OhWeh
Well-known member
Hi Jan, no distribution change is mentioned. A similar discussion as here, but no "insider" information.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
What if...... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter jan van daalen
- Start date
Hi Jan, no distribution change is mentioned. A similar discussion as here, but no "insider" information.
As to Panasonic pocket cameras.
I have access to two. Both 30x optical zoom.
Both, for me, are over complicated.
The artificial intelligence is stupid.
But they have high ratings from others.
I also have a tiny Sony similar. 30x optical zoom, but I think the Sony only allows 2x digital zoom, not 4x with the Canon.
Far too small.
Too much crammed into too small a space.
The viewfinder collapses if pushed against.
I have access to two Canons.
a 30x and 40x optical zoom.
Both are excellent for me, and fairly trouble free.
The 40x zoom camera easily outresolves the Canon 18x50 IS binocular.
I also have the Nikon P610, which I like.
And a digital camera with a 19mm equivalent focal length zoom lens.
I got this secondhand as are the others above.
The 19mm camera is cheaper than an equivalent lens for my larger camera.
I use it when I need a really wide view.
Otherwise I use a 12 year old Canon A720 IS and a 7 year old Canon G15.
The G15 is remarkable in that it covers several star constellations in one image with 28mm f/1.8 lens at 1600 ISO, 1 second exposure. The stars are sharp.
Hand held braced against window frame.
Magnitude 6.2 star visible in Pleiades when the Pleiades are almost invisible to my eyes in severe light pollution.
More than 10 times gain with minimum fuss.
However, the success rate in daylight with the G15 is about 60%, whereas the Canon A720IS success rate is 90%.
The quality of the image with the A720 IS is better than the newer G15.
Too much in camera processing with the G15, which also nearly always uses the lens wide open in P mode.
I only use superfine JPEGs not Raw.
I do no processing at all.
If I can't get it right in camera then I am doing something wrong.
Regards,
B.
I have access to two. Both 30x optical zoom.
Both, for me, are over complicated.
The artificial intelligence is stupid.
But they have high ratings from others.
I also have a tiny Sony similar. 30x optical zoom, but I think the Sony only allows 2x digital zoom, not 4x with the Canon.
Far too small.
Too much crammed into too small a space.
The viewfinder collapses if pushed against.
I have access to two Canons.
a 30x and 40x optical zoom.
Both are excellent for me, and fairly trouble free.
The 40x zoom camera easily outresolves the Canon 18x50 IS binocular.
I also have the Nikon P610, which I like.
And a digital camera with a 19mm equivalent focal length zoom lens.
I got this secondhand as are the others above.
The 19mm camera is cheaper than an equivalent lens for my larger camera.
I use it when I need a really wide view.
Otherwise I use a 12 year old Canon A720 IS and a 7 year old Canon G15.
The G15 is remarkable in that it covers several star constellations in one image with 28mm f/1.8 lens at 1600 ISO, 1 second exposure. The stars are sharp.
Hand held braced against window frame.
Magnitude 6.2 star visible in Pleiades when the Pleiades are almost invisible to my eyes in severe light pollution.
More than 10 times gain with minimum fuss.
However, the success rate in daylight with the G15 is about 60%, whereas the Canon A720IS success rate is 90%.
The quality of the image with the A720 IS is better than the newer G15.
Too much in camera processing with the G15, which also nearly always uses the lens wide open in P mode.
I only use superfine JPEGs not Raw.
I do no processing at all.
If I can't get it right in camera then I am doing something wrong.
Regards,
B.
Last edited:
maybe it's just because they know that few will sell and for those few they want immediate and direct feedback from the customer?
was it a difficult birth, better to shorten the readjustment time?
jan van daalen
Well-known member
OhWeh and Lee,
Thx for the feedback.
Jan
Thx for the feedback.
Jan
jan van daalen
Well-known member
tenex
reality-based
I do hope you'll decide to keep any Leica items in this display, for the sake of customer interest, history, and the difficulty of replacing them. They're mementos of a better time, and a better company. I'd want to see them myself, and as a reminder of the absence of the brand on your retail shelves, they could be an occasion for interesting conversation.
No. In fact the difficulty of wearing or actually telling time from the watch is a direct measure of its style and exclusivity. I suspect that much of this ire over Leica/Hermes/etc as "luxury brands" boils down to resentment of the (ultra?)rich in a Western world of growing inequality... and only slightly incongruously, confidence that we would make much wiser choices with such resources ourselves. I've never blamed Leica for catering to both markets (e.g. with silly special editions) in changing times, for following the money, but the emphasis really does seem to be shifting.
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Hi Tenex,
When you enter the new Leica building, which is built to impress, and you go to the left side, you'll enter their museum. If I am well informed, currently is is moved to the other side of the square where the Leica Academy and Hotel is built. A friend of mine takes care of that museum. At his last visit at my shop this year, I donated a Leica bin for the collection and at my visit to Leica when they gave me a speed repair training, I donated a Leica bin of their first production year out of gratitude for the training. Some museum pieces belong to be shown at the source. Especially because Leica sold their complete Museum years ago in order to get money to survive.
Like I said before, the road to getting the stuff and the knowledge is much more interesting than the possession of it.
We have also a nice collection of Hensoldt, Zeiss, Swarovski, Bleeker, Oldelft, Bausch&Lomb, Busch, Goerz etc. and only a certain space for them.
I won't stop collecting.The empty spaces will not stay empty for long:t:
If I would keep Leica in my collection it would only remind me how they fu**** me.
Jan
I think Leica now own a big photographica collectibles auction house as well. To be fair, I think all of the big tech brands have house museums, eg. Nikon
https://www.nikon.com/about/corporate/museum
However more than their competition, Leica are now resolutely in a different business which is not optics, but Luxury Optics, even though Hermés sold their 30% of Leica shares. Leica sells fashion products in the tech arena, and exclusionary marketing is now their DNA. You create demand not by selling product, but by telling people that the price is very high and that they can't have them because the series is "limited". And you donate a few gold-coated ones to a "charity auction", hand out some samples on "loan" to reviewers, and make sure that some "celebrity" is photographed with them.
By the way, Hermés used to be a saddlemaker, and they still do make saddles, but I think they make most of their money with other products
Edmund
Last edited:
jan van daalen
Well-known member
I think Leica now own a big photographica collectibles auction house as well. To be fair, I think all of the big tech brands have house museums, eg. Nikon
https://www.nikon.com/about/corporate/museum
However more than their competition, Leica are now resolutely in a different business which is not optics, but Luxury Optics, even though Hermés sold their 30% of Leica shares. Leica sells fashion products in the tech arena, and exclusionary marketing is now their DNA. You create demand not by selling product, but by telling people that the price is very high and that they can't have them because the series is "limited". And you donate a few gold-coated ones to a "charity auction", hand out some samples on "loan" to reviewers, and make sure that some "celebrity" is photographed with them.
By the way, Hermés used to be a saddlemaker, and they still do make saddles, but I think they make most of their money with other products
Edmund
Once I got hold of a rare Swarovski bin from the fifties which I send to them for identification. It turned out that this model was not known to them and there were no records regarding that specific model. It was genuine Swarovski though. I donated the bin to them because I honestly believe very special items belongs at the source.
In return they sended me a nice piece for my collection, which I already had but they couldn't know that.
Carol and Jack Kelly visited us and I gave Carol that bin. In return Jack sended from the States a part of his collection mini Landrover Defenders of which he had seen several of them in my shop collection. Toys for boys
Like I said, the road of collecting is full of stories.
Once I got hold of a rare Swarovski bin from the fifties which I send to them for identification. It turned out that this model was not known to them and there were no records regarding that specific model. It was genuine Swarovski though. I donated the bin to them because I honestly believe very special items belongs at the source.
In return they sended me a nice piece for my collection, which I already had but they couldn't know that.
Carol and Jack Kelly visited us and I gave Carol that bin. In return Jack sended from the States a part of his collection mini Landrover Defenders of which he had seen several of them in my shop collection. Toys for boys
Like I said, the road of collecting is full of stories.
Jan,
It is a pleasure to read your posts!
Edmund
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Leica knows where the money is.
The "beautiful people" are less likely to complain , because if it is horribly expensive and "exclusive" , it must be good-----no ?. o
"Image" is important to these people , little else matters.
Leica is fully aware of this , as are other luxury goods manufacturers , and in my opinion is exploiting the situation very well.
Cheers.
Guys, the profiling of "beautiful people" is way out of line.
Do you honestly think for one second they could affords what they do by only being how you profile them to be? Do you even know them in person?
Think twice.
Jan
Last edited by a moderator:
Hello Jan,
Sorry that I offended you , absolutely no offence was intended , I have deleted the post.
Cheers.
Last edited by a moderator:
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Yo, South Africa, you haven't
This is a Forum and everybody has a right of an opinion.
Jan
Last edited by a moderator:
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
If you've had a change of heart, consider saying so and apologizing rather than deleting discussion. Deleting thoughts and ideas robs others from the chance to consider them and prevents them from perhaps appreciating the same points in changing their ideas as you may have done.
--AP
Actually, Zeiss seems to have been taking the opposite road of Leica by pushing quality on its Conquest brand really hard, and stressing (modest) technical innovation in its Victory line.
The small low end Terras have started getting unusually good reviews over in the Zeiss forum.
I’d say Zeiss are going for the middle class and the tech savvy while Leica are shooting for the luxury sales.
I have no idea what Swaro are doing because they made an IPD decision to exclude me
Edmund
The small low end Terras have started getting unusually good reviews over in the Zeiss forum.
I’d say Zeiss are going for the middle class and the tech savvy while Leica are shooting for the luxury sales.
I have no idea what Swaro are doing because they made an IPD decision to exclude me
Edmund
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Hi Edmund,
Yes, we can thank Mike Jensen for the Terra.
AFAIK he is the architect of the three level strategy of Zeiss.
Personally I don't see a difference between the Conquest, Trinovid HD, Kahles and Meopta Meostar. Purely a matter of preference.
The Terra is a different ballgame. Not repairable in any way and only 2 years warranty. So the issue of environment....... Should a company like Zeiss hit that road? On the other hand, only 0.02% returns within the first two years. So it is very well built with extreme low sample variations for a Chinbin.
They do take business away from brands like Bushnell etc. The blue label does give it something extra.
I have full confidence that we finally will see the 32SF coming year so that with the 42 SF, Victory Range and HT line, together with the Harpia makes them aiming for the absolute top IMHO.
With the sales figures for 2019 visible with 69% Swarovski, 15% Zeiss and 6% Leica, I have a very good idea what Swarovski is doing.
I don't quite understand what their IPD decision exactly means in your case.
Happy New Year,
Jan
Yes, we can thank Mike Jensen for the Terra.
AFAIK he is the architect of the three level strategy of Zeiss.
Personally I don't see a difference between the Conquest, Trinovid HD, Kahles and Meopta Meostar. Purely a matter of preference.
The Terra is a different ballgame. Not repairable in any way and only 2 years warranty. So the issue of environment....... Should a company like Zeiss hit that road? On the other hand, only 0.02% returns within the first two years. So it is very well built with extreme low sample variations for a Chinbin.
They do take business away from brands like Bushnell etc. The blue label does give it something extra.
I have full confidence that we finally will see the 32SF coming year so that with the 42 SF, Victory Range and HT line, together with the Harpia makes them aiming for the absolute top IMHO.
With the sales figures for 2019 visible with 69% Swarovski, 15% Zeiss and 6% Leica, I have a very good idea what Swarovski is doing.
I don't quite understand what their IPD decision exactly means in your case.
Happy New Year,
Jan
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
...I’d say Zeiss are going for the middle class and the tech savvy while Leica are shooting for the luxury sales.
I have no idea what Swaro are doing because they made an IPD decision to exclude me
From these clues, I take it that you are referring to full-sized bins and that your IPD is 55 mm. Full-size Zeiss FL do better by getting to 54 mm but, unfortunately, the Zeiss SF is 55 mm and I don't think any full-sized Leica do better than 55 mm. The mid-sized Swarovski 8x32 EL get down to 54 mm, so don't count the brand out entirely!
--AP
I think maybe they all do 1mm better than advertised. My UV HD are usable at minima, but I tend to use them with a hair separation. On the other hand they don’t adjust to my uncorrected eyesight. Full size Swaros give me uno eyestrain/headache mucho subito. The SF I tried were nice. But then the big glasses tend to have a mm more pupil size than the 32, so I might have a surprise with the 32. My Zeiss Victory Pocket has no issues with my eyes, but would need ... longer eyecups.
So unfair the world isn’t tailored for me!
I’m not counting Swaro out, I think their porros work for me
Edmund
Last edited:
Similar threads
