SamSez <samthe...@verizon.net> wrote: >"Charles" <charlesschu...@comcast.net> wrote in news:hd25no$ft2$1 >@news.eternal-september.org:
>> Very positive!
>No auto CA correction.
Because the camera doesn't have to use cheap lenses. You can actually use lenses that don't need correction for chromatic aberration. And because it's absurd to expect the camera to have a database for dozens to hundreds of lenses, some of which don't even exist yet.
> I'll not argue about size --- except to point out that there is > usually a size difference between low end and high end models > (even with the same crop factor).
Agreed.
> I'll argue that pricing is driven by marketing, not by production > and design costs (except for a lower limit below which you've > got a loss leader or a 'cheap razor, expensive blades' mixed > calculation). Hence: you cannot tell if a swivel finder makes > the camera significantly more expensive, even if you were to > compare otherwise completely identical models (which you didn't > as there aren't, to my best knowledge). At best you'd find out > what marketing thinks a swivel LCD is worth --- and if we take > your word, "not much" is the answer.
> -Wolfgang
Agreed that price-setting is somewhat artificial, although that's not as true of today's DSLRs as it was a few years back. If anything, the price of some high-end P&S is being hiked. If the swivel LCD doesn't add to the cost, for whatever reason, then that's great for the consumer.
> Almost double the price going fromk 10MP to 12MP?
You will always find that cameras drop in price from their introduction, making it difficult if you take a snapshot of today's prices. According to DP Review D60 was Euro 699 at introduction, and the D5000 Euro 799. In my view, the extra Euro 100 would be worth it just for the higher ISO capability of the newer sensor.
> The D5000 is something of a departure for Nikon - it's bigger than > the D40/D60 sized cameras but still smaller than the D80/D90 body > style. And it's not exactly what we'd call pretty. From a > conceptual point of view, the D5000 is most of a D90 shoe-horned > into a D60 body with an articulated screen added to the back, and > it looks as if the designers took that as an instruction for what > it should look like. It's adorned with a profusion of bumps, lumps > and nubs.
> In many respects, the D5000 harks back to the D50 - it's a > surprisingly large compared to its peers and, unlike recent little > Nikons, has a feature set that will prompt many a debate about > whether to buy this camera or the model above.
> -- > Ray Fischer
Owning both a D60 and a D5000 I can tell you that the size difference is very little - just a few mm in depth. As it produces excellent images, I'm not that fussed if it's not quite as "pretty" as other cameras.
Well, if you are trying to compare prices, if does not make sense to compare the price of a new model with one at the end-of-life discount period.
I have tried to be polite and courteous to you in these discussions, but as you have been unable to extend the same courtesy to me, I regret that I will no longer be reading your messages. Goodbye, Mr Fisher.
David J Taylor <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> Agreed that price-setting is somewhat artificial, although that's not as > true of today's DSLRs as it was a few years back.
There is no non-artifical price setting, except for selling at cost (and even that is artifical, since you have to predict the number of items being sold to factor in development and other one-time costs).
There is also no "fair" price --- you take what you can get within the limits of the market and your plans.
> If anything, the price > of some high-end P&S is being hiked.
You can assume all P&S cameras have a markup.
> If the swivel LCD doesn't add to the > cost, for whatever reason, then that's great for the consumer.
The swivel LCD doesn't add (much) to the assumed (by the marketing department) percieved worth of the camera, else there would be a noticable price step between similar models with and without.
Whereas during the megapixel race more pixels (whatever their quality) were (and still are) an argument much advertized, to the point that there are few low megapixel cameras still around (usually in speciality niches) because they wouldn't sell for a price that would still make money.
Everything has /a/ markup - some items have more markup than others.
> The swivel LCD doesn't add (much) to the assumed (by the marketing > department) percieved worth of the camera, else there would be > a noticable price step between similar models with and without.
Yes, my price and size comparison showed that the it didn't add significantly to cost or size.
> Whereas during the megapixel race more pixels (whatever their > quality) were (and still are) an argument much advertized, to > the point that there are few low megapixel cameras still around > (usually in speciality niches) because they wouldn't sell for a > price that would still make money.
> -Wolfgang
I would like to think that marketing by MP count only applied to P&S cameras but, sadly, DSLRs are not immune. For my own needs, an 8MP sensor with double the ISO capability would be what I would buy over a 12MP sensor, but that option isn't available.
David J Taylor <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message >> The swivel LCD doesn't add (much) to the assumed (by the marketing >> department) percieved worth of the camera, else there would be >> a noticable price step between similar models with and without.
>Yes, my price and size comparison showed that the it didn't add >significantly to cost or size.
If one considers to be a near doubling of price to be insignifant.
> David J Taylor > <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote: [] >>Yes, my price and size comparison showed that the it didn't add >>significantly to cost or size.
> If one considers to be a near doubling of price to be insignifant.
David J Taylor <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message >news:4afa7f98$0$1648$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net... >> David J Taylor >> <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >[] >>>Yes, my price and size comparison showed that the it didn't add >>>significantly to cost or size.
>> If one considers to be a near doubling of price to be insignifant.
>D60 was Euro 699 at introduction >D5000 Euro 799
And if you think that 100 euros is insignificant then you're an idiot.
David J Taylor <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message >> You can assume all P&S cameras have a markup. > Everything has /a/ markup - some items have more markup than others.
Counterexample: printers, razors, xbox. The money is made with ink and blades and games ... the products themselves are often sold below manufacturing costs.
OK, the store will add a markup.
> I would like to think that marketing by MP count only applied to P&S > cameras but, sadly, DSLRs are not immune.
However, large as the pixels still are, the effect isn't too severe.
> For my own needs, an 8MP sensor > with double the ISO capability would be what I would buy over a 12MP > sensor, but that option isn't available.
If you wanted twice the ISO capability at the same tech level, you'd get a 6 MP sensor at the same size as the 12 MP sensor.
> David J Taylor > <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >>"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message >>news:4afa7f98$0$1648$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net... >>> David J Taylor >>> <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >>[] >>>>Yes, my price and size comparison showed that the it didn't add >>>>significantly to cost or size.
>>> If one considers to be a near doubling of price to be insignifant.
>>D60 was Euro 699 at introduction >>D5000 Euro 799
> And if you think that 100 euros is insignificant then you're an idiot.
You stated that "Then it becomes just what Canon is selling except that it would cost a lot more and make the camera much bigger and less durable." 800 Euros isn't "a lot more" than Euro 700.
I see that letting you back out of the killfile has only resulted in more name-calling.
>"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message >news:4afb0581$0$1671$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net... >> David J Taylor >> <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >>>"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message >>>news:4afa7f98$0$1648$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net... >>>> David J Taylor >>>> <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >>>[] >>>>>Yes, my price and size comparison showed that the it didn't add >>>>>significantly to cost or size.
>>>> If one considers to be a near doubling of price to be insignifant.
>>>D60 was Euro 699 at introduction >>>D5000 Euro 799
>> And if you think that 100 euros is insignificant then you're an idiot.
>You stated that "Then it becomes just what Canon is selling except that it >would cost a lot more and make the camera much bigger and less durable." >800 Euros isn't "a lot more" than Euro 700.
On 10 Nov 2009 04:06:33 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: : David J Taylor <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote: : > : >"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message : >news:4af77c58$0$1655$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net... : >[] : >> Almost double the price going fromk 10MP to 12MP? : > : >You will always find that cameras drop in price from their introduction, : : Spare me the bullshit rationalizations.
Can either of you guys explain why this increasingly bitter argument makes sense? One of you thinks an articulated LCD screen is worth its size and cost penalty; the other doesn't. Both configurations are available in very usable cameras. What more is there to say?
On 11 Nov 2009 18:42:09 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: : David J Taylor <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote: : >"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message : >news:4afa7f98$0$1648$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net... : >> David J Taylor
: >[] : >>>Yes, my price and size comparison showed that the it didn't add : >>>significantly to cost or size. : >> : >> If one considers to be a near doubling of price to be insignifant. : > : >D60 was Euro 699 at introduction : >D5000 Euro 799 : : And if you think that 100 euros is insignificant then you're an idiot.
We don't consider 799 US dollars to be anywhere near double 699 US dollars. Does one apply different rules of arithmetic to euros?
"Robert Coe" <b...@1776.COM> wrote: > On 10 Nov 2009 04:06:33 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > : David J Taylor <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> > wrote: > : > > : >"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message > : >news:4af77c58$0$1655$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net... > : >[] > : >> Almost double the price going fromk 10MP to 12MP? > : > > : >You will always find that cameras drop in price from their introduction, > : > : Spare me the bullshit rationalizations.
> Can either of you guys explain why this increasingly bitter argument makes > sense? One of you thinks an articulated LCD screen is worth its size and cost > penalty; the other doesn't. Both configurations are available in very usable > cameras. What more is there to say?
> Can either of you guys explain why this increasingly bitter argument > makes > sense? One of you thinks an articulated LCD screen is worth its size and > cost > penalty; the other doesn't. Both configurations are available in very > usable > cameras. What more is there to say?
> Bob
Bob, Ray claimed that by adding a swivel LCD finder to a Canon 7D "it would cost a lot more and make the camera much bigger and less durable", whereas I presented some evidence that this did not appear to apply to roughly comparable Nikon cameras, which are neither significantly bigger, nor do they cost more in the swivel finder version.
I've had a camera with a swivel finder before and found it surprisingly handy, and am pleased to see this feature extend to DSLRs. A pity it's not on not the 7D, though.
>"Robert Coe" <b...@1776.COM> wrote in message >news:28rfg5luv24vrv4afp9sc592rerrs73cue@4ax.com... >[] >> Can either of you guys explain why this increasingly bitter argument >> makes >> sense? One of you thinks an articulated LCD screen is worth its size and >> cost >> penalty; the other doesn't. Both configurations are available in very >> usable >> cameras. What more is there to say?
>> Bob
>Bob, Ray claimed that by adding a swivel LCD finder to a Canon 7D "it >would cost a >lot more and make the camera much bigger and less durable", whereas I >presented some evidence that this did not appear to apply to roughly >comparable Nikon cameras, which are neither significantly bigger, nor do >they cost more in the swivel finder version.
>On 11 Nov 2009 18:42:09 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >: David J Taylor <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >: >"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message >: >news:4afa7f98$0$1648$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net... >: >> David J Taylor >: >> <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >: >[] >: >>>Yes, my price and size comparison showed that the it didn't add >: >>>significantly to cost or size. >: >> >: >> If one considers to be a near doubling of price to be insignifant. >: > >: >D60 was Euro 699 at introduction >: >D5000 Euro 799 >: >: And if you think that 100 euros is insignificant then you're an idiot.
>We don't consider 799 US dollars to be anywhere near double 699 US dollars.
> David J Taylor > <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote: [] >>Bob, Ray claimed that by adding a swivel LCD finder to a Canon 7D "it >>would cost a >>lot more and make the camera much bigger and less durable", whereas I >>presented some evidence that this did not appear to apply to roughly >>comparable Nikon cameras, which are neither significantly bigger, nor do >>they cost more in the swivel finder version.
Sorry, Ray, but you're not going to wind me up again by false accusations. Anyone who wants to can read the past posts and form their own conclusions. I'm only sorry that you appear to have misunderstood what I wrote.
David J Taylor <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message >> David J Taylor >>>Bob, Ray claimed that by adding a swivel LCD finder to a Canon 7D "it >>>would cost a >>>lot more and make the camera much bigger and less durable", whereas I >>>presented some evidence that this did not appear to apply to roughly >>>comparable Nikon cameras, which are neither significantly bigger, nor do >>>they cost more in the swivel finder version.
>> Don't start lying.
>Sorry, Ray, but you're not going to wind me up again by false accusations.
You're going to stick with your own revisionism?
>Anyone who wants to can read the past posts and form their own >conclusions.
I showed, using your own examples, that the camera with the flip-out screen was indeed larger and more expensive. And just above you claim that's not the case, which makes you a liar.
|
