Does it matter where the camera is assembled?

On 17 Jan 2007 11:50:32 -0800, wrote:

I went to a camera store and I seem to have narrowed my choice of
digital camera for the following:
Tale of camera buying procrastinations snipped for brevity

Its a difficult market,a highly technical one and one in which there
are lots of great competing products. Its no wonder that most of us
who arent experts get confused. I'm in the same dilemma myself as I'm
about due an upgrade.

One thing to remember is that people take pictures-not cameras. You
can take great pics on a simple camera and take crap ones on the most
expensive.

I have here my trusty Nikon F65. I've taking some truly rubbish pics
on that cam i can tell you.

I also have a praktica b100 with a sigma 200mm zoom. None of your AF
malarky here mate,you just get a built in light meter and thats about
it. I have taken some pictures with that that i have loved. I think i
know why though. Its becuase its almost fully manual and with the zoom
i really have had to learn and think quick before taking the shot.

I also have a little Fuji fineix A303 3.2MP digital happy snapper
with a bit of a zoom on it. Despite it being small,relatively cheap
and uncomplicated,i just love it for its simplicity,its portability. I
can take it anywhere,its no burden,i can whip it out and snap in a few
seconds and best of all,i have taken some really great shots with it.

So then, it isnt just a question of technical issue and spending
wadges of cash. There is a bigger picture.

The place it was made proably doesnt matter.

For instance,did you know that most laptops are not made by the person
whos badge is on it? No,most are made by a couple of big manufs' in
taiwan. Then Tosh,hp or whoever badge it up and collect the premium
for the brand name. Same difference. Now i have to ask out of
curiousity, If Nikons are made in Thailand or whatever, if i went out
there would i see a big Nikon factory full of Nikon techs or would i
see theWon Ton electronics co of Thailand manuf plant? Who knows...

Joe

Psst wrote:
...

One thing to remember is that people take pictures-not cameras. You
can take great pics on a simple camera and take crap ones on the most
expensive.


How about, "Cameras make pictures, people make art."

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:54:05 +0000, Psst
wrote:

One thing i find annoying about upscale point n shoots is that
precious few of them seem to have viewfinders. I like to see my shot
through a viewfinder-not squint at a screen.


I used to think that way, however using the screen has a huge benefit
compared to an optical viewfinder: you know exactly what will appear
in the final shot.

Optical viewfinders for zoom lenses tend to be pretty dire. They tend
to show much less than will appear in the final image to allow for the
inaccuracy of the viewfinder optics and mechanics and for the
(in)ability of users to relate what they see in a viewfinder to what
will be in the final image. This didn't suddenly happen with digital
cameras; the same is true of many film compact cameras too.

Composing with a screen is an altogether happier experience. WYSIWYG.
Over the last year I have used several digital compact cameras, none
of which has had an optical viewfinder, and I have never suffered as a
result of that lack. On the contrary, composing shots has been a far
more predictable and reliable process than with a viewfinder.

But using a screen rather than a viewfinder does require some
willingness on the part of the user. It would appear that you haven't
got there yet. ;-)

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:51:57 +0000, Tony Polson wrote:

snippetty snip
But using a screen rather than a viewfinder does require some
willingness on the part of the user. It would appear that you haven't
got there yet. ;-)


Yes I guess your right Tony. Its just that last year myself and my
main squeeze were driving round East coast USA for the first time. I
had my little fuji jinepix which curiously ,does have a viewfinder and
meanwhile she had bought some model or other of panasonic more
advanced happy snapper/zoomster. Hers didnt have a viewfinder and i
did note that she sometimes struggled to use it properly. Maybe its
becuase her eyesight is rubbish. I am forcing her to the opticians on
Saturday to trial daily disposables as she is juggling about three
sets of glasses at the moment!

Tony Polson wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:54:05 +0000, Psst
wrote:

One thing i find annoying about upscale point n shoots is that
precious few of them seem to have viewfinders. I like to see my shot
through a viewfinder-not squint at a screen.


I used to think that way, however using the screen has a huge benefit
compared to an optical viewfinder: you know exactly what will appear
in the final shot.

Optical viewfinders for zoom lenses tend to be pretty dire. They tend
to show much less than will appear in the final image to allow for the
inaccuracy of the viewfinder optics and mechanics and for the
(in)ability of users to relate what they see in a viewfinder to what
will be in the final image. This didn't suddenly happen with digital
cameras; the same is true of many film compact cameras too.

Composing with a screen is an altogether happier experience. WYSIWYG.
Over the last year I have used several digital compact cameras, none
of which has had an optical viewfinder, and I have never suffered as a
result of that lack. On the contrary, composing shots has been a far
more predictable and reliable process than with a viewfinder.

But using a screen rather than a viewfinder does require some
willingness on the part of the user. It would appear that you haven't
got there yet. ;-)



There's merit in what you say, Tony. WYSIWUG and you avoid parallax
conditions. However, until a camera screen can be clearly see in bright
sunlight, I'll first opt to choose a camera with a viewfinder than one
without a viewfinder.

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 07:19:36 -0800, nick c
wrote:

Tony Polson wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:54:05 +0000, Psst
wrote:

One thing i find annoying about upscale point n shoots is that
precious few of them seem to have viewfinders. I like to see my shot
through a viewfinder-not squint at a screen.


I used to think that way, however using the screen has a huge benefit
compared to an optical viewfinder: you know exactly what will appear
in the final shot.

Optical viewfinders for zoom lenses tend to be pretty dire. They tend
to show much less than will appear in the final image to allow for the
inaccuracy of the viewfinder optics and mechanics and for the
(in)ability of users to relate what they see in a viewfinder to what
will be in the final image. This didn't suddenly happen with digital
cameras; the same is true of many film compact cameras too.

Composing with a screen is an altogether happier experience. WYSIWYG.
Over the last year I have used several digital compact cameras, none
of which has had an optical viewfinder, and I have never suffered as a
result of that lack. On the contrary, composing shots has been a far
more predictable and reliable process than with a viewfinder.

But using a screen rather than a viewfinder does require some
willingness on the part of the user. It would appear that you haven't
got there yet. ;-)

There's merit in what you say, Tony. WYSIWUG and you avoid parallax
conditions. However, until a camera screen can be clearly see in bright
sunlight, I'll first opt to choose a camera with a viewfinder than one
without a viewfinder.

It is a matter of personal choice. But what is happening is that LCD
screens are getting larger, sharper and brighter, which makes their
use in bright sunlight rather more straightforward than before.

I test a lot of digital cameras and find there is a strong trend
towards better LCD screens, with a huge difference between the best of
today's cameras and the best of those available just a year ago, for
example.

Message-ID: from Psst
contained the following:

One thing to remember is that people take pictures-not cameras. You
can take great pics on a simple camera and take crap ones on the most
expensive.

BTDTGTT

I have here my trusty Nikon F65. I've taking some truly rubbish pics
on that cam i can tell you.
Heh, my D70 does that too.

I also have a praktica b100 with a sigma 200mm zoom. None of your AF
malarky here mate,you just get a built in light meter and thats about
it. I have taken some pictures with that that i have loved. I think i
know why though. Its becuase its almost fully manual and with the zoom
i really have had to learn and think quick before taking the shot.

More recently, I have been taking better shots with the Nikon by
sticking it on manual. There is something about the manual process that
makes you think more about taking the picture; you are making a
conscious decision what to expose for. Basically it's about taking
control. I even thought about getting another hand held light meter to
replace my much loved but broken Weston. I was surprised to see quite a
healthy market for light meters on ebay. Obviously quite a few others
have the same idea.

I've had to get used to the autofocus though. Without any focussing
aids my eyes just aren't good enough to focus manually. However the
focus areas are quite tight and I've got used to the half
press/compose/shoot technique.

--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

On 17 Jan 2007 11:50:32 -0800, wrote:

I went to a camera store and I seem to have narrowed my choice of
digital camera for the following:
Pentax 100D, Nikon D40/D50, Canon G-7, Panasonic Lumix FZ7/FZ50
The Pentax, Nikon and were assembled in either Malaysia, Thailand, or
the Phillipines. Canon and Panasonic cameras are made in Japan.
Are cameras which made in Japan better in quality than those assembled
in other countries? Or, is QA/QC for camera manufacturing nowadays in
such a way that it does not matter any longer?

They have D50 on sale, and cheaper than D40. pentax camera seems to be
the only one of the above that has a liquid crystal display on top. I
like G-7 of its compact size and resembles the old style range finder
camera. FZ 50 looks too big in my hand, and I prefer the FZ7. But FZ7
does not have hot shoe for flash. FZ 50 is 12x optical, instead of
FX7's 10x. But FZ7 is much smaller.

I know the above is a mix bag of SLR, SLR like, or just P&S camera. I
seem now to go into Canon G7. It looks simple. Should I get Nikon
instead, or my previous preference of FX7?

My Nikons (D200, D70s) were both assembled in Thailand. I doubt very
much that a company with the quality reputation they have would
jeopardize it by having their higher end cameras made in shoddy
facilities.

IMO you can't go wrong with something like the D50 or D40. Nikon
really has their act together with digital slrs. People who have the
D50 really seem to like it. The D40 is newer and has some strong
selling points, but it doesn't use all of Nikon's AF lenses.
(Autofocus only works with the AF-S type lenses.) My understanding
is that the lens that comes with the D40 is a real gem. Their
reputation with optics is well deserved.

If you want a rangefinder type, the Canon G7 is probably the best, but
research it carefully before you buy. I believe it has some issues
with noise since they've crammed all those megapixels into that small
P&S sized sensor.

If you're new to digital cameras, don't let the salesman fool you with
the idea that more megapixels is better. That is not always the case,
and sometimes the reverse is true depending on the camera.

If you want to grow with photography, imo skip the rangefinder types
and go right to an slr since you'll end up getting one at some point
anyway. You won't regret it.

Steve

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:49:37 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

Psst wrote:
..

One thing to remember is that people take pictures-not cameras. You
can take great pics on a simple camera and take crap ones on the most
expensive.


How about, "Cameras make pictures, people make art."



Or, more correctly, cameras don't make anything at all. They are just
dumb boxes that don't come alive until people turn on the power and
tell them which way to point.

Steve

"Geoff Berrow" wrote in message
...
Message-ID: from Psst
contained the following:

One thing to remember is that people take pictures-not cameras. You
can take great pics on a simple camera and take crap ones on the most
expensive.

BTDTGTT

I have here my trusty Nikon F65. I've taking some truly rubbish pics
on that cam i can tell you.
Heh, my D70 does that too.

I also have a praktica b100 with a sigma 200mm zoom. None of your AF
malarky here mate,you just get a built in light meter and thats about
it. I have taken some pictures with that that i have loved. I think i
know why though. Its becuase its almost fully manual and with the zoom
i really have had to learn and think quick before taking the shot.

More recently, I have been taking better shots with the Nikon by
sticking it on manual. There is something about the manual process that
makes you think more about taking the picture; you are making a
conscious decision what to expose for. Basically it's about taking
control. I even thought about getting another hand held light meter to
replace my much loved but broken Weston. I was surprised to see quite a
healthy market for light meters on ebay. Obviously quite a few others
have the same idea.

I've had to get used to the autofocus though. Without any focussing
aids my eyes just aren't good enough to focus manually. However the
focus areas are quite tight and I've got used to the half
press/compose/shoot technique.

--
Well on the focus point. I have had a detached retina and have a spot that
is a little wavy and blurred right in the centre of my right eye I tried to
train myself to use the left eye with the camera but was not successful so
used the bad eye It might not be clear but I can still see the point when
its clearest even in the centre.
Well I'm digital now so have autofocus But what I would have liked is a
Digital slr or prosumer built in the style of a waist level finder medium
format So that I can look down on the LCD with both eyes