The beginning of the end for consumer DSLRs?

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Bruce, Sep 30, 2010.

  1. Bruce

    peter Guest

    And exactly hat is wrong with cost cutting. If they didn't cut costs,
    you would bitch about high prices.
     
    peter, Oct 2, 2010
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bruce

    Bruce Guest


    Where did you get the idea that I'm a Nikon fanboy, Rich?

    Very few people are more critical of Nikon than I am. I was even
    asked to leave a 100% Nikon online forum a few years ago because the
    moderators felt that only very gentle criticism of the brand should be
    allowed, and that my criticism was too fierce for them. ;-)

    I am a fan of some brands, though. They include Alpa, Angenieux,
    Kern, Kiron, Leica, Schneider and Carl Zeiss. I collect and deal in
    those brands ... and sometimes make images with them too. But Nikon
    is my choice for work.
     
    Bruce, Oct 2, 2010
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bruce

    Russ D Guest

    A highly efficient high-speed leaf-shutter is in every lens of every
    compact and superzoom camera made today. With shutter speeds up to
    1/40,000th second including perfect flash-sync at those shutter speeds when
    using flash durations even as short as 1/224,000ths of a second.

    Considering the cost of the whole compact or superzoom camera PLUS lens,
    the leaf-shutter module must be a miniscule portion of fabrication and
    materials costs. I'd bet on no more than US$5-10 per camera. It would be a
    trivial matter to put one in every lens for every interchangeable lens
    camera. It could be done without even changing the prices of lenses if they
    wanted to, considering the markup on dSLR lenses is in the region of
    500-2500% of manufacturing costs. (Yes, it's a wonderful financial con-game
    that everyone is more than happy to play.)

    This, or course, still does not address all the other crippling DSLR design
    issues of dirty sensors, losing shots due to having to change lenses,
    intermittent easily worn body-to-lens electrical contacts, bulk, weight,
    and the obnoxiously loudly slapping easily damaged or dirtied/fogged mirror
    that induces a 90-150ms shutter-lag, optical viewfinders useless in
    low-light and useless for precision manual focusing, no information
    overlays in the viewfinder, no shutter-speed preview, etc., etc., etc.,
    etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.,
    etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., ...
     
    Russ D, Oct 2, 2010
    #43
  4. Bruce

    Bruce Guest


    The alternative to Photokina, in terms of being a great opportunity
    for manufacturers to splash their new equipment across the photo
    magazines and web sites, is the annual Photo Marketing Association
    exhibition or PMA, held in the USA.

    PMA was traditionally held in February each year. However, the 2011
    event has been moved to September, which is coincidentally (or not!)
    the same month as Photokina.

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/1006/10060105pmamoves.asp

    If PMA 2012 is also in September, manufacturers will have to choose
    which one to support most strongly. I imagine the organisers of
    Photokina are not best pleased.
     
    Bruce, Oct 2, 2010
    #44
  5. Bruce

    Bruce Guest


    That's what consumers would dearly like to believe.
     
    Bruce, Oct 2, 2010
    #45
  6. Normal people will, but pretend photographers like our P&ST
    (Pi** and Sh*t Troll) don't have anything better. And the
    P&ST is anything but normal.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 2, 2010
    #46
  7. Tongue in cheek.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 2, 2010
    #47
  8. The real reason is that manufacturers like cameras to be more
    complex, expensive and easy to break down. Especially P&S
    cameras, where you'd better buy a new one every year or two.

    Like that answer better?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 2, 2010
    #48
  9. The only thing that's being "wrecked" are all the stupid comments, imagined
    fabrications, blind ignorance, parroted misinformation, outright lies,
    slander, and libel posted by all the resident role-playing
    pretend-photographer DSLR TROLLS. Should any one of them finally type some
    truth about cameras and real photography the universe would probably
    implode. That, of course, being impossible. For one good reason, not ONE of
    them has ever used any real camera during their lifetimes. It clearly shows
    in every comment they type. Yourself being a prime example.

    Now, tell us all again, what your OFF-TOPIC TROLL'S BULLSHIT HAS TO DO WITH
    THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD? YOU FUCKINGLY USELESS PIECE OF SHIT **** OF A
    TROLL.
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Oct 3, 2010
    #49
  10. No. The truth would be better. Not some role-playing pretend-photographer
    DSLR-TROLL's fabrication.

    <http://www.stopmotionanimation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=10&topic_id=2549&mesg_id=2549>

    Down in the thread you find out that someone can't get their MECHANICALLY
    COMPLEX, EXPENSIVE, and EASY TO BREAK-DOWN DSLR camera repaired while still
    under warranty after only 31,834 shots.

    One of my superzoom cameras has now taken over 400,000 photos without need
    of one bit of repair, in some of the most extreme environmental conditions
    from mountain-top to 'gator infested swamp and everything in between. NO
    DSLR in the world would hold up to the conditions I've put that superzoom
    camera through. It's precisely why I switched from D/SLR CRAP and found
    designs that are FAR better and FAR MORE reliable.
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Oct 3, 2010
    #50
  11. Bruce

    tony cooper Guest

    Amazing! You would think the odds would be that at least one of those
    would have been an in-focus shot of an interesting subject, yet the
    best you can come up with is something that could be - as you claim -
    a never-discovered-before rare moth or it could be a photo one of Sam
    Donaldson's old toupees that has been dropped in the slush of a New
    York City gutter in February.

    But probably 399,245 of those shots were taken in the playground down
    the street from your house where you tried to get panty shots of
    little girls on the swings. The rest were taken in your neighborhood
    miniature golf course on the Gator Swamp hole, the Mt Rushmore hole,
    and the dreaded Dutch Village hole where the slow shutter response
    never did catch your ball making it by the windmill blades.
     
    tony cooper, Oct 3, 2010
    #51
  12. Bruce

    Bruce Guest


    Not at all.

    I have vented my spleen on these newsgroups many, many times. However,
    just recently, Nikon has been getting it right, and I like to give
    credit where credit is due.

    For example, you whine incessantly about the price of new Nikkors. I
    accept the fact that changes in the yen/dollar and yen/pound sterling
    relationships mean that Japanese-made products have gotten more
    expensive. New products also cost a lot of money to develop.

    I welcome the new products, especially the 24mm, 35mm and 85mm f/1.4
    lenses, the 16-35mm and 24-120mm f/4 zooms and revised 70-210mm VR II
    because these are what working photographers have been calling for.
    Nikon is listening - and producing the lenses that we need.

    [Please note: I have been savagely critical of the two previous
    versions of the 24-120mm.]

    If they are too expensive for you, there are always used examples of
    the lenses that have been replaced. Your D300 body will accept (and
    meter with) just about every AI, AIS and AF Nikkor ever made.
     
    Bruce, Oct 3, 2010
    #52
  13. Bruce

    Ofnuts Guest

    Hmmm. So over the last ten years (because it's hard to have a real
    digital camera older that that):

    10*365*24=87600=110 pictures a day, with that camera alone (and LOL
    knows how many with the others).

    If all these are of rare animals, they must not be so rare after all.
     
    Ofnuts, Oct 3, 2010
    #53
  14. Bruce

    tony cooper Guest

    Speaking on "ONE", do you think there's "ONE" person who reads this
    group that believes *any* of your claims? That believes you have
    taken any better-than-average snapshots of anything? That believes
    that you have been to any of the places you claim to have been? That
    believes any of the tales you've told here?

    I believe you own some sort of low-end Canon instamatic-type p&s that
    takes happysnaps. That's the extent of it.
     
    tony cooper, Oct 3, 2010
    #54
  15. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    Or believes that he had anything to do with CHDK! It's an insult to all
    of us that have contributed to the CHDK effort to have our favorite
    troll claim any connection with it or credit for it.
     
    SMS, Oct 3, 2010
    #55
  16. Bruce

    Ofnuts Guest

    Bullshit photos. If course you got some. Lots of, presumably.
     
    Ofnuts, Oct 3, 2010
    #56
  17. Bruce

    tony cooper Guest

    Of course you do. If you didn't care you wouldn't be posting here
    several times a day begging for attention. You desperately want to be
    noticed and paid attention to, but no one is interested so you pretend
    not care. No one believes that anymore than they believe your made-up
    adventures.
     
    tony cooper, Oct 3, 2010
    #57
  18. Bruce

    John A. Guest

    I guess you really hate those rollable silicone keyboards, then.
     
    John A., Oct 4, 2010
    #58
  19. Bruce

    Ofnuts Guest

    Ofnuts, Oct 4, 2010
    #59
  20. Bruce

    Ofnuts Guest

    Another of your air photos, then.
     
    Ofnuts, Oct 4, 2010
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.