Biggest camera fail of past couple years: The contestants

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Mar 24, 2013.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    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.
     
    RichA, Mar 24, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:14:03 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> 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
     
    Robert Coe, Mar 24, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/23/2013 8:52 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:14:03 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> 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
     
    PeterN, Mar 24, 2013
    #3
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Mar 23, 8:47 pm, PeterN <> wrote:
    > On 3/23/2013 8:52 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:14:03 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> 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.
     
    RichA, Mar 24, 2013
    #4
  5. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    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
     
    David Taylor, Mar 24, 2013
    #5
  6. 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.
     
    James Silverton, Mar 24, 2013
    #6
  7. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    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
     
    David Taylor, Mar 24, 2013
    #7
  8. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    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_campaign=Feed%3A+appmodo+%28Appmodo%29>

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

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Mar 24, 2013
    #8
  9. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Mar 24, 2:43 pm, David Taylor <david-
    > 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.
     
    RichA, Mar 25, 2013
    #9
  10. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Mar 24, 3:46 pm, Bowser <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 17:30:48 +0000, 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 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/1.8) but they both perform like they should, however
    overall, it is cheaper than FF.
     
    RichA, Mar 25, 2013
    #10
  11. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    On 24/03/2013 20:37, PeterN wrote:
    []
    > 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.


    Yes, it's great that there is a range of camera types to suit us all!

    > 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_campaign=Feed%3A+appmodo+%28Appmodo%29>
    >
    >
    > <https://twitter.com/Appmodo/status/315834197791080448>


    Thanks for that, Peter, I've downloaded it and will play!
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Mar 25, 2013
    #11
  12. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    On 25/03/2013 02:08, RichA wrote:
    > On Mar 24, 2:43 pm, David Taylor <david-
    > > 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.


    It referred more to the shape of the camera and the presence of an
    electronic viewfinder (EVF) providing the "reflex" than the zoom range
    of the lens. The first bridge camera I owned was the Lumix FZ5, with
    more than 10:1 zoom range.

    See:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge_camera
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Mar 25, 2013
    #12
  13. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 08:40:38 +0000, David Taylor
    <> wrote:
    : On 25/03/2013 02:08, RichA wrote:
    : > On Mar 24, 2:43 pm, David Taylor <david-
    : > > 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.
    :
    : It referred more to the shape of the camera and the presence of an
    : electronic viewfinder (EVF) providing the "reflex" than the zoom range
    : of the lens. The first bridge camera I owned was the Lumix FZ5, with
    : more than 10:1 zoom range.
    :
    : See:
    : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge_camera

    I'd have said (Back me up here, guys!) that the term "bridge camera" predated
    by several years the widespread use of any EVF.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Mar 26, 2013
    #13
  14. Bowser <> wrote:

    > 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.


    And you don't do very shallow DOF and low light and so on
    either. :)

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 30, 2013
    #14
  15. RichA

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    In article <>,
    Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    >Bowser <> wrote:
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    >And you don't do very shallow DOF and low light and so on
    >either. :)


    You can get f/0.95 lenses for m4/3.

    --
    "Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
    crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
    TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
    bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."
     
    Paul Ciszek, Apr 7, 2013
    #15
  16. Paul Ciszek <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    >>Bowser <> wrote:


    >>> 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.


    >>And you don't do very shallow DOF and low light and so on
    >>either. :)


    > You can get f/0.95 lenses for m4/3.


    Which is about f/1.9 for full format in DOF.

    Colour me not very impressed.


    Canon (EF (full format)):
    f/1.8: 28mm, 50mm (cheapest lens from Canon), 85mm
    f/1.4: 24mm, 35mm, 50mm
    f/1.2: 50mm, 85mm

    Nikon seems to have at least (but I don't know much about
    Nikon):
    f/1.8: 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm
    f/1.4: 24mm, 35mm, 85mm
    f/1.2: 50mm

    And of course there are further lenses from third parties for
    both systems.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 10, 2013
    #16
  17. RichA

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    In article <>,
    Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    >Paul Ciszek <> wrote:
    >> Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    >>>Bowser <> wrote:

    >
    >>>> 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.

    >
    >>>And you don't do very shallow DOF and low light and so on
    >>>either. :)

    >
    >> You can get f/0.95 lenses for m4/3.

    >
    >Which is about f/1.9 for full format in DOF.
    >
    >Colour me not very impressed.\


    Whatever. Some people are more interested in getting things *in* focus
    than *out* of focus, and for them, f/0.95 means nice light gathering
    ability.

    --
    "Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
    crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
    TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
    bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."
     
    Paul Ciszek, Apr 11, 2013
    #17
  18. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <kk72ku$qu3$>, Paul Ciszek
    <> wrote:

    > >>>> 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.

    > >
    > >>>And you don't do very shallow DOF and low light and so on
    > >>>either. :)

    > >
    > >> You can get f/0.95 lenses for m4/3.

    > >
    > >Which is about f/1.9 for full format in DOF.
    > >
    > >Colour me not very impressed.\

    >
    > Whatever. Some people are more interested in getting things *in* focus
    > than *out* of focus, and for them, f/0.95 means nice light gathering
    > ability.


    except that the smaller sensor on m43 means more noise.

    f/0.95 on m43 is equivalent to f/1.9 on full frame for the same image
    quality and dof, but on full frame you can go wider and gather even
    more light (but with shallower dof).
     
    nospam, Apr 11, 2013
    #18
  19. Paul Ciszek <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    >>Paul Ciszek <> wrote:
    >>> Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    >>>>Bowser <> wrote:


    >>>>> 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.


    >>>>And you don't do very shallow DOF and low light and so on
    >>>>either. :)


    >>> You can get f/0.95 lenses for m4/3.


    >>Which is about f/1.9 for full format in DOF.


    >>Colour me not very impressed.\


    > Whatever. Some people are more interested in getting things *in* focus
    > than *out* of focus,


    Of course. *They* can use f/8 on FF (or f/4 on 4/3rds). :->

    > and for them, f/0.95 means nice light gathering
    > ability.


    And yet f/1.4 on FF is a better light gatherer than f/0.95 on
    4/3rds: important is the amount of light on the whole sensor.


    And if you like it that way: Assume the same pixel count.
    Each pixel gets more light, because it's "more larger" than
    the f/1.4 is smaller compared to the f/0.95. (Oh, and
    there's f/1.2, too.)

    So the FF sensor can use more pixels at the same quality per
    pixel, or use the same pixel count and a lower ISO and hence
    more quality (or a shorter exposure time).


    If you need smaller size and weight more than you need
    very shallow DOF and extreme light gathering ability, you may
    be much better served with 4/3rds or (if you want even smaller
    and don't need an OVF) m4/3.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 13, 2013
    #19
  20. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/23/2013 8:52 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:14:03 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> 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.
    >


    A recent conversation with a person who knows, has led me to the
    conclusion that your predictions have not fallen on deaf ears. There are
    some serious engineering issues involved.


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Apr 17, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Matt
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    1,047
  2. Whisky-dave
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    334
    TheRealSteve
    Apr 17, 2012
  3. Laszlo Lebrun
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    454
    Ryan McGinnis
    Apr 18, 2012
  4. RichA

    Biggest camera flop of last 2 years?

    RichA, Sep 15, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    319
    nospam
    Sep 16, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page