If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in thelast two years
RichA wrote:
No, not the Pentax K-01, but this Sony. The more I thought about it, the more I realized the fixed lens was the silliest idea they could have had and there was NO reason for it. There are no design constraints with mirrorless, you can design lenses that almost touch the sensor, if you need to. However, Sony blew it big time by being the first out of the blocks with a FF mirrorless (Yes, I know Leica has one, but they are MF lenses) and they made the monumentally crazy decision to have a fixed lens. They could have creamed off lots of (for a mirrorless FF) Nikon and Canon customers, even at $2800. Now, they are stuck with another curiosity. http://www.dpreview.com/products/son...ts/sony_dscrx1 Hi, How about the new Hasselblad, which is a Sony camera with a few goodies glued on and the name Hasselbad attached, at an incredibly high price. As I have said in other contexts, you can put a sign on a cow's forehead saying, "I am a racehorse", but it is actually still a cow. Mort Linder |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the last two years
In article , Mort
wrote: RichA wrote: No, not the Pentax K-01, but this Sony. The more I thought about it, the more I realized the fixed lens was the silliest idea they could have had and there was NO reason for it. There are no design constraints with mirrorless, you can design lenses that almost touch the sensor, if you need to. However, Sony blew it big time by being the first out of the blocks with a FF mirrorless (Yes, I know Leica has one, but they are MF lenses) and they made the monumentally crazy decision to have a fixed lens. They could have creamed off lots of (for a mirrorless FF) Nikon and Canon customers, even at $2800. Now, they are stuck with another curiosity. http://www.dpreview.com/products/son...ts/sony_dscrx1 Hi, How about the new Hasselblad, which is a Sony camera with a few goodies glued on and the name Hasselbad attached, at an incredibly high price. As I have said in other contexts, you can put a sign on a cow's forehead saying, "I am a racehorse", but it is actually still a cow. Haven't kept up with Hasselblad, which one is the new one? -- Sandman[.net] |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the last two years
On 2013-05-27 22:28:28 -0700, Sandman said:
In article , Mort wrote: RichA wrote: No, not the Pentax K-01, but this Sony. The more I thought about it, the more I realized the fixed lens was the silliest idea they could have had and there was NO reason for it. There are no design constraints with mirrorless, you can design lenses that almost touch the sensor, if you need to. However, Sony blew it big time by being the first out of the blocks with a FF mirrorless (Yes, I know Leica has one, but they are MF lenses) and they made the monumentally crazy decision to have a fixed lens. They could have creamed off lots of (for a mirrorless FF) Nikon and Canon customers, even at $2800. Now, they are stuck with another curiosity. http://www.dpreview.com/products/son...ts/sony_dscrx1 Hi, How about the new Hasselblad, which is a Sony camera with a few goodies glued on and the name Hasselbad attached, at an incredibly high price. As I have said in other contexts, you can put a sign on a cow's forehead saying, "I am a racehorse", but it is actually still a cow. Haven't kept up with Hasselblad, which one is the new one? This Sony monstrosity. It certainly isn't an H4D-60. http://www.hasselblad-lunar.com/ -- Regards, Savageduck |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in thelast two years
Sandman wrote:
In article 2013052722573975249-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: Haven't kept up with Hasselblad, which one is the new one? This Sony monstrosity. It certainly isn't an H4D-60. http://www.hasselblad-lunar.com/ So it's a NEX-7 with an Hasselblad logo? Too bad. :/ Did you look at the price tag? That is really too bad. The fall of the mighty. Mort Linder |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the last two years
On 2013-05-29 21:30:46 -0700, "J. Clarke" said:
In article , says... Sandman wrote: In article 2013052722573975249-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: Haven't kept up with Hasselblad, which one is the new one? This Sony monstrosity. It certainly isn't an H4D-60. http://www.hasselblad-lunar.com/ So it's a NEX-7 with an Hasselblad logo? Too bad. :/ Did you look at the price tag? That is really too bad. The fall of the mighty. I dunno. Leica does something similar with Panasonics--not to that extreme though--and Leica has hardly "fallen". Neither Leica or Hasselblad have issues with their premier lines, just as some or the exotic and luxury car manufacturers will always have a waiting list for their cars. So, hardly a fall. While both Leica and Hasselblad build some fine cameras with their prime models, when it comes to rebadged they can be hard to swallow. The Leica/Panasonics are at least not priced at an impossible premium for the badge. That Hasselblad Lunar is an overpriced piece of pretentious bling and it deserves to die in the trenches. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the last two years
In article , Mort
wrote: Haven't kept up with Hasselblad, which one is the new one? This Sony monstrosity. It certainly isn't an H4D-60. http://www.hasselblad-lunar.com/ So it's a NEX-7 with an Hasselblad logo? Too bad. :/ Did you look at the price tag? That is really too bad. The fall of the mighty. Indeed, but this kind of rebranding is not uncommon. It's like the Aston Martin Cygnet, the small hatchback they released back in 2011 just to conform to some EU emission regulations. The Cygnet was a Toyota IQ with a new grille and that's pretty much it. It cost three times as much as the Toyota, in spite of being identical. The price difference between the Hasselblad and the NEX-7 is even larger, but Hasselblad insist they have the same margins on the Lunar as on their other cameras and that they're just using better quality material. I don't know what that's supposed to mean. Given the name - is it space safe? Will NASA use it on the moon? -- Sandman[.net] |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the last two years
In article 2013052921484029560-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote: On 2013-05-29 21:30:46 -0700, "J. Clarke" said: In article , says... Sandman wrote: In article 2013052722573975249-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: Haven't kept up with Hasselblad, which one is the new one? This Sony monstrosity. It certainly isn't an H4D-60. http://www.hasselblad-lunar.com/ So it's a NEX-7 with an Hasselblad logo? Too bad. :/ Did you look at the price tag? That is really too bad. The fall of the mighty. I dunno. Leica does something similar with Panasonics--not to that extreme though--and Leica has hardly "fallen". Neither Leica or Hasselblad have issues with their premier lines, just as some or the exotic and luxury car manufacturers will always have a waiting list for their cars. So, hardly a fall. While both Leica and Hasselblad build some fine cameras with their prime models, when it comes to rebadged they can be hard to swallow. The Leica/Panasonics are at least not priced at an impossible premium for the badge. That Hasselblad Lunar is an overpriced piece of pretentious bling and it deserves to die in the trenches. What about Hasselblad's claim about the margins on the Lunar not being higher than their other models (or even other brands, interestingly)? They stress that it's not a rebranding, that yes, the Lunar contains components from Sony but it's supposedly http://tinyurl.com/cz9njlv "...we're not robbing people by making a huge profit on the camera. Our profit margin is the same as everyone else's; we're just using more expensive materials." Still, ¤5,000 is amazingly expensive. It's what I paid for my D3s when it was released. -- Sandman[.net] |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the last two years
In article ,
says... In article 2013052921484029560-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: On 2013-05-29 21:30:46 -0700, "J. Clarke" said: In article , says... Sandman wrote: In article 2013052722573975249-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: Haven't kept up with Hasselblad, which one is the new one? This Sony monstrosity. It certainly isn't an H4D-60. http://www.hasselblad-lunar.com/ So it's a NEX-7 with an Hasselblad logo? Too bad. :/ Did you look at the price tag? That is really too bad. The fall of the mighty. I dunno. Leica does something similar with Panasonics--not to that extreme though--and Leica has hardly "fallen". Neither Leica or Hasselblad have issues with their premier lines, just as some or the exotic and luxury car manufacturers will always have a waiting list for their cars. So, hardly a fall. While both Leica and Hasselblad build some fine cameras with their prime models, when it comes to rebadged they can be hard to swallow. The Leica/Panasonics are at least not priced at an impossible premium for the badge. That Hasselblad Lunar is an overpriced piece of pretentious bling and it deserves to die in the trenches. What about Hasselblad's claim about the margins on the Lunar not being higher than their other models (or even other brands, interestingly)? They stress that it's not a rebranding, that yes, the Lunar contains components from Sony but it's supposedly http://tinyurl.com/cz9njlv "...we're not robbing people by making a huge profit on the camera. Our profit margin is the same as everyone else's; we're just using more expensive materials." Still, ?5,000 is amazingly expensive. It's what I paid for my D3s when it was released. The question is whether they are using more expensive materials where it affects function or durability, or are they just putting a gold shell around it? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the last two years
In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote: What about Hasselblad's claim about the margins on the Lunar not being higher than their other models (or even other brands, interestingly)? They stress that it's not a rebranding, that yes, the Lunar contains components from Sony but it's supposedly http://tinyurl.com/cz9njlv "...we're not robbing people by making a huge profit on the camera. Our profit margin is the same as everyone else's; we're just using more expensive materials." Still, ?5,000 is amazingly expensive. It's what I paid for my D3s when it was released. The question is whether they are using more expensive materials where it affects function or durability, or are they just putting a gold shell around it? Yeah, I had that thought too. In the end, the target group for this is surely Hasselblad owners that doesn't want a Panasonic in their go-bag, but want to flaunt their camera brand even when on vacation -- Sandman[.net] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the last two years | Savageduck[_3_] | Digital Photography | 91 | May 24th 13 12:21 PM |
Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in thelast two years | philo [_4_] | Digital Photography | 1 | May 14th 13 08:01 PM |
25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR | A REAL-Pro Photographer | Other Photographic Equipment | 3 | November 8th 08 01:36 AM |
25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR | A REAL-Pro Photographer | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | November 5th 08 08:10 AM |
25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR | A REAL-Pro Photographer | Other Photographic Equipment | 0 | November 5th 08 08:10 AM |