[boriscleto]

They suck

But do they go from suck to blow?

[sjwaldron]

Honestly their designs remind me a lot of the negative design cues of the K-01. I'm sure the vacuums are great function wise, but I don't like the gigantor freakish flashy plastic look to them. Make the thing out of magnesium alloy with functional ergonomic lines and we will talk.

[alohadave]

Those are all very common daily items used all over but you just look at the "design with a purpose" and quickly realize that this company could turn ordinary, bland and uninteresting objects into high-design and completely innovative products.

Last time I looked, my camera was neither ordinary, bland or uninteresting, and it's highly innovative as well.

I didn't need Dyson's design to pick Pentax in the first place, and I don't need his condescending attitude to reinforce my decision.

Dyson has placed themselves as a premier brand, and their price reflects it. The people who purchase them feel that the products work better because they paid more for them. It's the same reason that Kirby charges $1200 for a vacuum that works the same as any other. I used to work in a vacuum cleaner store and the expensive machines break down just as much as the cheap ones do.

It's also the same for brands like Apple, Leica, Rolex, etc. Their products don't necessarily work any better, but because of the prestige of the brand, they can command a higher price, and people will willingly pay those higher prices. Do you know how they became prestige brands? They charged more for their products.

[Coeurdechene]

gigantor freakish flashy plastic look to them.

That's the only thing there is to like about an overpriced vacuum cleaner

It's also the same for brands like Apple, Leica, Rolex, etc. Their products don't necessarily work any better, but because of the prestige of the brand, they can command a higher price,

Bang y olufsen anyone? overpriced sony overpriced technology and innards.

Now related to photography, i really liked the product shots...it all looks like a hightech arsenal from an alien civilization or an 80s movie space marines
No really nice shots

[Bruce]

Imagine a FF camera that was shaped like a ball, was really, really expensive, made of plastic and sucked!

[MRRiley]

I wouldn't take a camera from that smarmy guy if he gave it to me...

[jimH]

You should go and check Consumer Report rating . The Dyson are the worst in Canister and not trhe best in Upright. The best are costing 3 time less than the Dyson
Thant what I call hype. Should I say better marketing

You believe Consumer Reports? Most of the machines competing with Dyson are poor copies.

[boriscleto]

You believe Consumer Reports? Most of the machines competing with Dyson are poor copies.

I trust CR with anything but electronics.

[DeadJohn]

Re. Consumer Reports, they are a great starting point IMO. Read their rationale for scoring then do more research into some of the top scorers. CR has limitations with products involving user interfaces because usability is very subjective. A camera or electronic device that feels right for me might be awful for another user. Cars are another example - you need a lengthy test drive to know whether the seats and controls are comfortable.

CR reliability ratings are suspect. I think they calculate reliability using the overall brand name. Items manufactured by one company and then rebadged and sold under a different company name "inherit" the reliability of the rebadger rather than the manufacturer. Similarly, a company selling one highly reliable product and one lemon can get both products rated as average reliability.

[StevePrime]

I usually like CR, but they are hardly flawless. We got a Dyson DC-07 Animal after going through Kenmore(horrible) and Hoover(mediocre) bagless models which were both highly rated by CR. The DC-07 is far, far, better. The Kenmore had the best brush motor but the Dyson blew(sucked?) them both away when it came to how much dirt/dust/fur it collected. YMMV, as they say.

What made the Kenmore horrible, aside from the dirt collection, actually did come down to design. The seals were so poorly designed that it spewed out the finest dust particles, sort of defeating the purpose. We sent it back for warranty repairs and they were unable to improve it.

[Nesster]

Ionic charge lens - why put in all that light robbing glass? Why bother with focus, when we can achieve infinite focus? The problem with most cameras, once you get done subtracting all the light lost to the glass elements, is the existence of a shutter. Why artificially stop all the light once we have ensured all of it comes in? The Dyson camera uses a exclusive, elegant electronic light device that charges your batteries during the time you are not actually exposing a picture. Ordinary digital cameras use unsightly fixed arrays of photo receptors that can get clogged with light and have difficulty with thermal noise and color differentiation. The Dyson camera uses a chaos-matrix of light sensitive nano particles embedded in a flexible, translucent substrate that is easily removed and replaced. It uses no electricity; rather, your photographs are 'developed' for you outside your Dyson camera...

[Bob from Aus]

The Dyson camera uses a exclusive, elegant electronic light device that charges your batteries during the time you are not actually exposing a picture

What have you been smoking?

[Coeurdechene]

Don't know what he's been droping but i want some

[demp10]

... Ordinary digital cameras use unsightly fixed arrays of photo receptors that can get clogged with light and have difficulty with thermal noise and color differentiation. The Dyson camera uses a chaos-matrix of light sensitive nano particles ...

That they really suck those photons!

[jpzk]

Ionic charge lens - why put in all that light robbing glass? Why bother with focus, when we can achieve infinite focus? The problem with most cameras, once you get done subtracting all the light lost to the glass elements, is the existence of a shutter. Why artificially stop all the light once we have ensured all of it comes in? The Dyson camera uses a exclusive, elegant electronic light device that charges your batteries during the time you are not actually exposing a picture. Ordinary digital cameras use unsightly fixed arrays of photo receptors that can get clogged with light and have difficulty with thermal noise and color differentiation. The Dyson camera uses a chaos-matrix of light sensitive nano particles embedded in a flexible, translucent substrate that is easily removed and replaced. It uses no electricity; rather, your photographs are 'developed' for you outside your Dyson camera...

That's a reminder of "The Big Bang Theory"

from: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-big-bang-theory/articles/sheldon