Proof marketers are not catering to enthusiasts

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

But instead to the average consumer when it comes to cameras
of all types. This is a blurb from dpreview about the new Fuji
"prosumer."

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072803fuji_s9000z.asp

"Fuji has today announced what it sees as competition to entry level
DSLRs with the 9 million pixel FinePix S9000 Zoom. It features a 10.7x
optical zoom (28-300mm) (with no image stabilization), ISO from 80 to
1600, twist-barrel zoom control, a tiltable 1.8-inch LCD, plus a 640 x
480 movie mode. Fuji sees the S9000 Zoom as the point where compact
and DSLRs meet as it offers the resolution and control of an SLR,
while at the same time offering functions associated with a compact
camera."

What is MISSING from this is that the CCD is only a 1/1.6 and not
anything like what you get in a DSLR. Instead of providing it,
something that would provide a MASSIVE improvement in prosumer
performance, they opt instead to do the same thing; MORE pixels
(tiny pixels!) and a long zoom. So, it's very likely the noise
and tonality issues that plague prosumers are still going to be
there. And they were the MAIN differentiators between the DSLRs
and prosumers!

Why?
Because they know what buttons to push to impress Joe Average.
Bigger, longer, more, more, more! Meanwhile, a 6 meg DSLR will
BLOW AWAY the 9 meg prosumer in nearly every aspect of image quality,
STILL! Other reasons why we don't have "high end" prosumers or
fixed-lens cameras? Cost. Bigger sensors and the lenses needed to
support them cost money. Although a bigger CCD coupled with
a Sigma-like 18-200mm zoom (providing maybe 27mm to 300mm with
a decent CCD/CMOS) would be a GODSEND for the prosumer market.

I've yet to buy a DSLR because I'm waiting to see what Olympus
successor to the E-1 will be. But, my current prosumer (C8080) bests
most DSLR/kit lens combos when it comes to resolution because of my
prosumer's superior lens. This is a rarity in the prosumer field.
It's also built better than entry-level DSLRS. However, it does NOT
match any DSLR when it comes to:
-Focusing
-Noise control
-Tonality
-Speed

But it COULD, if they'd wanted it to.

I personally believe there is a big potential market for a fixed-lens
high-end prosumer that could compete with the DSLRs. A sealed camera
body would eliminate the dust issue and a lens of 18-200mm would serve
90+% of users out there. An external "telextender" raising the max
f.l. to 300mm (450mm equivalent) could be produced as well since they
already exist for prosumers.

But Fuji's latest offering is NOTHING to write home about.
Pity.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Pete D wrote:
> "Toa" <toa1614@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:42e88d03@news.orcon.net.nz...
> >> Because they know what buttons to push to impress Joe Average.
> >
> > YES
> >
> >> Bigger, longer, more, more, more! Meanwhile, a 6 meg DSLR will
> >> BLOW AWAY the 9 meg prosumer in nearly every aspect of image quality,
> >
> > Yes again but..........
> >
> > The market they're targeting don't much care for the little (in their
> > view) differences between the image quality of the DSLR to non SLR. What
> > Joe Average cares about mostly is ease of use. Despite DSLRs being
> > streets ahead of even top-end pro-sumers Joe Average would question the
> > value of that difference
> >
> > Toa
>
> Because he only ever prints at 6x4 and never crops and is happy with that.

Right. And I don't Joe & Jane Average question the value of the better
camera. To them, it has NO value, because they would never come close
to using its capabilities. If all you want is a 4x6, or when feeling
wild a 5x7, what's the point of paying for the ability to produce sharp
16x20s or larger? And most especially when the cash difference is maybe
$500 minimum, and the changeover also adds complexity to what to them
is a simple feat. Point. Shoot. Run the card into the machine.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:
> But instead to the average consumer when it comes to cameras
> of all types. This is a blurb from dpreview about the new Fuji
> "prosumer."
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072803fuji_s9000z.asp
>
> "Fuji has today announced what it sees as competition to entry level
> DSLRs with the 9 million pixel FinePix S9000 Zoom. It features a 10.7x
> optical zoom (28-300mm) (with no image stabilization), ISO from 80 to
> 1600, twist-barrel zoom control, a tiltable 1.8-inch LCD, plus a 640 x
> 480 movie mode. Fuji sees the S9000 Zoom as the point where compact
> and DSLRs meet as it offers the resolution and control of an SLR,
> while at the same time offering functions associated with a compact
> camera."

I don't agree with your headline, but having the camera without image
stabilisation, and with 9MP in such a small sensor may not help it to sell
compared to its competition.

By the way, this would be more on-topic in rec.photo.digital.zlr or
rec.photo.digital. It is off-topic here.

David
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 06:17:11 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>> But instead to the average consumer when it comes to cameras
>> of all types. This is a blurb from dpreview about the new Fuji
>> "prosumer."
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072803fuji_s9000z.asp
>>
>> "Fuji has today announced what it sees as competition to entry level
>> DSLRs with the 9 million pixel FinePix S9000 Zoom. It features a 10.7x
>> optical zoom (28-300mm) (with no image stabilization), ISO from 80 to
>> 1600, twist-barrel zoom control, a tiltable 1.8-inch LCD, plus a 640 x
>> 480 movie mode. Fuji sees the S9000 Zoom as the point where compact
>> and DSLRs meet as it offers the resolution and control of an SLR,
>> while at the same time offering functions associated with a compact
>> camera."
>
>I don't agree with your headline, but having the camera without image
>stabilisation, and with 9MP in such a small sensor may not help it to sell
>compared to its competition.
>
>By the way, this would be more on-topic in rec.photo.digital.zlr or
>rec.photo.digital. It is off-topic here.
>
>David
>

Well, in a way it isn't off topic. It's clear that Fuji, Samsung and
Panasonic are aiming their new models at people trying to decide
between DSLR and prosumer so it's "kind of" on topic since the sale of
those things will impact DSLR sales. I think.
-Rich
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

zoom control, a tiltable 1.8-inch LCD, plus a 640 x
>> 480 movie mode. Fuji sees the S9000 Zoom as the point where compact
>> and DSLRs meet as it offers the resolution and control of an SLR,
>> while at the same time offering functions associated with a compact
>> camera."
>
> I don't agree with your headline, but having the camera without image
> stabilisation, and with 9MP in such a small sensor may not help it to sell
> compared to its competition.
>
> By the way, this would be more on-topic in rec.photo.digital.zlr or
> rec.photo.digital. It is off-topic here.
>
> David

I thought trolls were off topic in any group.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

You and the others are being a little hard on the quality of pro-sumer
cameras. They indeed can produce very good 8x10 and in some cases
larger prints. The main reason some will like the s9000 is convenience
and less weight. Add that to good quality prints and I bet Fuji has a
winner with the s9000 and the e900. Who are y'all to talk about Joe
Average? Arrogant know it alls, I think.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

jimw075@excite.com wrote:
> You and the others are being a little hard on the quality of pro-sumer
> cameras. They indeed can produce very good 8x10 and in some cases
> larger prints. The main reason some will like the s9000 is convenience
> and less weight. Add that to good quality prints and I bet Fuji has a
> winner with the s9000 and the e900. Who are y'all to talk about Joe
> Average? Arrogant know it alls, I think.

Got your shorts in a bunch, huh? Speaking of different qualities for
the average buyer of a particular item is not exactly denigrating that
person. Joe & Jane may not give a rat's ass about photography as a
hobby or sport or whatever the hell it is, but may well be superb at
woodworking or carving or quilting. That's a choice of recreation, and
has nothing to do with arrogance.

Most people I know who are not involved in photography as a business or
a "calling" tend to think 4x6 photos are big enough. I had a 5x7 made
of a portait I made of my stepson, and my wife thought it was a waste
of money, when a 4x6 would be almost as big. I don't explain it. I down
downrate it. But it does exist, and there is a lot of it.

It's a little like my bass fishing friends: I wouldn't give you two
bucks for every bass boat in Virginia (or elsewhere), but these guys
pay many multiple thousands for theirs, based on the boats of the
stars, and seem to feel I'm a little weird because dropping 25K to kill
a few fish is not my thing. It's their choice. It's not my choice.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> Because they know what buttons to push to impress Joe Average.

YES

> Bigger, longer, more, more, more! Meanwhile, a 6 meg DSLR will
> BLOW AWAY the 9 meg prosumer in nearly every aspect of image quality,

Yes again but..........

The market they're targeting don't much care for the little (in their view)
differences between the image quality of the DSLR to non SLR. What Joe
Average cares about mostly is ease of use. Despite DSLRs being streets
ahead of even top-end pro-sumers Joe Average would question the value of
that difference

Toa
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Toa" <toa1614@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:42e88d03@news.orcon.net.nz...
>> Because they know what buttons to push to impress Joe Average.
>
> YES
>
>> Bigger, longer, more, more, more! Meanwhile, a 6 meg DSLR will
>> BLOW AWAY the 9 meg prosumer in nearly every aspect of image quality,
>
> Yes again but..........
>
> The market they're targeting don't much care for the little (in their
> view) differences between the image quality of the DSLR to non SLR. What
> Joe Average cares about mostly is ease of use. Despite DSLRs being
> streets ahead of even top-end pro-sumers Joe Average would question the
> value of that difference
>
> Toa

Because he only ever prints at 6x4 and never crops and is happy with that.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> I personally believe there is a big potential market for a fixed-lens
> high-end prosumer that could compete with the DSLRs. A sealed camera
> body would eliminate the dust issue and a lens of 18-200mm would serve
> 90+% of users out there. An external "telextender" raising the max
> f.l. to 300mm (450mm equivalent) could be produced as well since they
> already exist for prosumers.

Amen to that. If Sony took the 828, reworked the sensor to make the
high-ISO noise on part with a Canon 20D, made the shot-to-shot speed as
fast as a DSLR (I hate the between-shots lag) and supported something
like the Canon or Nikon multiple wireless flashes, I'd buy one in a
minute.

The thing that's kept me from pulling the trigger on a DSLR is the lack
of ability to use the LCD for framing a shot, the lack of a movie mode,
and the lack of something like the NightFraming/Nightshot feature that
Sony has. Believe it or not, I use all of these.

I'd also like Canon to offer a 24-200 (equivalent) f2.0-2.8 kit lens,
but I'm not going to hold my breath. ;-)

> But Fuji's latest offering is NOTHING to write home about.
> Pity.

As usual.

--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Albert Nurick" <albert@nurick.com> wrote in message
news:xn0e5ahccly675o005@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> RichA wrote:
>
>> I personally believe there is a big potential market for a fixed-lens
>> high-end prosumer that could compete with the DSLRs. A sealed camera
>> body would eliminate the dust issue and a lens of 18-200mm would serve
>> 90+% of users out there. An external "telextender" raising the max
>> f.l. to 300mm (450mm equivalent) could be produced as well since they
>> already exist for prosumers.
>
> Amen to that. If Sony took the 828, reworked the sensor to make the
> high-ISO noise on part with a Canon 20D, made the shot-to-shot speed as
> fast as a DSLR (I hate the between-shots lag) and supported something
> like the Canon or Nikon multiple wireless flashes, I'd buy one in a
> minute.
>
> The thing that's kept me from pulling the trigger on a DSLR is the lack
> of ability to use the LCD for framing a shot, the lack of a movie mode,
> and the lack of something like the NightFraming/Nightshot feature that
> Sony has. Believe it or not, I use all of these.

So do I but my Sony V1 is used sometimes and my Pentax Ds is used others.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> Because he only ever prints at 6x4 and never crops and is happy with that.

Yup. In fact lots don't even print, just using it for email etc. Yes I
know it's over-kill but Joe Average has been sold on the idea that zillions
of pixels are the sole factor for consideration with digital photography

Toa
 

Stacey

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2004
1,595
0
19,730
0
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Toa wrote:

> but Joe Average has been sold on the idea that
> zillions of pixels are the sole factor for consideration with digital
> photography


It's like trying to convince them that Ghz isn't all there is to computer
performance... When they are shopping, all they ask is "How many Ghz is
this one..."

--

Stacey
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> Who are y'all to talk about Joe
> Average? Arrogant know it alls, I think.

Ain't no-one getting their shorts in a bunch (well, I'm not sure about you).
We're just telling it as it is. Most digital photographers don't give a
rats about multiple lenses, huge sensors etc. They just want a quick, easy
and reliable way to take photos. Some of them make prints, lots don't.

Toa
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <3ktj0sFvu155U3@individual.net>,
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Toa wrote:

>> but Joe Average has been sold on the idea that
>> zillions of pixels are the sole factor for consideration with digital
>> photography

>It's like trying to convince them that Ghz isn't all there is to computer
>performance... When they are shopping, all they ask is "How many Ghz is
>this one..."

Well, some ask about RAM. What most people fail to ask, is "why does
this computer only have one hard disk?" Three 120 GB drives are much
faster, when properly utilized, than a single 300 GB drive.
"Simultaneous" access of two files on two separate hard disks is
anywhere from 5x to 15x than on a single drive.

Photoshop is excrutiatingly painful to use on a one-hard-disk computer,
especially on laptops, with their pathetic drive performance.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
>
> Toa wrote:
>
> > but Joe Average has been sold on the idea that
> > zillions of pixels are the sole factor for consideration with digital
> > photography
>
> It's like trying to convince them that Ghz isn't all there is to computer
> performance... When they are shopping, all they ask is "How many Ghz is
> this one..."
>
> --
>
> Stacey

It's GHz. Hz is for Hertz, after Heinrich Hertz, a German physicist
1857 - 1894. The H is always upper case.

Colin D.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:42E9AA61.2A0801F9@killspam.127.0.0.1...
>
>
> Stacey wrote:
>>
>> Toa wrote:
>>
>> > but Joe Average has been sold on the idea that
>> > zillions of pixels are the sole factor for consideration with digital
>> > photography
>>
>> It's like trying to convince them that Ghz isn't all there is to computer
>> performance... When they are shopping, all they ask is "How many Ghz is
>> this one..."
>>
>> --
>>
>> Stacey
>
> It's GHz. Hz is for Hertz, after Heinrich Hertz, a German physicist
> 1857 - 1894. The H is always upper case.
>
> Colin D.

And he is wrong because it does matter but not as much as some would have
you believe.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

>
>
>Stacey wrote:
>>
>> Toa wrote:
>>
>> > but Joe Average has been sold on the idea that
>> > zillions of pixels are the sole factor for consideration with digital
>> > photography
>>
>> It's like trying to convince them that Ghz isn't all there is to computer
>> performance... When they are shopping, all they ask is "How many Ghz is
>> this one..."
>>
>> --
>>
>> Stacey
>
>It's GHz. Hz is for Hertz, after Heinrich Hertz, a German physicist
>1857 - 1894. The H is always upper case.


The truth Hertz.

;-)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 05:32:41 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

>
>"Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>news:42E9AA61.2A0801F9@killspam.127.0.0.1...
>>
>>
>> Stacey wrote:
>>>
>>> Toa wrote:
>>>
>>> > but Joe Average has been sold on the idea that
>>> > zillions of pixels are the sole factor for consideration with digital
>>> > photography
>>>
>>> It's like trying to convince them that Ghz isn't all there is to computer
>>> performance... When they are shopping, all they ask is "How many Ghz is
>>> this one..."
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Stacey
>>
>> It's GHz. Hz is for Hertz, after Heinrich Hertz, a German physicist
>> 1857 - 1894. The H is always upper case.
>>
>> Colin D.
>
>And he is wrong because it does matter but not as much as some would have
>you believe.
>

Used by Intel to keep the con going. Good think they're now being
prosecuted for bribing computer makers, dealers, etc.
If Intel can do one thing very well, it's read the minds of sheep.
-Rich
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> And he is wrong because it does matter but not as much as some would have
> you believe.

And, who is wrong?

Toa
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS