Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

On 11/26/2012 8:10 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-11-26 16:36:39 -0800, PeterN said:

On 11/25/2012 5:28 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-11-25 11:33:26 -0800, PeterN
said:

On 11/24/2012 11:32 PM, Fred McKenzie wrote:
In article ,
Pat McGroyn wrote:

He should probably wait for the next version of the G1X. The current
one, while pretty good, was rush released. There is a lot of room for
improvement.

That is quite an understatement!

I'll admit that some G1X photos are impressive. An enlarged face in a
group can be quite sharp when everything goes right. "Good" photos
are
better than those from my old G11.

The most serious problem I find is that the closest point the G1X will
focus at maximum zoom, is the optimum point to make a portrait. At
some
critical point it may show a face in focus when partially
depressing the
shutter release, but jumps focus to the background when completely
pressing the button.

Also frustrating is the slow response of the shutter. Many times I've
had people move out of the frame before it reacted.

I see Canon released a G15 in time for holiday shopping. I doubt
it is
the next version of the G1X, because of its relatively low price.

Please forgive me for hijacking the thread!


This P&S beats the G11.
http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/compact_cameras/d-lux_6/

Cost with an EVF is about $1,200.

Now if only the Leica was priced at $400, given that we are talking
about the same size (1/1.7 cm 10.1 effective MP CCD v. CMOS) sensor in
both cameras. Very different lenses, for sure, but for my purposes of
having a second string compact available, the now 3 year old G11 works
just fine within my budget.
I doubt that there is $800 improvement of IQ with the, very appealing
D-Lux 6.
Now if it was to be used as one's only camera ...


The images it produces have suburb tonality. My friend has the G11 and
the D0Lux6. He says he claims that the Leica is vastly superior to his
G11. BTW The price with viewfinder is about $1,200. It does indeed
cost a lot more.

My point exactly. There should be a minimum of $800 improvement over the
G11 or G12, but somehow I have a feeling his praise of the D-Lux 6 could
be a tad hyperbolic.

Can't say for sure. But, if it only makes him happy to own a Leica, I
say go for it.





--
Peter

On 2012-11-27 08:38:24 -0800, PeterN said:

On 11/26/2012 8:10 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-11-26 16:36:39 -0800, PeterN said:

On 11/25/2012 5:28 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-11-25 11:33:26 -0800, PeterN
said:

On 11/24/2012 11:32 PM, Fred McKenzie wrote:
In article ,
Pat McGroyn wrote:

He should probably wait for the next version of the G1X. The current
one, while pretty good, was rush released. There is a lot of room for
improvement.

That is quite an understatement!

I'll admit that some G1X photos are impressive. An enlarged face in a
group can be quite sharp when everything goes right. "Good" photos
are
better than those from my old G11.

The most serious problem I find is that the closest point the G1X will
focus at maximum zoom, is the optimum point to make a portrait. At
some
critical point it may show a face in focus when partially
depressing the
shutter release, but jumps focus to the background when completely
pressing the button.

Also frustrating is the slow response of the shutter. Many times I've
had people move out of the frame before it reacted.

I see Canon released a G15 in time for holiday shopping. I doubt
it is
the next version of the G1X, because of its relatively low price.

Please forgive me for hijacking the thread!


This P&S beats the G11.
http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/compact_cameras/d-lux_6/

Cost with an EVF is about $1,200.

Now if only the Leica was priced at $400, given that we are talking
about the same size (1/1.7 cm 10.1 effective MP CCD v. CMOS) sensor in
both cameras. Very different lenses, for sure, but for my purposes of
having a second string compact available, the now 3 year old G11 works
just fine within my budget.
I doubt that there is $800 improvement of IQ with the, very appealing
D-Lux 6.
Now if it was to be used as one's only camera ...


The images it produces have suburb tonality. My friend has the G11 and
the D0Lux6. He says he claims that the Leica is vastly superior to his
G11. BTW The price with viewfinder is about $1,200. It does indeed
cost a lot more.

My point exactly. There should be a minimum of $800 improvement over the
G11 or G12, but somehow I have a feeling his praise of the D-Lux 6 could
be a tad hyperbolic.

Can't say for sure. But, if it only makes him happy to own a Leica, I
say go for it.

Yup! Just as I prefer my Mercedes over a Yugo.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...
In article , bugbear
says...
All of Samsung, Sony, Nikon are advertising HARD on TV.

Samsung and Sony are clear: they don't have too much DSLR business.
Nikon have specced their mirroless far away from their DLSRs.

Canon aren't, despite the EOS-M launch.

Probably because Canon's EOS-M is specced too close to their DLSRs, so
Canon are afraid of cannibalising their DSLR business.


So you think they deliberately developed a camera they don't want to sell? I
suggest you think again.
More likely the demand already matches the current supply and they are
waiting to ramp up supply before any serious advertising.

Trevor.

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
"PeterN" wrote in message
...

I find shooting in RAW gives me a two stop latitude. while you may be
right about some B&W, I don't recall color slide film being that
forgiving.

Okay, okay, I was talking about color negative. It was rare that I would
shoot slide film.

But you replied to a post specifically mentioning Kodachrome.

Even so, I find a good modern DSLR shooting RAW has just as much lattitude
as color neg film by simply dialing down exposure a stop or so to take
advantage of the lower noise. Obviously the exposure lattitude favours
overexposure for neg film, and underexposure for digital (and slide film)

Trevor.

On 24.11.2012 11:13, Alfred Molon wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...-owners-youre-
idiots_n_2174844.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Tec hnology

Probably there is some truth behind it, i.e. lots of DSLR shooters not
knowing how to use their camera.

Maybe i'm not knowing everything about my DSLR, especially not why it
focuses preferably on useless crap. ;-)
But I have got the legacy lenses and am not ready to repurchase
everything in a different technology.


--
One computer and three operating systems, not the other way round.
One wife and many hotels, not the other way round ! ;-)

In article , Trevor says...
So you think they deliberately developed a camera they don't want to
sell?

No, they want to enter a market without cannibalising their core
business.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 11/28/2012 1:42 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:36:57 +0000, Anthony Polson
wrote:

Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
On 24.11.2012 11:13, Alfred Molon wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...-owners-youre-
idiots_n_2174844.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Tec hnology

Probably there is some truth behind it, i.e. lots of DSLR shooters not
knowing how to use their camera.

Maybe i'm not knowing everything about my DSLR, especially not why it
focuses preferably on useless crap. ;-)


YOU are the photographer. Why don't YOU decide what to focus on?

I thought Brits understood irony.


You expect Brucie to understand anything approaching complex thinking.


--
Peter

Alfred Molon wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...-owners-youre-
idiots_n_2174844.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Tec hnology

Was the URL so evil that you had to wrap it over 2 lines?

Probably there is some truth behind it, i.e. lots of DSLR shooters not
knowing how to use their camera.

The truth is that the average DSLR shooter knows way more about
how to "use their camera" than the average non-DSLR shooters.

-Wolfgang

Alfred Molon wrote:

Well, the future is mirrorless anyway,

The future is without any of the readers of this newsgroup.

i.e. the swinging mirror is a
dying design.

Every reader of this newsgroup is a dying person.

That's why Nikon and Canon have introduced their own
mirrorless line.

Oh, so you're saying that about everyone thinks Full Frame
is dying (please direct me to a full frame EVIL) and Nikon
obviously thinks any sensor larger than ca. 13x9mm must
be dying.

If you want to see something that's moribund, look for
chemical film sensors.

News: Canon and Nikon have had compact cameras for a long time ...
Canon's IXUS (ELPH) was an APS-film based camera, for example.
They certainly were thinking back then that FF was dying ...
and of course, the IXUS had no mirror. But for some reason
Canon continued to make SLRs and DSLRs.

My brother plans to sell his Nikon D90 and keep only
the Canon G1X mirrorless.

Well, that certainly is irrefutable proof for your claim.

-Wolfgang

"Trevor" wrote in message
...

Even so, I find a good modern DSLR shooting RAW has just as much lattitude
as color neg film by simply dialing down exposure a stop or so to take
advantage of the lower noise. Obviously the exposure lattitude favours
overexposure for neg film, and underexposure for digital (and slide film)

I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real intuitive and
no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.

I have often wondered if shooting a lower ISO is equivalent to shooting a
higher one and adjusting exposure down by a couple of stops. Same image on
the pixels, right?

Gary Eickmeier