Dearth of new camera releases

"RichA" wrote in message
...
Dear camera makers; reducing releases of cameras in a recession makes
about as much sense as cutting back advertising to save money. All
you do is allow your competition to take (and keep) market share. If
the market has shrunk from 100 to 80 (arbitrary numbers) do think
being LESS visible is going to help your company?? You are now
fighting over a smaller pie, so get the F--- in there and produce
something.


I think it's more about the importance of releasing something that people
want/need, at a reasonable price.

To try and put it into perspective, people will pay more for a car with air
con, but they don't really care about digital climate control, as long as it
blows cold air when they need it. Sure digital climate control with
individual temperatures on each side looks good, but it doesn't really serve
a useful purpose.

Just out of interest, what do you want the camera's to do that they can't at
the moment?

It's not a dig, just interested.

On 5/4/2010 6:15 AM, Drazic wrote:


Just out of interest, what do you want the camera's to do that they
can't at the moment?

It's not a dig, just interested.

I'll tell what I want:

1) better autofocus. This means a smaller spots, all of which are
full X style and work at f/2.8. It also means they actually work
and actually focus on what they are aimed at.

2) a histogram superimposed on a Live View so one can
adjust exposure while aiming the camera. This should be
the histogram for RAW mode files, not after JPEGization.

Other than that, my current camera, an old 30D, works fine.

Doug McDonald

Doug McDonald wrote:
Drazic wrote:

Just out of interest, what do you want the camera's to do that they
can't at the moment?

It's not a dig, just interested.

I'll tell what I want:

1) better autofocus. This means a smaller spots, all of which are
full X style and work at f/2.8. It also means they actually work
and actually focus on what they are aimed at.

You've already got that. The problem is that a scene isn't a spot
and when you add multiple focus points then the camera has to decide
which point to use and for how long.

--
Ray Fischer

On Tue, 04 May 2010 07:58:59 -0500, Doug McDonald
wrote:

On 5/4/2010 6:15 AM, Drazic wrote:


Just out of interest, what do you want the camera's to do that they
can't at the moment?

It's not a dig, just interested.

I'll tell what I want:

1) better autofocus. This means a smaller spots, all of which are
full X style and work at f/2.8. It also means they actually work
and actually focus on what they are aimed at.

Any of the contrast-detection cameras can do that.


2) a histogram superimposed on a Live View so one can
adjust exposure while aiming the camera. This should be
the histogram for RAW mode files, not after JPEGization.

Any of the CHDK capable cameras can do that, in 7 different flavors of
histograms. Because the JPG data is accurately representing the RAW data to
begin with. It is only in cameras that are poorly programmed where the JPG
output will not reflect the raw sensor data. Unfortunately that is the case
in most all DSLR cameras. DSLR owners don't want to admit to being duped
into buying flawed hardware and having to spend extra money and time in
trying to repair what their cameras failed to provide in the first place.

Are you truly this inexperienced and naive?

C.P. Robbins wrote:
On Tue, 04 May 2010 07:58:59 -0500, Doug McDonald
wrote:

2) a histogram superimposed on a Live View so one can
adjust exposure while aiming the camera. This should be
the histogram for RAW mode files, not after JPEGization.

Any of the CHDK capable cameras can do that, in 7 different flavors of
histograms.

And I've never found it useful enough to turn it on.

BugBear (a630 + CHDK)

"Drazic" wrote in
:

"RichA" wrote in message
.
..
Dear camera makers; reducing releases of cameras in a recession
makes about as much sense as cutting back advertising to save money.
All you do is allow your competition to take (and keep) market share.
If the market has shrunk from 100 to 80 (arbitrary numbers) do think
being LESS visible is going to help your company?? You are now
fighting over a smaller pie, so get the F--- in there and produce
something.


I think it's more about the importance of releasing something that
people want/need, at a reasonable price.

To try and put it into perspective, people will pay more for a car
with air con, but they don't really care about digital climate
control, as long as it blows cold air when they need it. Sure digital
climate control with individual temperatures on each side looks good,
but it doesn't really serve a useful purpose.

Just out of interest, what do you want the camera's to do that they
can't at the moment?

It's not a dig, just interested.

Switch sensors at will.

(Ray Fischer) wrote in news:4be01c2a$0$1659
:

Doug McDonald wrote:
Drazic wrote:

Just out of interest, what do you want the camera's to do that they
can't at the moment?

It's not a dig, just interested.

I'll tell what I want:

1) better autofocus. This means a smaller spots, all of which are
full X style and work at f/2.8. It also means they actually work
and actually focus on what they are aimed at.

You've already got that. The problem is that a scene isn't a spot
and when you add multiple focus points then the camera has to decide
which point to use and for how long.


Except that you could do completely manual, cumulative spot metering with
some old SLRs!! OM-4T was an example.

Rich wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in news:4be01c2a$0$1659
:

Doug McDonald wrote:
Drazic wrote:

Just out of interest, what do you want the camera's to do that they
can't at the moment?

It's not a dig, just interested.

I'll tell what I want:

1) better autofocus. This means a smaller spots, all of which are
full X style and work at f/2.8. It also means they actually work
and actually focus on what they are aimed at.

You've already got that. The problem is that a scene isn't a spot
and when you add multiple focus points then the camera has to decide
which point to use and for how long.

Except that you could do completely manual, cumulative spot metering with
some old SLRs!! OM-4T was an example.

"Metering" is not the same as "focusing".

--
Ray Fischer

C.P. Robbins wrote:
On Tue, 04 May 2010 07:58:59 -0500, Doug McDonald
wrote:

On 5/4/2010 6:15 AM, Drazic wrote:


Just out of interest, what do you want the camera's to do that they
can't at the moment?

It's not a dig, just interested.

I'll tell what I want:

1) better autofocus. This means a smaller spots, all of which are
full X style and work at f/2.8. It also means they actually work
and actually focus on what they are aimed at.

Any of the contrast-detection cameras can do that.

Nope. If anything they're worse because they need to sample a large
area in which to determine contrast.

--
Ray Fischer

On 2010-05-04 05:15:15 -0600, "Drazic" said:

"RichA" wrote in message
...
Dear

camera makers; reducing releases of cameras in a recession makes
about as much sense as cutting back advertising to save money. All
you do is allow your competition to take (and keep) market share. If
the market has shrunk from 100 to 80 (arbitrary numbers) do think
being LESS visible is going to help your company?? You are now
fighting over a smaller pie, so get the F--- in there and produce
something.


I think it's more about the importance of releasing something that
people want/need, at a reasonable price.

To try and put it into perspective, people will pay more for a car with
air con, but they don't really care about digital climate control, as
long as it blows cold air when they need it. Sure digital climate
control with individual temperatures on each side looks good, but it
doesn't really serve a useful purpose.

Just out of interest, what do you want the camera's to do that they
can't at the moment?

It's not a dig, just interested.

The manufacturers are not releasing new cameras because they value
Rich's opinion very highly and they know that he would just dis
anything they release anyway.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor