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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |