Opinions on P&S

Ï "SMS ???. ?" Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
...
Chris Malcolm wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:

I ignore everything canon because of their total lack of support for
Linux.

Ahh, yes, you and the rest of your 3-5% of the userbase. Grin.

No, you have to apply to that 3-5% the 1% of Linux users who don't
know about any of the several different methods for interfacing Canon
cameras to Linux, and then within that 1% the 5% of those who don't
know how to find out what facilities are available, and within that 5%
the 5% who think that what they don't know about doesn't exist. That
works out to 0.0001%. But I could be out by an order of magnitude or
few :-)

What there is no doubt about is that we're very lucky indeed to have
such a rare specimen right here in this newsgroup!

It's economical to be one of those specimens, since you have to avoid
every product from every company because virtually every company has
done something unacceptable in regards to support for their products.

Supporting Linux is especially problematic for hardware vendors. I've
been there, done that. There are so many different versions of Linux,
and so many different distributions, that it's a nightmare to try to
support devices, and you end up spending a fortune in never-ending
development costs in order to support a tiny number of users. Linux is
great for servers, but in terms of a box that you want to attach a
variety of I/O devices to, it's ungreat.
Seconded.And, if you want to let your hair down, and play a game, what?(Only
examle of game that was simultaneously released in linux, was quake 3
arena).And, I don't want to go back to back to command line;-)



--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr

ray wrote:

B.S. The only Linux support that is needed is to release the proprietary
information which everyone in the industry already knows anyway. Allow the
Linux folks to write the drivers - you don't have to do a damned thing.

If only it really worked that way. The reality is quite different. The
corporate customers want Linux drivers written for them, at no cost of
course. Since each Linux version and distribution is slightly different
the development is never ending. However this was for microprocessors,
and of course all the data was released. I can see how it could be
different for cameras and scanners where you need information that the
manufacturer not want to release.

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 05:14:48 -0800 (PST), -hh
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:

We FD customers consider it a mistake. *That makes it a mistake.

Regardless, you refuse to give them any credit that they may have
learned from their "mistake" to not do it again, despite the 20 years
of history where they've not done it.

That's no more meaningful than the time without change _before_ the FD
orphaning.

It's not a "grudge" -- it's learned behavior. *"Fool me once, shame on
you. *Fool me twice, shame on me."

But conveniently ignoring 20 years of their 'good' behavior = grudge.

See above.

The problem is that there's no way to "adapt".

Bull****. Your SLR stagnation was by choice, for you had 20 years
worth of opportunities to have sold off your FD gear and replaced with
something else.

That's not adapting -- that's damage control. I would have lost a great
deal of money in the process.

The simple facts are that there's no manufacturer's warranty that you
can point to that promised that their products will all be supported
forever, yet you're trying to blame them anyway, because this course
allows you try to avoid responsibility for your own decisions and
actions.

Nonsense. Responsible manufacturers have worked hard to maintain
compatibility. Canon touted the FD mount right up until the day it was
orphaned. "Oh, sorry about that."

And this isn't unique: your beloved DMC-FZ8 doesn't have a "forever"
promise from Panasonic. They won't still be making new accessories
for it 20 years from now either, so you had better get started to get
wound up to hold a grudge against them too.

Irrelevant, since it's not an interchangeable lens camera, and is only a
small fraction of the cost.

As I wrote, it's learned behavior, not a grudge. "Those who don't learn
from the past are doomed to repeat it." Something you should take more
seriously.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 17:56:40 GMT, Matt Ion wrote
in sZQdj.51335$vd4.15618@pd7urf1no:

John Navas wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 03:06:14 -0800 (PST), -hh
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:
-hh wrote:
They made a mistake, but they've now not repeated that mistake for the
past 20 years.
It was a deliberate decision, and there's no evidence that Canon
considers it a mistake.
Ah, but *you* consider it to be a mistake.

We FD customers consider it a mistake. That makes it a mistake.

You and all the other Edsel owners must still be distraught at the
demise of tubed whitewall tires and leaded gasoline...

Meaningless analogy.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

John Navas wrote:
-hh wrote:

The problem is that there's no way to "adapt".

Bull****. Your SLR stagnation was by choice, for you had 20 years
worth of opportunities to have sold off your FD gear and replaced with
something else.

That's not adapting -- that's damage control. I would have lost a great
deal of money in the process.

You actually expect a hobby to NOT be a financial drain?

And the gear is still sitting in your closet unused, right?


And this isn't unique: your beloved DMC-FZ8 doesn't have a "forever"
promise from Panasonic. They won't still be making new accessories
for it 20 years from now either, so you had better get started to get
wound up to hold a grudge against them too.

Irrelevant, since it's not an interchangeable lens camera, and is only
a small fraction of the cost.

In other words, because John is more comfortable risking LESS money,
its okay :-)

Here's a clue for ya, John: we all have different risk tolerances.
And trying to blame others for when you take a risk that you're
uncomfortable with, is childish and lame.

You're whining about money spent 20 years ago and yet, that gear is
apparently still moldering in your closest because that way, you can
continue to hold this childish grudge, rather than to face up to the
fact that your "loss" is because you chose to whine instead of adapt
to change.

And while you've been pouting, you've gone on to spend more money than
what you "lost" on your various other hobbies and activities:
sailboat regattas and trips, ski trips, other toys, vacations, etc,
etc. It merely makes your obsession about some 'significant' money
spent 20 years ago into the textbook personification of a spoiled brat
who is hell bent intent on throwing a hearty temper tantrum and
blaming anyone other than himself. 'Boo hoo.'


-hh

SMS ???• ? wrote:

heavily edited for brevity

I have some 110 cameras and I'm furious that 110 film is no longer
available. At least the owners of Canon FD mount cameras still have
perfectly functioning cameras, and can buy film for them.


Hello, Steven:

110 film (ISO 400) is still sold, at Wal-Mart stores, as far as I know.


Cordially,
John Turco

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 04:53:41 -0800 (PST), -hh
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:

That's not adapting -- that's damage control. I would have lost a great
deal of money in the process.

You actually expect a hobby to NOT be a financial drain?

I expect normal depreciation, not a sudden devaluation.

And the gear is still sitting in your closet unused, right?

Wrong. I still use it from time to time.

Irrelevant, since it's not an interchangeable lens camera, and is only
a small fraction of the cost.

In other words, because John is more comfortable risking LESS money,
its okay :-)

Pretty much. Game theory teaches that when risk is higher the amount
being risked should be lower.

[SNIP rude insults]

--
Best regards,
John Navas http:/navasgroup.com

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

John Navas wrote:
-hh wrote:
John Navas wrote:
That's not adapting -- that's damage control. *I would
have lost a great deal of money in the process.

You actually expect a hobby to NOT be a financial drain?

I expect normal depreciation, not a sudden devaluation.

Yet you've repeatedly bought consumer electronics...


And the gear is still sitting in your closet unused, right?

Wrong. *I still use it from time to time.

So then it is still providing utility and thus, value. And since it
now has had 20+ years of depreciation, the difference today between a
"normal" depreciation curve and a "sudden" one (assuming that the FD's
did actually indeed have a 'sudden' one, some 20 years ago) would by
now be expected to have flattened out to virtually a zero difference.
Since you're a retainer, you're in it for the long haul, and since
rates of deprecision early in the lifecycle make no significant
difference over the longer periods, this 'rate of depreciation' really
can't be used a legitimate differentitating factor for your argument
because the timeframe is wrong.

For example, I see that eBay just sold (and B&H currently has for
sale ) a Canon FD 80-200mm f/4 for $300 (B&H # 517799). Considering
that a brand new Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L sells for $560, which is only
$260 more than what the FD version is currently worth, it doesn't seem
to me that if this lens has been such a horrible long term
investment.

Since the argument is that by being obsoleted, FD lenses were
effectively much worse than those that weren't, then a comparable
Nikon lens from the same period would allow us to compare their resale
values to test this claim.

The best I can find is B&H # 559056, which is a Nikkor 80-200 f/4 AIS
for $209, and B&H # 544576 (same) for $199. Thus, the Nikon lens is
worth roughly $200 whereas the "supposed to be worth less" Canon FD,
at $300, is worth $100 (50%) more. Interesting.


-hh

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:52:32 -0800 (PST), -hh
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:
-hh wrote:
John Navas wrote:
That's not adapting -- that's damage control. *I would
have lost a great deal of money in the process.

You actually expect a hobby to NOT be a financial drain?

I expect normal depreciation, not a sudden devaluation.

Yet you've repeatedly bought consumer electronics...

Sure, and without sudden devaluation -- I'm often able to sell my old
digital cameras for a large fraction of what I paid for them, in part
because they haven't been orphaned.

And the gear is still sitting in your closet unused, right?

Wrong. *I still use it from time to time.

So then it is still providing utility and thus, value.

Sure, but only a small fraction of the marketed and expected value.

And since it
now has had 20+ years of depreciation, the difference today between a
"normal" depreciation curve and a "sudden" one (assuming that the FD's
did actually indeed have a 'sudden' one, some 20 years ago) would by
now be expected to have flattened out to virtually a zero difference.

My FD kit isn't owned by a business, so accounting depreciation is
meaningless to me. What matters to me is the replacement cost with
current vintage kit, including bodies. I still shoot some film, so I'd
also have to also buy comparable film bodies.

For example, I see that eBay just sold (and B&H currently has for
sale ) a Canon FD 80-200mm f/4 for $300 (B&H # 517799). Considering
that a brand new Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L sells for $560, which is only
$260 more than what the FD version is currently worth, it doesn't seem
to me that if this lens has been such a horrible long term
investment.

That's not typical of resale prices for the kit I have. In addition,
standard FD series lenses are of higher quality than comparable EF
lenses -- I'd have to upgrade my non-L lenses to L-series lenses at
considerable extra cost to maintain quality. Last but not least is the
huge hassle factor.

Since the argument is that by being obsoleted, FD lenses were
effectively much worse than those that weren't, then a comparable
Nikon lens from the same period would allow us to compare their resale
values to test this claim.

That's not the argument. Better old Nikkor lenses are still awesome,
just like the better old Canon FD lenses.

The best I can find is B&H # 559056, which is a Nikkor 80-200 f/4 AIS
for $209, and B&H # 544576 (same) for $199. Thus, the Nikon lens is
worth roughly $200 whereas the "supposed to be worth less" Canon FD,
at $300, is worth $100 (50%) more. Interesting.

It all depends on which lenses, and I have a lot of them. Single
examples are meaningless.

Had the FD series not been orphaned by Canon, I could just buy a digital
body with no hassle and be good to go. Even one digital body for the FD
mount would have been fantastic, but Canon didn't even do one, showing
great disrespect for its prior marketing and its loyal customers.

It's hard not to give poor advice when you don't really have and
understand the problem.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

John Navas wrote:
-hh wrote:

And since it
now has had 20+ years of depreciation, the difference today between a
"normal" depreciation curve and a "sudden" one (assuming that the FD's
did actually indeed have a 'sudden' one, some 20 years ago) would by
now be expected to have flattened out to virtually a zero difference.

My FD kit isn't owned by a business, so accounting depreciation is
meaningless to me.

My point was that for the example provided, the old lens was worth 54%
of an equivalent new one. Over a 20 year lifespan, that's downright
phenomenal...yet you're still bitching and moaning.


*What matters to me is the replacement cost with
current vintage kit, including bodies. *I still shoot some film, so I'd
also have to also buy comparable film bodies.

Another vague and unsubstantiated Navas claim. So how much would it
cost you to buy today what you currently own?


For example, I see that eBay just sold (and B&H currently has for
sale ) a Canon FD 80-200mm f/4 for $300 (B&H # 517799). *Considering
that a brand new Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L sells for $560, which is only
$260 more than what the FD version is currently worth, it doesn't seem
to me that if this lens has been such a horrible long term
investment.

That's not typical of resale prices for the kit I have. *

Sorry, but I've not seen a list of what you have. Otherwise, I would
have researched a specific example. The only thing I had to go on is
that you've claimed that you would have lost a boatload of money, so I
didn't bother looking at any simple, basic primes or cheap kit lenses.


In addition,
standard FD series lenses are of higher quality than comparable EF
lenses -- I'd have to upgrade my non-L lenses to L-series lenses at
considerable extra cost to maintain quality.

Hello, but the example noted above is an L lens. It was even
explicitly noted that in its description.


Last but not least is the huge hassle factor.

Of putting all the crap in a big box and mailing it off to KEH Camera
Brokers, or B&H. Granted, you wouldn't have gotten as high of a
price as if you had tried to sell them yourself, but that's the "money
vs hassle" trade-off.


Since the argument is that by being obsoleted, FD lenses were
effectively much worse than those that weren't, then a comparable
Nikon lens from the same period would allow us to compare their resale
values to test this claim.

That's not the argument. *Better old Nikkor lenses are still awesome,
just like the better old Canon FD lenses.

Gosh, everything was better in the good old days. I'll bet that they
even made camera bodies out of metal :-)

The reality is that modern optics have gotten quite amazing in their
bang for the buck. And the design tools available today are downright
transformational in how fast a designer can try different concepts.


The best I can find is B&H # 559056, which is a Nikkor 80-200 f/4 AIS
for $209, and B&H # 544576 (same) for $199. * Thus, the Nikon lens is
worth roughly $200 whereas the "supposed to be worth less" Canon FD,
at $300, is worth $100 (50%) more. *Interesting.

It all depends on which lenses, and I have a lot of them. *Single
examples are meaningless.

The solution is simple: provide a list of your lenses. Oh, right:
that would be too much of a 'hassle' for poor old John.


Had the FD series not been orphaned by Canon, I could just buy a digital
body with no hassle and be good to go. Even one digital body for the FD
mount would have been fantastic, but Canon didn't even do one, showing
great disrespect for its prior marketing and its loyal customers.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
If turnips were watches, I would wear one by my side.
And if "ifs" and "ands"
Were pots and pans,
There'd be no work for tinkers!


It's hard not to give poor advice when you don't really have and
understand the problem. *

Oh, I understand the problem fully: by you purposefully remaining
vague and not disclosing what FD equipment you supposedly own, this
act prevents anyone from actually researching your equipment's cost &
worth against your claim that you were so grievously wounded by nasty
'ol Canon.

In other words, John won't ever provide the specifics because that
would provide the ammunition to dispute his own claim.


-hh