From: nospam on
In article <f76dnQoW4diV5mHWnZ2dnVY3go-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, David J.
Littleboy <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote:

> > that depends on the lens. for some, a stabilized version is not much
> > more than a non-stabilized version. the canon 70-200 is $100 more than
> > the sony 70-200 and the sony used to be more money, as i recall.
>
> Well, comparing to Sony isn't all that meaningful, since they're such a
> small player prices are rather random.

the comparison is:
canon slr + canon 70-200mm f/2.8 stabilized, versus
sony slr (with stabilization) + sony 70-200mm f/2.8 non-stabilized.

at the end of the day, you have a camera with a stabilized 70-200mm
lens and the price isn't that much of a difference. other factors
matter more, like canon (or nikon) making much better cameras than
sony.

> For Canon users, the premium for IS is quite steep. They sweeten it up a bit
> by giving you slightly better optics. (Well, usually: IMHO, the 24-105/4.0
> IS isn't sharp enough to justify the price and weight. Sigh.)

it depends on the lens. look at nikon's 70-200 f/2.8 vr ii, it's a
*lot* more expensive than the previous model.

on the other hand, nikon's 55-200mm vr is something like 60-70 dollars
more than the non-stabilized version and it's also a much better lens,
optically (busting the myth that in-lens stabilization compromises
optical quality).
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on
On Tue, 25 May 2010 15:39:48 -0700 (PDT), Vance <vance.lear(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

>On May 25, 9:46´┐Żam, Outing Trolls is FUN! <o...(a)trollouters.org>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 May 2010 09:29:49 -0700, SMS <scharf.ste...(a)geemail.com> wrote:
>> >On 24/05/10 7:55 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>
>> >> But the IS in the Canon 70-200/4.0 IS is seriously amazing. Sharp images at
>> >> 1/15th (with a lot of care and elbows supported or locked) at 200mm,
>> >> reliably sharp images at 1/30 and 200mm. I doubt in-camera IS will be
>> >> competing, ever. And, of course, in-camera IS doesn't stabilize the
>> >> viewfinder image.
>>
>> >Yes, that's an incredible lens.
>>
>> >In-camera IS on D-SLRs (and other interchangeable lens cameras) is more
>> >cost effective, but has serious performance disadvantages, as all the
>> >experts agree.
>>
>> Point us to "all these experts" that agree to this.
>>
>> Oh that's right. You can't. They only exist in your imagination. Just like
>> that computer-controlled geyser that you helped to install in Yellowstone
>> Nat. Park on one of your imaginary trips.
>>
>> You really should quit. We all already know you're a delusional
>> pretend-photographer troll. You prove it with every post you ever make.
>
>Speaking of pretend photographers, I may have done you a disservice
>with the orange juice shot. You have never pretended that you knew a
>damn thing about lighting, being an all natural goodness nature type
>photographer of vast experience who can take any camera and produce
>tremendously attractive images - but only in available light. That
>makes sense. So, with that ability to judge the existing light and
>get the shot when it is appropriate and your fine sense of
>composition, let's see a good avialable light image out of you.
>
>Since this is rec.photo.digital, I've posted some of my 'happy snaps'
>for you Nothing special, just personal, recreational shots and only
>one not natural light. I like B&W, so I included a few for the hell
>of it. The bicyclist was shot with the popup flash and the guy in the
>Civil War uniform was a grab shot. What you got, Sparky? Lieing's
>not allowed. You do it so much better than me that it wouldn't be
>fair.
>
>http://picasaweb.google.com/Vance.Lear/ForTrolls#slideshow/5475330339350251298
>
>Vance

Between your typical tourist's snapshots and mmyvusenet's cretinous
downs-syndrome-afflicted church, sick-animal, and tomato snapshots; I'll
give you a very slight advantage. But only very slight. I can think of no
other snapshooters that are on a comparable level with you.





From: Bruce on
On Tue, 25 May 2010 19:46:01 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote:

>On 5/25/2010 7:05 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article<4bfc55ae$0$1601$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS
>> <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And as it turns out, they would have been better looking for other games
>>> to play. Konica-Minolta, Olympus, and Pentax have been spectacularly
>>> unsuccessful in digital SLRs.
>>
>> actually they've done ok. not terrific, but not as bad as contax,
>> kodak, fuji and everyone's favourite poster-child of failure, sigma.
>> it's amazing how much sigma is pouring into that sinkhole.
>
>Olympus and Pentax may be doing OK, but Konica-Minolta doesn't exist as
>a camera company anymore--their product lines will continue to exist as
>long as Sony thinks that there's a hope of making a profit in that
>market and not a moment longer.


That depends critically on whether NEX succeeds or not.

If NEX succeeds, and makes money, the slow-selling (and hugely
loss-making) Alpha range of DSLRs will be dead.

From: John Navas on
On Wed, 26 May 2010 11:24:27 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote
in <1ktpv5pf4of9h9aaq5ube0bmmg927rdd8b(a)4ax.com>:

>On Tue, 25 May 2010 19:46:01 -0400, "J. Clarke"
><jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote:

>>Olympus and Pentax may be doing OK, but Konica-Minolta doesn't exist as
>>a camera company anymore--their product lines will continue to exist as
>>long as Sony thinks that there's a hope of making a profit in that
>>market and not a moment longer.
>
>That depends critically on whether NEX succeeds or not.
>
>If NEX succeeds, and makes money, the slow-selling (and hugely
>loss-making) Alpha range of DSLRs will be dead.

I think that's a bad bet, but only time will tell.
--
Best regards,
John

"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
From: Jeremiah DeWitt Weiner on
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> So there's going to be an "E-5"?
....
> Meanwhile, Olympus
> will support (but not invest in) the E-System for the sake of existing
> users.

Hey, don't take it from me.
"Toshiyuki Terada, or 'Toshi', manages the Olympus SLR product planning
team in Tokyo, Japan.
....
All Toshi would say was that his team are definitely working on the next
generation of Four Thirds products...
....
Speculation that Olympus was abandoning conventional optical viewfinder
DSLRs in as little as two years was also dismissed.
....
I asked Toshi if, now that the Pen E-PL1 had been launched, the product
development resources within Olympus would now be weighted more towards
Four Thirds and the E-System line. Toshi's reaction was almost one of
curiosity; implying surprise that I thought that R&D had been pulled off
Four Thirds in the first place. "Many technological developments are
common to both and new features that you see in our Pen cameras will
also be applied to future E-System cameras," Toshi explained, adding:
"We could not have separated our Micro Four Thirds and Four Thirds
development effort; it would not have worked that way.""
<http://fourthirds-user.com/2010/03/lunch_with_olympus_manager_of_slr_product_planning.php>

That interview was published on March 17th of this year, only a little
over 60 days ago. But hey, you think whatever you want.


> Under these circumstances, the only DSLR purchases that make any sense
> are those from Canon and Nikon. None of the other brands can be
> guaranteed to be in production in three years' time.

I would be willing to lay money on the proposition that Olympus will
still be making DSLRs in three years.

--
Oh to have a lodge in some vast wilderness. Where rumors of oppression
and deceit, of unsuccessful and successful wars may never reach me
anymore.
-- William Cowper, 1731 - 1800