Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 19, 2004, 7:55 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

LewTwo
I assume what you really mean is to sell it with a teleconverter in the box. That way they could have more control of quality and fit to the lens.

That would be a good way to make a 28-140mm and combine it with a 2xTC (well, not idea, would rather 1.4) and you'll get decent range too.

Interesting. I wonder how many people would balk. Could they make the quality of the lens so much better that this inconvience would be worth it to customers?

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 19, 2004, 9:32 PM   #22
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 62
Default

Nope that is not what I mean. I am thinking:

1) Camera model XYZ-1 with a fixed 20-200mm lens
2) Camera model XYZ-2 with a fixed 50-500mm lens

Same basi camera but offer it with two differnt lens. Instead of trying to stradlle the fence make a camera for both sides.

Add on teleconverters just do not get it. I have tried several both cheap and exspensive. I have not tried the Nikon add ons. I got tired of trowing good money after a bad idea. Best case is they are just plain comberson. THe big advantage of P&S cameras is convenience. Add-on lens and adapters are anything but convenient.

Wghat about the exspence. Hey I could by two good fixed lens digital cameras for less than I am going to wind up having invested in one dLSR and a range of lens ... if I could just get one with high res and a long zoom to begin with. It would probably be less weight to cary around as well. Of course I would really like to see that 2nd camera as a 100-1000mm but I am trying to be reasonable :-)
LewTwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 20, 2004, 12:12 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

I'm not sure how this solves the problem. People like the convience of having the wide zoom range. Making multiple units means more inventory to juggle and more shelf space for retailers. I can't see any one doing it.

While I think people realize the benefit of a longer zoom, I don't believe the public understands what wide angles give them. They are harder to grasp because they have little to compare to. Binoculars and telescopes... they get zooms, but what is a wide angle?

It seems to me this has everything going against it. But I am certainly not marketing man, so I maybe I'm wrong?

You can get a good teleconverter, but they are expensive. You also need a very good lens. Very, very good. But there are professional grade lenses that you can put a TC on and only reduce the optical quality a tiny fraction. So it can be done.

A 1000mm lens isn't as useful as you might think. At that range it is very hard to get a sharp picture, even with a tripod.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 20, 2004, 12:57 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 227
Default

LewTwo-

I'm not an optical engineer but...

You wouldn't be able to do what you're proposing on the same camera chassis. Look at the Sigma 50-500mm lens (it's HUGE) and look at a 28-300mm lens of the same aperature. Optically you wouldn't be able to use the same form factor of body for two different zoom lenses. The only way to do so would be to sacrifice maximum aperature and lens quality.

As soon as you start looking at two different form factors all of the benefits of sharing the design become lost.

In a way dSLR's solve this by forcing interchangeable lenses to fit a standard configuration where they meet the body.

From a marketing perspective doing as you suggest would split the production and that has problems. Manufacturers have to pay in many cases to get the square footage needed to display product. Why double the costs for the same revenue stream?

In general, most companies try to limit the number of SKU's they sell at anyone time. That way they limit the number of orphaned products that either didn't sell or that they have to support for years on end while not getting any revenue on them.
ursa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 20, 2004, 1:48 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Quote:
In general, most companies try to limit the number of SKU's they sell at anyone time. That way they limit the number of orphaned products that either didn't sell or that they have to support for years on end while not getting any revenue on them.
Not that I'm saying your wrong, but this sprung to mind. Why the heck is Canon saying it will release 20 new cameras this year. They actually anounced that plan! How is this a good thing for either them or the customer? So many products to maintain, and manage. A finite amount of shelf space in retail stores. Already a glut of models to confuse customers.

Just doesn't make sense to me (or some retails I've talked to.)

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 20, 2004, 3:07 PM   #26
rlp
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1
Default

Most of the posts have centered on the quality of the electronics. One big advantage for dSLRs is the quality of the lens. With high quality glass such as the Canon L USM IS series lenses the cost can be in the thousands for a single lens. If you have a dSLR you can change out the body as technology advances and not be require to buy new glass. By separating out the electronics from the optics you can focus your money in the area that you would like to see the quality. I would guess that a large percentage of the dSLR users probably had a lens collection handy from their film SLR that they were able utilize on their dSLR, I know I did.
rlp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 20, 2004, 3:32 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 227
Default

eric -

I agree, launching 20 new cameras is a way of telling everyone that their camera is 'obsolete'. It must make the retaillers angry as customers wait for the next new thing instead of buying today.

I'm surprised at 20, when I review the typical line up I think of: extreme small (elph), entry level 2 & 3 MP A series, high megapixel A series, two S series (more features than A series), one G series (prosumer P&S), one (or two) super zooms (S1), four dSLRs. That's 13 cameras. Nikon has maybe 10 including the different D1 models?

Essentially they've said that all of their entire product line will be replaced. Fine if you're buying a $200 basic P&S, but it kills the resale value of the 10D and high end cameras.

rip -

I agree that dSLR's have access to better lenses and that after a point an SLR user buys a camera to go with their lenses, not the other way around.

But, there isn't any reason that you couldn't build as good a quality lens that was fixed as an L series lens of the same aperature and focal length. In fact in some ways you should be able to out do an SLR lens especially at short focal lengths where SLR lenses need retro focus optics because of the large space required for mirror clearance.

Leice rangefinder lenses are reputed to be awesome, especially wide angle lenses. They can use a much shorter space between the lens back and the film plane.

It comes down to manufacturers not putting the expensive glass in a camera because the camera is not designed to last long enough to pay for it. P&Ss are (at this point) marketed like computers where the companies are trying to get consumers to replace them after 24 months or less. see above comment.
ursa is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:11 AM.