Lack of refinement hurts entry-level DSLRs

RichA wrote:
Pentax's KX suffers from strong mirror slap that blurs images at some
shutter speeds. I.S. cannot compensate for it. The K7 (higher-end
model) has dampening. Nikon's D3000 is seriously noisy at high ISOs.
The D5000 (model above) is much better. For $699 or so, you can't
expect miracles, but I remember that $699 would buy a pretty decent
film body, that didn't have drawbacks and could shoot images (unless
they needed a 5fps motor drive) on-par with pro bodies since film was
film.


Not shocking since the marketing people "design" most things today. If
the D3000 took the same IQ shots as a more expensive model, why would
anyone buy the more expensive version of "the same thing"? In film
bodies the higher end models have a better viewfinder, better metering
etc too. I agree that with film cameras, they had a harder time dumbing
down cheaper models IQ when used with the same optics, yet another
reason the manufactures struck gold with digital cameras.


Stephanie

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 02:29:56 -0400, "
wrote:

RichA wrote:
Pentax's KX suffers from strong mirror slap that blurs images at some
shutter speeds. I.S. cannot compensate for it. The K7 (higher-end
model) has dampening. Nikon's D3000 is seriously noisy at high ISOs.
The D5000 (model above) is much better. For $699 or so, you can't
expect miracles, but I remember that $699 would buy a pretty decent
film body, that didn't have drawbacks and could shoot images (unless
they needed a 5fps motor drive) on-par with pro bodies since film was
film.


Not shocking since the marketing people "design" most things today. If
the D3000 took the same IQ shots as a more expensive model, why would
anyone buy the more expensive version of "the same thing"? In film
bodies the higher end models have a better viewfinder, better metering
etc too. I agree that with film cameras, they had a harder time dumbing
down cheaper models IQ when used with the same optics, yet another
reason the manufactures struck gold with digital cameras.


Stephanie

A perfect example being all the CHDK capable P&S cameras. That hacker's
software unlocked all the built-in features that were locked out just in an
effort for the pencil-pushing geeks to keep their jobs. Newer models
without the earlier super-fine JPG modes are now found to have them and
were re-enabled in those models where it was removed. All models with RAW
data access that had been removed is now re-enabled, including all those
that never even had that option. Models with no manual controls over
aperture and shutter speed now all have them again. Models with the
exposure and focus bracketing features removed were all put back in. All
models had no video compression choices so as not to compete with their
video camera division, they now all have compression settings surpassing
the image quality of their video cameras. Models with crippled
intervalometer options on their menus now have intervalometer options that
surpass anything that Canon originally had on their menus. All models now
have shutter speeds from 64s or 2,147s to 1/20,000 or 1/40,000 of a second.
All models that only had flash-sync up to 1/500 second, so as not to
compete with their DSLR market too much, now have perfect flash-sync up to
the highest shutter speeds, including 1/40,000 second.

All these cameras had these features built-in, it just took some creative
programmers finding ways to unlock what the pencil-pushing-geeks decided to
lock-out in their attempts to design their cameras for profits, not for
photographers. Put a feature in one year, remove it the next or forever
(because it cut into their DSLR market too much), just to see how many
people will beg to have it put back in so they have to buy a camera 2 or 3
years later to get that feature back, or be forced to buy a DSLR so they
have to buy even more expensive glass just to get that feature

Digital cameras, DSLR or P&S, are the con-man's best wet-dream.

NameHere wrote:


Digital cameras, DSLR or P&S, are the con-man's best wet-dream.


Yep! While some companies have suffered from the loss of film sales,
these others have more than made up for it with their marketing.

Stephanie

Neil Harrington wrote:
wrote in message ...
RichA wrote:
Pentax's KX suffers from strong mirror slap that blurs images at some
shutter speeds. I.S. cannot compensate for it. The K7 (higher-end
model) has dampening. Nikon's D3000 is seriously noisy at high ISOs.
The D5000 (model above) is much better. For $699 or so, you can't
expect miracles, but I remember that $699 would buy a pretty decent
film body, that didn't have drawbacks and could shoot images (unless
they needed a 5fps motor drive) on-par with pro bodies since film was
film.

Not shocking since the marketing people "design" most things today.

That's overstating the case. Cameras today are better than ever, and it's
because of the people designing them -- not "marketing people." Of course
the people in marketing have some input as to product, but I'm sure this is
mostly with respect to P&S models --

If this was true, why have people been about to create "hacked" firmware
that unlocks features that are hardwired into the camera? And yes this
is true of DSLR's too. Because the marketing people told them to do this.

Stephanie

wrote in message ...
Neil Harrington wrote:
wrote in message
...
RichA wrote:
Pentax's KX suffers from strong mirror slap that blurs images at some
shutter speeds. I.S. cannot compensate for it. The K7 (higher-end
model) has dampening. Nikon's D3000 is seriously noisy at high ISOs.
The D5000 (model above) is much better. For $699 or so, you can't
expect miracles, but I remember that $699 would buy a pretty decent
film body, that didn't have drawbacks and could shoot images (unless
they needed a 5fps motor drive) on-par with pro bodies since film was
film.

Not shocking since the marketing people "design" most things today.

That's overstating the case. Cameras today are better than ever, and it's
because of the people designing them -- not "marketing people." Of course
the people in marketing have some input as to product, but I'm sure this
is mostly with respect to P&S models --

If this was true, why have people been about to create "hacked" firmware
that unlocks features that are hardwired into the camera?

You may have a point there for all I know, I just don't know enough about
how that works to comment on it.

And yes this is true of DSLR's too. Because the marketing people told them
to do this.

How do you know this?

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:55:36 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

If this was true, why have people been about to create "hacked" firmware
that unlocks features that are hardwired into the camera?

You may have a point there for all I know, I just don't know enough about
how that works to comment on it.

And yes this is true of DSLR's too. Because the marketing people told them
to do this.

How do you know this?


Well, what do you want? A managed economy where committees decided
what products were required and who they should be allocated to? Or a
market economy where you stay afloat by selling at whatever price
points the market wants and making appropriate product as economically
as possible?

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:55:36 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

If this was true, why have people been about to create "hacked" firmware
that unlocks features that are hardwired into the camera?

You may have a point there for all I know, I just don't know enough about
how that works to comment on it.

And yes this is true of DSLR's too. Because the marketing people told
them
to do this.

How do you know this?


Well, what do you want? A managed economy where committees decided
what products were required and who they should be allocated to? Or a
market economy where you stay afloat by selling at whatever price
points the market wants and making appropriate product as economically
as possible?

I have no idea why you're asking me this.

Product prices are not decided by auction, you know. A company produces
something and sets a price on it. If it sells at that price, the company
prospers and produces more. If it doesn't sell, the company lowers the price
and/or drops production. That *is* a market economy.

Neil Harrington wrote:
"Chris H" wrote in message
news

Actually they are designed by engineers to a specification drawn up my
marketing people. The specifications are also worked out by the
strategists.

All of which seems reasonable and efficient to me in so far as it is true,
but it's true only to a limited extent. Obviously the SLR did not appear
because "marketing people" wanted it, or the focal plane shutter, or the
pentaprism, or the zoom lens, and so on and so forth. Engineers and
designers create products; marketing people do not.


Obviously the marketing people don't do the engineering. I didn't think
I needed to explain that but obviously now I see I needed to for some
people. Design and engineer are two different things.

But I can promise you the DSLR came into existence because the marketing
people PUSHED to have the company spend the money to develop it after
they did market studies to see how many people wanted them etc. Without
the marketing people PUSHING to have the $$$ spent to engineer these,
they wouldn't exist. I also would bet the marketing people do DESIGN
what the end product should look like as well.

They also tell them which features need to be included, which to my way
of thinking, they have DESIGNED the product and have someone else
engineer it for them. Clearly the engineers dumb down the lower end
products to make people want to buy the more expensive models. Just like
it costs no more for Intel to make a 2.0 and a 2.8Ghz version of the
same chip and why people over clock the cheaper ones. It's marketing.

Stephanie

wrote in message ...
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Chris H" wrote in message
news

Actually they are designed by engineers to a specification drawn up my
marketing people. The specifications are also worked out by the
strategists.

All of which seems reasonable and efficient to me in so far as it is
true, but it's true only to a limited extent. Obviously the SLR did not
appear because "marketing people" wanted it, or the focal plane shutter,
or the pentaprism, or the zoom lens, and so on and so forth. Engineers
and designers create products; marketing people do not.


Obviously the marketing people don't do the engineering. I didn't think I
needed to explain that but obviously now I see I needed to for some
people. Design and engineer are two different things.

As I said.


But I can promise you the DSLR came into existence because the marketing
people PUSHED to have the company spend the money to develop it after they
did market studies to see how many people wanted them etc. Without the
marketing people PUSHING to have the $$$ spent to engineer these, they
wouldn't exist. I also would bet the marketing people do DESIGN what the
end product should look like as well.

No offense, but you are seriously ignorant of DSLR history. The earliest
DSLR as far as I know was the Kodak DSC of 1991, a Kodak sensor (with a
whopping ONE megapixel!) in a much-modified Nikon body. It sold for about
$25,000. Now if you think something like that had anything to do with
"marketing people" you must have some kind of hugely exaggerated faith in
the power of "marketing people"!

The Nikon D1 of 1999 has been called "the world's first practical DSLR,"
with resolution increased to a generous 2.7 megapixels and the price down to
a nice affordable $5,000. This is still well outside the range of a typical
digicam buyer, and it's safe to say that the D1 like its predecessors was a
camera designed BY camera people FOR camera people, not by "marketing
people" for general consumers.

Engineers and designers are responsible for early developments in new
technologies and machines, often for the use of specialists and/or special
purposes. Only when the type of product becomes commonplace enough to be
sold to the masses do your "marketing people" come into the picture.


They also tell them which features need to be included, which to my way of
thinking, they have DESIGNED the product and have someone else engineer it
for them. Clearly the engineers dumb down the lower end products to make
people want to buy the more expensive models. Just like it costs no more
for Intel to make a 2.0 and a 2.8Ghz version of the same chip and why
people over clock the cheaper ones. It's marketing.

THAT is, yes. But it logically follows in the manufacture of CPUs. Intel
used to (presumably still does) test individual chips as they came from the
wafer, throw out the rejects and "bin" the good ones according to the speed
they were tested safe for, then price the assembled CPUs accordingly. If
demand was higher for the lower-priced chips, they would just package
higher-tested ones that they had in surplus for the lower speed to meet that
demand. Similarly, some AMD quad-core chips would have one bad core and so
be finished as triple-core CPUs, sold at a lower price, and if demand for
those became very high because of the lower price AMD would (reportedly)
just disable one core of a good quad-core chip and sell it as a triple-core.

All of which makes perfect marketing sense. The manufacturer wants to
maximize his profits, in whatever is the best way to do it. The buyer of a
triple-core CPU isn't being cheated because his chip actually was a good
quad-core to begin with. He's getting what he paid for.

On 10-03-24 16:55 , Neil Harrington wrote:

Engineers and designers are responsible for early developments in new
technologies and machines, often for the use of specialists and/or special
purposes. Only when the type of product becomes commonplace enough to be
sold to the masses do your "marketing people" come into the picture.

You characterization of marketing people (v. engineers for example) is a
little too black and white. It's much more grey than you imply.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.