From: Rich on
"Drazic" <drazic(a)mocktown.net> wrote in
news:jdmdnUk0DolInH3WnZ2dnUVZ8iydnZ2d(a)pipex.net:

> "RichA" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5e868267-67b8-46dd-b7ff-c70e6aefdaaa(a)q32g2000yqb.googlegroups.com.
> ..
>> 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.


From: Rich on
rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:4be01c2a$0$1659
$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net:

> Doug McDonald <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> 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.
From: Ray Fischer on
Rich <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:4be01c2a$0$1659
>$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net:
>
>> Doug McDonald <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> 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
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Ray Fischer on
C.P. Robbins <cprobbins(a)cprobbins3.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 May 2010 07:58:59 -0500, Doug McDonald
><mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> 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
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: C J Campbell on
On 2010-05-04 05:15:15 -0600, "Drazic" <drazic(a)mocktown.net> said:

> "RichA" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5e868267-67b8-46dd-b7ff-c70e6aefdaaa(a)q32g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
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