Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Biggest camera fail of past couple years: The contestants

Reply
Thread Tools

Biggest camera fail of past couple years: The contestants

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-24-2013
Nikon:

D7000 - focus issues, dirt on sensor issues
D600 - major dirt on sensor issues
D800/E - focus issues
V1 - sensor too small to compete in its class.

Pentax:

K-01: Design that turned people off.
Q: Sensor too small for an interchangeable lens camera.

Canon:

M: Camera too expensive for a non-EVF body. Their lack-luster, last-
to-the-party "commitment" to mirrorless. But I hear they are about to
redeem themselves on this.
Their entire line of low to mid-end, cookie-cutter DSLRs. Time to
retire the Rebels.

Olympus:

E-P5: At $1000 sugg. retail, POINTLESS as a long as the E-5M exists.

Panasonic:

G5: Sensor too old.

Samsung:

All: Cannot market, failed to catch on despite having reasonable
cameras.

Ricoh:

GXR: Crazy design. Big discounts to get rid of them.

Sony:

All the fixed mirror bodies: 1/2 stop slower on the noisiest
implementation of Sony's own sensor of all companies using it.
RX1: WAY too expensive for a fixed-lens camera and for what it
offers.

Leica:

No failures.

Sigma:

DP1-3: Merrill. $1000 each and you need to buy THREE of them to get
three focal lengths.
Interchangeable lenses, SIGMA!

Fuji:

X100S/X20: Still suffering from slow focusing.








 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-24-2013
On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:14:03 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: Canon:
:
: M: Camera too expensive for a non-EVF body. Their lack-luster, last-
: to-the-party "commitment" to mirrorless. But I hear they are about to
: redeem themselves on this.

Really? The only one I've heard predict that is me, and my predictions have
fallen on deaf ears. (Justifiably, I suppose, since I have no inside
information and am just guessing.)

: Their entire line of low to mid-end, cookie-cutter DSLRs. Time to
: retire the Rebels.

They're successful because they take good pictures and some people really like
them. My wife, for example, loves her T2i because of its light weight. She
won't hear of replacing it with, say, a 7D because the latter is considerably
heavier.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-24-2013
On 3/23/2013 8:52 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:14:03 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> : Canon:
> :
> : M: Camera too expensive for a non-EVF body. Their lack-luster, last-
> : to-the-party "commitment" to mirrorless. But I hear they are about to
> : redeem themselves on this.
>
> Really? The only one I've heard predict that is me, and my predictions have
> fallen on deaf ears. (Justifiably, I suppose, since I have no inside
> information and am just guessing.)
>
> : Their entire line of low to mid-end, cookie-cutter DSLRs. Time to
> : retire the Rebels.
>
> They're successful because they take good pictures and some people really like
> them. My wife, for example, loves her T2i because of its light weight. She
> won't hear of replacing it with, say, a 7D because the latter is considerably
> heavier.
>


I can relate to that. My next camera will most likely be much lighter.
One of my friends carries a lot of equipment. Problem is that after a
short walk, he is too tired from carrying the gear around, that he has
to sit down.


--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-24-2013
On Mar 23, 8:47*pm, PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 3/23/2013 8:52 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:14:03 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > : Canon:
> > :
> > : M: *Camera too expensive for a non-EVF body. Their lack-luster, last-
> > : to-the-party "commitment" to mirrorless. *But I hear they are aboutto
> > : redeem themselves on this.

>
> > Really? The only one I've heard predict that is me, and my predictions have
> > fallen on deaf ears. (Justifiably, I suppose, since I have no inside
> > information and am just guessing.)

>
> > : Their entire line of low to mid-end, cookie-cutter DSLRs. *Time to
> > : retire the Rebels.

>
> > They're successful because they take good pictures and some people really like
> > them. My wife, for example, loves her T2i because of its light weight. She
> > won't hear of replacing it with, say, a 7D because the latter is considerably
> > heavier.

>
> I can relate to that. My next camera will most likely be much lighter.
> One of my friends carries a lot of equipment. Problem is that after a
> short walk, he is too tired from carrying the gear around, that he has
> to sit down.
>
> --
> PeterN


What I found was I had no problems toting around a big Nikon DSLR and
large zoom lens...until I started using something much lighter. Then,
going back to the Nikon, you notice it.
I hang a camera off my shoulder and heavier cameras tend to stay put
better though.
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-24-2013
On 24/03/2013 01:47, PeterN wrote:
[]
> I can relate to that. My next camera will most likely be much lighter.
> One of my friends carries a lot of equipment. Problem is that after a
> short walk, he is too tired from carrying the gear around, that he has
> to sit down.


Couldn't agree more. I've been using a DSLR with lenses from 10 to 300
mm, but I've taken more casual photos since buying (once again) a bridge
camera with a 27 - 810 mm (equivalent) range. Not for everyone, of
course, but I'm not taking images for exhibition 18 x 20 prints.

I'm keeping the DSLR, but likely its greatest use will be in low-light
situations where the greater sensitivity of its larger sensor and 35 mm
f/1.8 lens will help.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
 
Reply With Quote
 
James Silverton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-24-2013
On 3/24/2013 1:30 PM, David Taylor wrote:
> On 24/03/2013 01:47, PeterN wrote:
> []
>> I can relate to that. My next camera will most likely be much lighter.
>> One of my friends carries a lot of equipment. Problem is that after a
>> short walk, he is too tired from carrying the gear around, that he has
>> to sit down.

>
> Couldn't agree more. I've been using a DSLR with lenses from 10 to 300
> mm, but I've taken more casual photos since buying (once again) a bridge
> camera with a 27 - 810 mm (equivalent) range. Not for everyone, of
> course, but I'm not taking images for exhibition 18 x 20 prints.
>
> I'm keeping the DSLR, but likely its greatest use will be in low-light
> situations where the greater sensitivity of its larger sensor and 35 mm
> f/1.8 lens will help.


I live and learn tho' I had to go to Wiki to find out out that the term
"bridge camera" had been around since before digital days. Some of them
look nearly as bulky as DSLR's.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-24-2013
On 24/03/2013 19:02, James Silverton wrote:
[]
> I live and learn tho' I had to go to Wiki to find out out that the term
> "bridge camera" had been around since before digital days. Some of them
> look nearly as bulky as DSLR's.


There was quite a discussion at one time about what to call them -
"bridge cameras" now seem to be a generally accepted term.

Yes,the body size may seem similar to the DSLR, but there is no extra
lens to add! What size and weight for a DSLR with the same equivalent
focal length as the 800 - 1000 mm equivalent focal length on some of the
bridge cameras? Mine weighs under 600 grams, and that's body /and/
27-810 mm equivalent lens.

Of course, you sacrifice something, and its absolute image quality won't
match a DSLR, but as most of my images are displayed on the 3 MP screen
of an iPad, that's not as important to me as it might be to others.
Size, and in particular, weight, is.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-24-2013
On 3/24/2013 3:43 PM, David Taylor wrote:
> On 24/03/2013 19:02, James Silverton wrote:
> []
>> I live and learn tho' I had to go to Wiki to find out out that the term
>> "bridge camera" had been around since before digital days. Some of them
>> look nearly as bulky as DSLR's.

>
> There was quite a discussion at one time about what to call them -
> "bridge cameras" now seem to be a generally accepted term.
>
> Yes,the body size may seem similar to the DSLR, but there is no extra
> lens to add! What size and weight for a DSLR with the same equivalent
> focal length as the 800 - 1000 mm equivalent focal length on some of the
> bridge cameras? Mine weighs under 600 grams, and that's body /and/
> 27-810 mm equivalent lens.
>
> Of course, you sacrifice something, and its absolute image quality won't
> match a DSLR, but as most of my images are displayed on the 3 MP screen
> of an iPad, that's not as important to me as it might be to others.
> Size, and in particular, weight, is.


You hit on the reason I use a DSLR. I make 12x18 prints, both for
exhibition and camera club competition. I also mine the image so that I
may very well take a small crop and blow it up.
Just ran across this interesting app for my iPhone. It allows one to
slow down the shutter speed, for slow motion effects.

<http://appmodo.com/75587/slow-shutter-1-0-for-ios-long-exposure-camera-free-for-few-days-2/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+appmodo+%28Appmodo%29>

<https://twitter.com/Appmodo/status/315834197791080448>

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-25-2013
On Mar 24, 2:43*pm, David Taylor <david-
(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 24/03/2013 19:02, James Silverton wrote:
> []
>
> > I live and learn tho' I had to go to Wiki to find out out that the term
> > "bridge camera" had been around since before digital days. Some of them
> > look nearly as bulky as DSLR's.

>
> There was quite a discussion at one time about what to call them -
> "bridge cameras" now seem to be a generally accepted term.
>


That used to refer to cameras with reasonable-sized sensors that could
"kind of" emulate DSLR output, not superzooms.
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-25-2013
On Mar 24, 3:46*pm, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 17:30:48 +0000, David Taylor
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On 24/03/2013 01:47, PeterN wrote:
> >[]
> >> I can relate to that. My next camera will most likely be much lighter.
> >> One of my friends carries a lot of equipment. Problem is that after a
> >> short walk, he is too tired from carrying the gear around, that he has
> >> to sit down.

>
> >Couldn't agree more. *I've been using a DSLR with lenses from 10 to 300
> >mm, but I've taken more casual photos since buying (once again) a bridge
> >camera with a 27 - 810 mm (equivalent) range. *Not for everyone, of
> >course, but I'm not taking images for exhibition 18 x 20 prints.

>
> >I'm keeping the DSLR, but likely its greatest use will be in low-light
> >situations where the greater sensitivity of its larger sensor and 35 mm
> >f/1.8 lens will help.

>
> I made the move to m4/3 over the last few months. All the Canon FF
> gear is gone, and I haven't missed it. Just too damned heavy,
> obtrusive, and expensive. I don't shoot sports any more, so I miss
> nothing.


There is the odd m4/3rds lens (and, if they do develop one that can
use old 4/3 SHG glass properly) that does cost a lot (the 12mm f/2.0
and the 75mm f/1. but they both perform like they should, however
overall, it is cheaper than FF.
 
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
The Biggest List of Digital Camera Sample Photos zokiii Digital Photography 1 01-12-2007 12:56 AM
Was there a .net framework update these past couple weeks? darrel ASP .Net 0 01-07-2005 10:19 PM
The Biggest Digital Camera in the World. AnOvercomer Digital Photography 57 09-02-2003 01:23 AM
Photos from the World's Biggest Digital Camera Fred McKenzie Digital Photography 3 08-30-2003 01:27 AM
if (f() != FAIL) or if (FAIL != f())? Wenjie C Programming 3 07-31-2003 09:54 PM



Advertisments