.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 20:02 UTC as 146th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Bobthearch: They haven't answered yet, but many people have asked at their page, what is the thing made out of?
I'd be disappointed to learn the whole thing is craptastic plastic.

It says "metallic finishing", not "metal trim". But yeah, for the price, plastic is all I'd expect. Heck, it has a real "glass lens" !

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2017 at 19:26 UTC
In reply to:

wildpig1234: So do they just make up the eyes and eye color?

"Just" that ... yeah ...

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2017 at 17:01 UTC

Phew ! I was getting worried when I saw that the Google Pixel 2 scored 98 that THE DAY was already here (you know ... the day that phones beat DSLRs ?) Anyway, it looks like Nikon gave us a reprieve ... with any luck, we'll make it to the end of the year.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2017 at 15:46 UTC as 206th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

vesa1tahti: HRD = How to Reset Dynamics, HDR = High Dynamic Range.

I thought it was HeRD ... makes your photos look like everyone elses.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2017 at 13:40 UTC

Great, now if someone would just make silicon film for it ...

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2017 at 19:58 UTC as 36th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

GabrielZ: The quality is okay, nothing spectacular. The initial opening shots for this video seemed out of focus and a bit pixelated though.

I don't even have anything I can watch 4K on ! It looked good at 1080.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2017 at 15:05 UTC

Well, whatever it is ... hopefully you'll let us know when it arrives :) My second SLR was a Yashica FX-3 ... kind of a more compact (and less well built) K1000. The 50mm lens that came with it was really nice, though. I don't know if there's anything left of the original company or if it's just a name owned by an investment firm, but we'll see next month.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2017 at 12:47 UTC as 16th comment
In reply to:

Reilly Diefenbach: Jesus Christ what a bunch of whiners. You don't like the subscription, don't subscribe. Simple.

@sirhawkeye64
Yup - the grass isn't necessarily greener. One relatively obvious alternative to LR is C1Pro - it has a prescribed method for moving your catalog over. They're pretty big and likely to stay around a while. The software also isn't cheap, so may not be what people choose if they object to subscription pricing. And there's no guarantee they won't move to a subscription model. It seems like more and more companies are trying to take advantage of anti-subscription sentiment, but to me, they feel like early mirrorless - lots of promise, most of the way there, but not ready for prime time. And then, if they don't go subscription, what happens when they're not making money. Especially if Adobe keeps all the people were willing to pony up for updates, and these companies attract all the cheapskates !
I can object for now, but I'm not "all in" on it ... I can see the shades of gray in it and could very well end up subscribing, myself, down the road.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 21:13 UTC
In reply to:

Reilly Diefenbach: Jesus Christ what a bunch of whiners. You don't like the subscription, don't subscribe. Simple.

@sirhawkeye64
But ... I'm on dpreview, not financialservicesreview. At least I'm whining about something photographic that affects photographers and not bitching about what other people choose to talk about (which affects nobody).
It's easy to say "if you don't like it, don't buy it" (I can just as easily say "if you don't like what I'm saying, ignore it" ... just rolls of the fingers) but if a few people complaining about the downsides of a subscription model (as many have explained, it's more than cost) cause a few more people to be aware of something they weren't, and they warn a few others away, then we'll have a small impact. And maybe it's all the complaining that's driving competitors to intentionally advertise "No subscription fees ever" ... maybe if it weren't for the complaining, they wouldn't see the opportunity. Things get better when people make each other aware of problems, not when they passively accept everything. Worst case, I'm shouting into the wind.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 19:29 UTC
In reply to:

Reilly Diefenbach: Jesus Christ what a bunch of whiners. You don't like the subscription, don't subscribe. Simple.

@blurredvision
You might want to go back and reread the conversation. (Put on your glasses if your vision is blurred). As you yourself pointed out, I wrote three paragraphs in reply to Reilly. You chose one sentence that you didn't like. And you kind of missed the part of YOUR participation where you called the photography online community a bunch of whiny, entitled <expletives> for their opinions.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 14:07 UTC
In reply to:

gurgeh: Before the subscription model, Adobe had to invest a lot of money developing new versions in order to get people to buy an upgrade. Now they have a stable revenue stream, so their incentive is simply to minimise costs in order to increase their profit, and their products are stagnating. LR still has appalling performance, and we haven't seen any innovation in PS or LR in a long time.

Now this might work for Adobe in the short and medium term, because the competition is still far behind, but it is catching up. Meanwhile the customers are getting more and more fed up for paying more money than before and getting nothing in return. The damage Adobe are doing to their brand will be hard to fix. Me and a lot of people I speak to are simply waiting for another product that does what we need, and then we will say good bye to Adobe for good.

@miksto
You're right ... in fact, the only reason I own a PS license is because the first copy was bundled with a scanner for less that the price of a full license, then I upgraded a couple times after that. I never needed the full capabilities of PS and could not have justified ... was it something like $700 ? Now, LR does all I need and when I do go into PS to do something, there are plenty of other software packages that could do the same. If I did develop a need to use PS, suddenly, $10/month for both products seems like a good deal. (My objection to the subscription model is independent of the pricing).
Adobe was most definitely smart to do this. And clearly, not enough people object for Adobe to be concerned. Maybe it ends up being a win-win for everyone except those of us who are amateurs (no business relying on the software) and who upgrade infrequently because we don't need new features.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 13:50 UTC
In reply to:

Reilly Diefenbach: Jesus Christ what a bunch of whiners. You don't like the subscription, don't subscribe. Simple.

@blurredvision
Help me figure this out.
If I dislike corporate greed at the expense of the consumer and object to an industry trend toward something that supports corporate greed at the expense of the consumer, I'm a whiny, entitled <expletive> for choosing to share my opinions in a discussion on the topic.
But if you dislike what other people say and your sole contribution to a discussion it to insult them for saying it, you're somehow NOT a whiny <expletive> ?
I expect that not all people will agree with my opinions. I respect them for arguing their point of view.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 13:09 UTC
In reply to:

Reilly Diefenbach: Jesus Christ what a bunch of whiners. You don't like the subscription, don't subscribe. Simple.

It would be, if Adobe weren't so entrenched; if we didn't have extensive Lightroom catalogs that make "don't subscribe" a big endeavor. And if the alternatives were better. In fact, LR 6 is still available to buy, so it's not even an immediate concern, but a future one.
But Adobe is a big company and when they make record profits by demanding payment in advance (rather than wait to see if they develop something you're willing to pay for) then other companies will follow. This is a disturbing trend. And, like everything else, worth talking about. If whiners never whined, we'd be in much sorrier shape than we are now.
It's rare that "record profits" is good for consumers. Maybe you're a shareholder ?

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 12:11 UTC
In reply to:

Jesse_Just_Him: Imagine your gear needs subscription to work

@miksto
With licensing, you vote with your wallet by simply saying no to the version X upgrade. (And even then, if you say no to too many upgrades, a future upgrade eventually becomes more expensive). But at least you keep using the product you enjoy without paying for the fact that the company just spent a year and a half on features that provide you with no benefit.
Voting with your wallet now means giving up on the product entirely (despite the fact that you may be perfectly happy with what they released 3 years ago).
And yes, LR is still relevant. That doesn't mean it's worth the subscription. The subscription pays for ongoing development, none of which provides me with any value. Dehaze and panorama support are at least enhancements related to photography, though I wouldn't pay for them, and the rest is aimed at people who need to edit on mobile devices. They can take your money and use it to develop features intended to attract even more new users.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 12:05 UTC
In reply to:

gurgeh: Before the subscription model, Adobe had to invest a lot of money developing new versions in order to get people to buy an upgrade. Now they have a stable revenue stream, so their incentive is simply to minimise costs in order to increase their profit, and their products are stagnating. LR still has appalling performance, and we haven't seen any innovation in PS or LR in a long time.

Now this might work for Adobe in the short and medium term, because the competition is still far behind, but it is catching up. Meanwhile the customers are getting more and more fed up for paying more money than before and getting nothing in return. The damage Adobe are doing to their brand will be hard to fix. Me and a lot of people I speak to are simply waiting for another product that does what we need, and then we will say good bye to Adobe for good.

Three people I work with (who are not dpreview members) use alternative software specifically because of the licensing model. Not because $10/mo is expensive, but because of the principle of it. They're all computer savvy and have plenty of experience buying and upgrading software over the years. None of them are "power users". One switched from PS to gimp, the others are looking at alternatives to Lightroom. I'm on LR 6 at least until I need an upgrade for a future camera and then I'll have to decide whether principles outweigh $10/mo and the time it will take to migrate my LR catalog to something else.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 11:58 UTC
Total: 435, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »