Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > All the bodies are metal, METAL!

Reply
Thread Tools

All the bodies are metal, METAL!

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2011
Notice this trend? I wonder what's driving it? You'd feel kind
of...shabby carrying a PLASTIC lump of a DSLR that cost you $900 with
2 kit lenses if someone had a smaller, better-built METAL camera with
them.

http://dpreview.com/news/1109/11090114samsungnx200.asp

Also, I see the pixel counts keep rising.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mr. Strat
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2011
In article
<(E-Mail Removed)>,
RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Notice this trend? I wonder what's driving it? You'd feel kind
> of...shabby carrying a PLASTIC lump of a DSLR that cost you $900 with
> 2 kit lenses if someone had a smaller, better-built METAL camera with
> them.
>
> http://dpreview.com/news/1109/11090114samsungnx200.asp
>


But it's Samsung, so you know it sucks.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2011
"Mr. Strat" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article
><(E-Mail Removed)>,
>RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Notice this trend? I wonder what's driving it? You'd feel kind
>> of...shabby carrying a PLASTIC lump of a DSLR that cost you $900 with
>> 2 kit lenses if someone had a smaller, better-built METAL camera with
>> them.
>>
>> http://dpreview.com/news/1109/11090114samsungnx200.asp
>>

>
>But it's Samsung, so you know it sucks.



We have sold large numbers of Samsung mirrorless CSCs this year,
especially when the earthquake/tsunami adversely affected supplies of
Panasonic and Sony CSCs - and to a lesser extent, Olympus.

We have had very few returned. Many Samsung customers have gone out
of their way to tell us how happy they are with their purchases. We
sell all brands and have no particular favourites, and there are no
particular incentives that would make us prefer to sell one brand over
others*, so the (objective) conclusion that we can draw is that the
Samsung NX series has been quite successful.


(*the same is not true of lenses, where manufacturers/importers offer
widely differing margins and incentives)


 
Reply With Quote
 
DanP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2011
On Thursday, 1 September 2011 14:47:00 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
> "Mr. Strat" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><(E-Mail Removed)>,
> >RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> Notice this trend? I wonder what's driving it? You'd feel kind
> >> of...shabby carrying a PLASTIC lump of a DSLR that cost you $900 with
> >> 2 kit lenses if someone had a smaller, better-built METAL camera with
> >> them.
> >>
> >> http://dpreview.com/news/1109/11090114samsungnx200.asp
> >>

> >
> >But it's Samsung, so you know it sucks.

>
>
> We have sold large numbers of Samsung mirrorless CSCs this year,
> especially when the earthquake/tsunami adversely affected supplies of
> Panasonic and Sony CSCs - and to a lesser extent, Olympus.
>
> We have had very few returned. Many Samsung customers have gone out
> of their way to tell us how happy they are with their purchases. We
> sell all brands and have no particular favourites, and there are no
> particular incentives that would make us prefer to sell one brand over
> others*, so the (objective) conclusion that we can draw is that the
> Samsung NX series has been quite successful.
>
>
> (*the same is not true of lenses, where manufacturers/importers offer
> widely differing margins and incentives)


I am surprised, I thought people would want a good lens choice when buying into a system.

DanP
 
Reply With Quote
 
Me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2011
On 2/09/2011 12:31 a.m., RichA wrote:
> Notice this trend? I wonder what's driving it? You'd feel kind
> of...shabby carrying a PLASTIC lump of a DSLR that cost you $900 with
> 2 kit lenses if someone had a smaller, better-built METAL camera with
> them.
>

So what? It's yet another useless piece of **** rangefinder style
thing, but without anything even close to the vital feature which make a
rangefinder what it is.

> http://dpreview.com/news/1109/11090114samsungnx200.asp
>
> Also, I see the pixel counts keep rising.
>

Totally as expected for the target market for junk like that - gadget
freaks - not photographers.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2011
DanP <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Thursday, 1 September 2011 14:47:00 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
>> "Mr. Strat" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >In article
>> ><(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> >RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Notice this trend? I wonder what's driving it? You'd feel kind
>> >> of...shabby carrying a PLASTIC lump of a DSLR that cost you $900 with
>> >> 2 kit lenses if someone had a smaller, better-built METAL camera with
>> >> them.
>> >>
>> >> http://dpreview.com/news/1109/11090114samsungnx200.asp
>> >>
>> >
>> >But it's Samsung, so you know it sucks.

>>
>>
>> We have sold large numbers of Samsung mirrorless CSCs this year,
>> especially when the earthquake/tsunami adversely affected supplies of
>> Panasonic and Sony CSCs - and to a lesser extent, Olympus.
>>
>> We have had very few returned. Many Samsung customers have gone out
>> of their way to tell us how happy they are with their purchases. We
>> sell all brands and have no particular favourites, and there are no
>> particular incentives that would make us prefer to sell one brand over
>> others*, so the (objective) conclusion that we can draw is that the
>> Samsung NX series has been quite successful.
>>
>>
>> (*the same is not true of lenses, where manufacturers/importers offer
>> widely differing margins and incentives)

>
>I am surprised, I thought people would want a good lens choice when buying into a system.



Don't be surprised! A large proportion of people who buy an
interchangeable lens camera will only ever use one lens - the one that
came with the camera. Most of the rest will have just one additional
lens, and that probably won't get much use.

There is a lot of demand for >10X zoom lenses so people won't ever
have to take them off the camera. Optically, they are all junk, but
buyers don't seem to care.

The vast majority of buyers of interchangeable lens cameras would be
better served by a superzoom. Their performance has improved much
faster than that of DSLRs, meaning that the gap between them is
getting much smaller.

 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2011
On Sep 1, 9:24*am, "Mr. Strat" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article
> <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>
> RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > Notice this trend? *I wonder what's driving it? *You'd feel kind
> > of...shabby carrying a PLASTIC lump of a DSLR that cost you $900 with
> > 2 kit lenses if someone had a smaller, better-built METAL camera with
> > them.

>
> >http://dpreview.com/news/1109/11090114samsungnx200.asp

>
> But it's Samsung, so you know it sucks.


I almost feel sorry for them. They get the worst placement in camera
stores.
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2011
On Sep 1, 9:55*am, Me <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 2/09/2011 12:31 a.m., RichA wrote:> Notice this trend? *I wonder what's driving it? *You'd feel kind
> > of...shabby carrying a PLASTIC lump of a DSLR that cost you $900 with
> > 2 kit lenses if someone had a smaller, better-built METAL camera with
> > them.

>
> So what? *It's yet another useless piece of **** rangefinder style
> thing, but without anything even close to the vital feature which make a
> rangefinder what it is.
>
> >http://dpreview.com/news/1109/11090114samsungnx200.asp

>
> > Also, I see the pixel counts keep rising.

>
> *>
> Totally as expected for the target market for junk like that - gadget
> freaks - not photographers.


Please! I know a lot of real photogs who bought NEX's (for example)
as back-up cameras. Fact is, most cameras, mirrored or mirrorless
that sport reasonable sized sensors can qualify for any image bank.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mr. Strat
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2011
In article <CA863CE2.771BF%(E-Mail Removed)>, George Kerby
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> But it's Samsung, so you know it sucks.

> >
> > I almost feel sorry for them. They get the worst placement in camera
> > stores.

>
> Don't. They sell a LOT of other **** as well...


You got it right...**** is what Samsung specializes in...they always
have.
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-16-2011
"Mr. Strat" wrote:

<edited for brevity>

> You got it right...**** is what Samsung specializes in...they always have.



I've neither owned nor used a Samsung digicam, but...this consumer electronics
giant's other products are often world class.

For example, my Samsung "ML-6060" (monochrome laser printer) is a fine machine.
It's a fair match for any equivalent device from Hewlett-Packard and Canon, as
I'm confident in saying.

--
Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Missing message bodies in newsgroup Ian Murphy ASP .Net 0 03-02-2004 09:05 AM
New EF-S Lenses and Bodies? Danny Rohr Digital Photography 17 11-04-2003 06:20 AM
Re: Digital bodies eventually reaching Film body prices? Charlie Self Digital Photography 2 09-07-2003 12:40 AM
Re: Digital bodies eventually reaching Film body prices? DaVidaMundi Digital Photography 3 09-06-2003 04:29 PM
Re: Digital bodies eventually reaching Film body prices? Tony Spadaro Digital Photography 13 09-06-2003 02:36 AM



Advertisments