D3100 is a huge disappointment - Page 4

riveredger · #31 April 18th, 2012, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by songs2001

Olympus is a camera company

And how are things on the Oly balance sheet? :-)

riveredger · #32 April 18th, 2012, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Promit

Come on, this is a pointless argument. We don't know what public brand perception of Panasonic is. Here is a hint though: find the word Panasonic on their cameras. Or their straps. Or their lenses. The Panasonic camera brand is LUMIX. They don't want people to see "Panasonic" being carried off someone's neck.

Nikon is a Mitsubishi company. You don't see Mitsubishi hanging on necks either

joele · #33 April 18th, 2012, 07:05 PM

Quote:

A large corporation with a different product mix will start and abandon products at whim, most people probably don't know that Samsung made K mount cameras or that Panasonic made Four Thirds cameras. Sony probably will abandon their Full frame SLRs and lenses and probably their entire Alpha line.

Unlike Canon who abandoned their entire customer base when they dumped the FD mount, ohh wait ;-)

Ohh and Samsung NEVER made K mount cameras, they had Pentax make them and threw their own badge on the front..

Quote:

A 25 1.4 is similar in DOF control to A Canon 35 2.0 or Nikon 35 1.8 and those lenses are very cheap.

I own or have owned all those lenses listed and also the 35/1.4 from Canon.. As to the ones you mentioned the Panasonic 24/1.4 is in a different class to the others, you cannot compare them on price and DOF alone, some people care about this thing called image quality..

Now as to the FF 35/1.4 pic quality wise I think the 25/1.4 is on par there, though obviously cheaper due to the much smaller image circle.. BUT one major advantage to me (who cares about focus accuracy rather than tracking speed) the 25/1.4 is far more accurate, no need to screw around with focus adjustments and Focus Shift issues (focus point moves at different aperture).. Now some of this relates to PD-AF versus Contrast detection but still a nice thing..

Quote:

Besides it proves my point, people will only buy expensive lenses if it says Leica in the case for Panasonic, Zeiss for Sony or Schneider for Samsung.

I would happily have bought the lens without it having Leica on the front, quality is quality..

songs2001 · #34 April 18th, 2012, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flash

I buy my cameras from camera shops. All the brands are there, side by side. In Oz we have no dedicated Nikon resellers, just camera shops. And for several years I ran some of them and the staff were generally poorly paid and one step above useless.

The format that a lens is used on is, of course, irrelevant to the cost of manufacturer. The 25mm 1.4 is a significantly better lens than the ones you mention. We could also say that being a Leica design that the 25mm 1.4 is stupidly cheap for a Summilux.

I am not talking about people like you. Most people don't buy cameras like the Nikon D3100 in camera shops. There is a reason why the D3100 doesn't come body only. When I say a store is a Nikon reseller, I mean a Walmart, a Best Buy etc...if a Walmart says its an authorized Nikon reseller, you can be confident that a Nikon camera is sold there, if a Walmart says its an authorized Panasonic reseller, then you wouldn't know if they sold DVD players, rice cookers or TVs.

songs2001 · #35 April 18th, 2012, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanngrisnir3

And? They are also a camera company.

No, you stated, "people will only buy expensive lenses if it says Leica in the case for Panasonic" and I have shown that that simply isn't the case.

That's irrelevant to what you first stated and what I responded to.

They are not a camera company. If still cameras were banned from the planet tomorrow, Panasonic will survive. Nikon will not. Nikon has other businesses but their main income is still camera sales.

7-14 isn't an expensive lens and besides I don't think it's more popular than the Olympus 9-18.

RT_Panther · #36 April 18th, 2012, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riveredger

And how are things on the Oly balance sheet? :-)

Medical or camera division

songs2001 · #37 April 18th, 2012, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riveredger

Nikon is a Mitsubishi company. You don't see Mitsubishi hanging on necks either

Nikon is independent of Mitsubishi and Mitsubishi has no say in day to day product development nor is Mitsubishi listed on the camera box. My Panasonic 20 1.7 clearly says Panasonic Lumix on it.

songs2001 · #38 April 18th, 2012, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joele

Unlike Canon who abandoned their entire customer base when they dumped the FD mount, ohh wait ;-)

And their EFS lenses are incompatible with their full frame line. So things haven't changed that much.

tanngrisnir3 · #39 April 18th, 2012, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by songs2001

They are not a camera company. If still cameras were banned from the planet tomorrow, Panasonic will survive. Nikon will not. Nikon has other businesses but their main income is still camera sales.

Sorry, you can dance around the fact all you'd like, but Panasonic, amongst other things, is a camera company. To deny that is to deny reality.

Quote:

7-14 isn't an expensive lens and besides I don't think it's more popular than the Olympus 9-18.

Do you even bother to read what you post?

It's more expensive than any other Panasonic/Leica branded m4/3 lens, which you claimed people would not buy unless it has Leica on it; and yet they still do.

And the 9-18 is irrelevant to anything I've stated.

songs2001 · #40 April 18th, 2012, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riveredger

And how are things on the Oly balance sheet? :-)

They covered up 1.7 billion in losses, Panasonic will lose 10 billion this year.