A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in thelast two years



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 31st 13, 05:33 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in thelast two years

J. Clarke wrote:

[Hasselblad rebranded camera]

The question is whether they are using more expensive materials where it
affects function or durability,


If that matters to you, you're currently wearing out cameras
the way other people wear out thin socks and cannot buy/carry
a spare planning for your camera's planned demise (or buying
spares costs more than buying the rebranded Hassi).

or are they just putting a gold shell
around it?


For all I know they're not even gold-plating their name ...

-Wolfgang
  #12  
Old June 1st 13, 05:33 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Michael[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 313
Default Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the last two years

On 2013-05-30 08:56:07 +0000, Sandman said:

In article , Mort
wrote:

Haven't kept up with Hasselblad, which one is the new one?

This Sony monstrosity. It certainly isn't an H4D-60.
http://www.hasselblad-lunar.com/

So it's a NEX-7 with an Hasselblad logo? Too bad. :/


Did you look at the price tag? That is really too bad. The fall of the
mighty.


Indeed, but this kind of rebranding is not uncommon. It's like the Aston
Martin Cygnet, the small hatchback they released back in 2011 just to
conform to some EU emission regulations. The Cygnet was a Toyota IQ with
a new grille and that's pretty much it. It cost three times as much as
the Toyota, in spite of being identical.

The price difference between the Hasselblad and the NEX-7 is even
larger, but Hasselblad insist they have the same margins on the Lunar as
on their other cameras and that they're just using better quality
material. I don't know what that's supposed to mean. Given the name - is
it space safe? Will NASA use it on the moon?


Anyone remember the Cadillac Cimarron back in the 1970s? It was just a
Chevy with a Cadillac nameplate, but priced like a Cadillac. Only
person I knew stupid enough to buy one was my stepmother, but that was
to be expected.
--
Michael

  #13  
Old June 1st 13, 09:01 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the last two years

In article 2013060100334723325-adunc79617@mypacksnet,
Michael wrote:

On 2013-05-30 08:56:07 +0000, Sandman said:

In article , Mort
wrote:

Haven't kept up with Hasselblad, which one is the new one?

This Sony monstrosity. It certainly isn't an H4D-60.
http://www.hasselblad-lunar.com/

So it's a NEX-7 with an Hasselblad logo? Too bad. :/

Did you look at the price tag? That is really too bad. The fall of the
mighty.


Indeed, but this kind of rebranding is not uncommon. It's like the Aston
Martin Cygnet, the small hatchback they released back in 2011 just to
conform to some EU emission regulations. The Cygnet was a Toyota IQ with
a new grille and that's pretty much it. It cost three times as much as
the Toyota, in spite of being identical.

The price difference between the Hasselblad and the NEX-7 is even
larger, but Hasselblad insist they have the same margins on the Lunar as
on their other cameras and that they're just using better quality
material. I don't know what that's supposed to mean. Given the name - is
it space safe? Will NASA use it on the moon?


Anyone remember the Cadillac Cimarron back in the 1970s? It was just a
Chevy with a Cadillac nameplate, but priced like a Cadillac. Only
person I knew stupid enough to buy one was my stepmother, but that was
to be expected.


Haha!


--
Sandman[.net]
  #14  
Old June 1st 13, 03:07 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
J. Clarke[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,273
Default Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the last two years

In article , ozcvgtt02
@sneakemail.com says...

J. Clarke wrote:

[Hasselblad rebranded camera]

The question is whether they are using more expensive materials where it
affects function or durability,


If that matters to you, you're currently wearing out cameras
the way other people wear out thin socks and cannot buy/carry
a spare planning for your camera's planned demise (or buying
spares costs more than buying the rebranded Hassi).


All right, since you seem to think that FUNCTION does not matter and
DURABILITY does not matter in a camera, what exactly DOES matter in your
opinion?

or are they just putting a gold shell
around it?


For all I know they're not even gold-plating their name ...


Well when you actually do know something get back to us.

I'm curious--in your real life how often do you get punched out for no
reason that you can comprehend?


  #15  
Old June 1st 13, 03:10 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
J. Clarke[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,273
Default Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the last two years

In article ,
says...

In article 2013060100334723325-adunc79617@mypacksnet,
Michael wrote:

On 2013-05-30 08:56:07 +0000, Sandman said:

In article , Mort
wrote:

Haven't kept up with Hasselblad, which one is the new one?

This Sony monstrosity. It certainly isn't an H4D-60.
http://www.hasselblad-lunar.com/

So it's a NEX-7 with an Hasselblad logo? Too bad. :/

Did you look at the price tag? That is really too bad. The fall of the
mighty.

Indeed, but this kind of rebranding is not uncommon. It's like the Aston
Martin Cygnet, the small hatchback they released back in 2011 just to
conform to some EU emission regulations. The Cygnet was a Toyota IQ with
a new grille and that's pretty much it. It cost three times as much as
the Toyota, in spite of being identical.

The price difference between the Hasselblad and the NEX-7 is even
larger, but Hasselblad insist they have the same margins on the Lunar as
on their other cameras and that they're just using better quality
material. I don't know what that's supposed to mean. Given the name - is
it space safe? Will NASA use it on the moon?


Anyone remember the Cadillac Cimarron back in the 1970s? It was just a
Chevy with a Cadillac nameplate, but priced like a Cadillac. Only
person I knew stupid enough to buy one was my stepmother, but that was
to be expected.


Haha!


My auntie bought the Lincoln equivalent, the Versaille, which was a Ford
Granada with Lincoln badges and a different paint job.
  #16  
Old June 1st 13, 04:07 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 703
Default Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in thelast two years

On 6/1/2013 10:10 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

In article 2013060100334723325-adunc79617@mypacksnet,
Michael wrote:

On 2013-05-30 08:56:07 +0000, Sandman said:

In article , Mort
wrote:

Haven't kept up with Hasselblad, which one is the new one?

This Sony monstrosity. It certainly isn't an H4D-60.
http://www.hasselblad-lunar.com/

So it's a NEX-7 with an Hasselblad logo? Too bad. :/

Did you look at the price tag? That is really too bad. The fall of the
mighty.

Indeed, but this kind of rebranding is not uncommon. It's like the Aston
Martin Cygnet, the small hatchback they released back in 2011 just to
conform to some EU emission regulations. The Cygnet was a Toyota IQ with
a new grille and that's pretty much it. It cost three times as much as
the Toyota, in spite of being identical.

The price difference between the Hasselblad and the NEX-7 is even
larger, but Hasselblad insist they have the same margins on the Lunar as
on their other cameras and that they're just using better quality
material. I don't know what that's supposed to mean. Given the name - is
it space safe? Will NASA use it on the moon?

Anyone remember the Cadillac Cimarron back in the 1970s? It was just a
Chevy with a Cadillac nameplate, but priced like a Cadillac. Only
person I knew stupid enough to buy one was my stepmother, but that was
to be expected.


Haha!


My auntie bought the Lincoln equivalent, the Versaille, which was a Ford
Granada with Lincoln badges and a different paint job.


I looked at that car, took a test drive, and declined.

--
PeterN
  #17  
Old June 1st 13, 06:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in thelast two years

On 2013.06.01 13:39 , Tony Cooper wrote:

The Cadillac dealership that I purchased my Sedan de Ville from in the
80s furnished a loaner car when a customer took their car in for
service. I was given a Cimarron once, and found that putting the car
in PARK forced my knuckles against the radio tuner controls. Every
time I did this, it changed the station.


That's a premium labour saving luxury feature.


--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton
  #18  
Old June 1st 13, 08:08 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in thelast two years

J. Clarke wrote:
In article , ozcvgtt02
J. Clarke wrote:


[Hasselblad rebranded camera]


The question is whether they are using more expensive materials where it
affects function or durability,


If that matters to you, you're currently wearing out cameras
the way other people wear out thin socks and cannot buy/carry
a spare planning for your camera's planned demise (or buying
spares costs more than buying the rebranded Hassi).


All right, since you seem to think that FUNCTION does not matter and
DURABILITY does not matter in a camera, what exactly DOES matter in your
opinion?


That it gets me my photos and doesn't get in the way.

Add to that that I can't see that Hassi having more/better
function through more expensive materials (otherwise that may
be a factor), and that most cameras do have enough durability
for most people already, then you see where I'm coming from.


or are they just putting a gold shell
around it?


For all I know they're not even gold-plating their name ...


Well when you actually do know something get back to us.


Well, why don't you? You didn't have anything you knew in
the post I answered to, it seems, and it didn't stop you.

I'm curious--in your real life how often do you get punched out for no
reason that you can comprehend?


I don't even get punched for reasons I can comprehend.

Maybe you should work harder at your anger management.

-Wolfgang
  #19  
Old June 1st 13, 11:09 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
J. Clarke[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,273
Default Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the last two years

In article , ozcvgtt02
@sneakemail.com says...

J. Clarke wrote:
In article , ozcvgtt02
J. Clarke wrote:


[Hasselblad rebranded camera]


The question is whether they are using more expensive materials where it
affects function or durability,


If that matters to you, you're currently wearing out cameras
the way other people wear out thin socks and cannot buy/carry
a spare planning for your camera's planned demise (or buying
spares costs more than buying the rebranded Hassi).


All right, since you seem to think that FUNCTION does not matter and
DURABILITY does not matter in a camera, what exactly DOES matter in your
opinion?


That it gets me my photos and doesn't get in the way.


So what one word would you associate with this property?

Add to that that I can't see that Hassi having more/better
function through more expensive materials (otherwise that may
be a factor), and that most cameras do have enough durability
for most people already, then you see where I'm coming from.


Yeah, I see you're coming from arguing for the sake of argument.

or are they just putting a gold shell
around it?


For all I know they're not even gold-plating their name ...


Well when you actually do know something get back to us.


Well, why don't you? You didn't have anything you knew in
the post I answered to, it seems, and it didn't stop you.


Because I'm not making an assertion, you in a backhanded way were.

I'm curious--in your real life how often do you get punched out for no
reason that you can comprehend?


I don't even get punched for reasons I can comprehend.


So you don't get out much?

Maybe you should work harder at your anger management.


What difference will my "anger management" make to those around _you_?
  #20  
Old June 2nd 13, 12:40 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Chris Malcolm[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,142
Default Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the last two years

Sandman wrote:
In article , Mort
wrote:


Haven't kept up with Hasselblad, which one is the new one?

This Sony monstrosity. It certainly isn't an H4D-60.
http://www.hasselblad-lunar.com/

So it's a NEX-7 with an Hasselblad logo? Too bad. :/


Did you look at the price tag? That is really too bad. The fall of the
mighty.


Indeed, but this kind of rebranding is not uncommon. It's like the Aston
Martin Cygnet, the small hatchback they released back in 2011 just to
conform to some EU emission regulations. The Cygnet was a Toyota IQ with
a new grille and that's pretty much it. It cost three times as much as
the Toyota, in spite of being identical.


The price difference between the Hasselblad and the NEX-7 is even
larger, but Hasselblad insist they have the same margins on the Lunar as
on their other cameras and that they're just using better quality
material. I don't know what that's supposed to mean. Given the name - is
it space safe? Will NASA use it on the moon?


The wood they use for the handgrip is very expensive, and the finish is
imparted by very expensive craftsmen. I'm sure you're getting value
for your money if that's what you want to spend it on.

--
Chris Malcolm
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the last two years Savageduck[_3_] Digital Photography 91 May 24th 13 12:21 PM
Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in thelast two years philo [_4_] Digital Photography 1 May 14th 13 08:01 PM
25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR A REAL-Pro Photographer Other Photographic Equipment 3 November 8th 08 02:36 AM
25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR A REAL-Pro Photographer 35mm Photo Equipment 0 November 5th 08 09:10 AM
25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR A REAL-Pro Photographer Other Photographic Equipment 0 November 5th 08 09:10 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.