If you thought the White KM was ugly...

jake123 · 03-04-2009, 12:13 AM

The blue/red ones look pretty good to me.

It's a shame that the new 14-150 and 7-14 is gona be around 1000(euro?usd?)

And I thought wide angle lenses were supposed to be easier to make.

RiceHigh · 03-04-2009, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by ryan s

It's not the worst camera I've ever seen. That lens has to leave though...small cam with huge lens equals design fail

This Pana 10X super zoom lens is still smaller than any APS-C 10X zoom for the size.

RiceHigh · 03-04-2009, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by jake123

And I thought wide angle lenses were supposed to be easier to make.

"Standard" lenses are easier to make and thus they are cheaper. Wide or tele lenses are more costly.

Erik · 03-04-2009, 01:02 AM

Regarding the design and typography of this thing: I really wish they would dump the stupid "LUMIX" name. Not only is the logo unprintably ugly, the name is completely arbitrary and meaningless. You are Panasonic, write Panasonic on your cameras if you want anyone to take you seriously. I'm not a marketing guy but I'm pretty sure this is not the way to do things.

RiceHigh · 03-04-2009, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by Erik

Regarding the design and typography of this thing: I really wish they would dump the stupid "LUMIX" name. Not only is the logo unprintably ugly, the name is completely arbitrary and meaningless. You are Panasonic, write Panasonic on your cameras if you want anyone to take you seriously. I'm not a marketing guy but I'm pretty sure this is not the way to do things.

LUMIX is the name of camera line of Panasonic.

Ditto Panasonic *was* the name of AV line of National/Matsushita.

And, more importantly, PENTAX was the name of SLR family of the Asahi Optical Company. Penta=Pentaprism X=refleX.

So, it is exactly "the way of doing things" here! :-)

Now, PENTAX is again no different from LUMIX, it is the name of camera line of the HOYA Corporation. (Do you think it should print "HOYA" on our cameras instead of PENTAX, if it is exactly what you think?)

Erik · 03-04-2009, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by RiceHigh

(Do you think it should print "HOYA" on our cameras instead of PENTAX, if it is exactly what you think?)

Not anymore than I think every General Motors car should be branded "General Motors". Who owns the brand is irrelevant.

The point here is that the Panasonic name is well-regarded while Lumix means nothing to the general consumer. I'm not really saying what they're doing should be shunned as a general practice, but in this particular case I just don't think it works. The branding is terrible, with a generic name, generic logo, and no history to go with it.

When I say "this is not the way to do it" I'm not saying it's unpredecented to do this sort of thing. However -- the reason it worked for Asahi was that the Pentax camera became a smash hit in the market place FIRST, and THEN they rebranded themselves after their most popular product. This is a smart marketing move.

Barging into the camera business, as a respected company, with a totally new brand no one cares about (with a butt ugly logo) is probably not. It's common that people refer to the G1 as the "Panasonic G1" despite it saying this nowhere on the actual camera. "Panasonic Lumix G1" is even more common, (where "Lumix" works as a model name, like "Canon Rebel XT") but barely anyone refers to it as just the "Lumix G1". That's a failure in branding.

zntgrg · 03-04-2009, 01:52 AM

Originally posted by RiceHigh

"Standard" lenses are easier to make and thus they are cheaper. Wide or tele lenses are more costly.

Wides are very difficult to develop too....in a tele is a matter of making the longest focal lenght, using bigger lens elements to compensate light loss. The weight is the limit. Instead wide angles use very complex schemes, they are optical engineer's worst nightmare, or biggest glory.

welshwizard645 · 03-04-2009, 02:12 AM

Would have been better as a Burberry model

For the Chav market

Erik · 03-04-2009, 02:41 AM

Originally posted by zntgrg

Wides are very difficult to develop too....in a tele is a matter of making the longest focal lenght, using bigger lens elements to compensate light loss. The weight is the limit. Instead wide angles use very complex schemes, they are optical engineer's worst nightmare, or biggest glory.

It is supposedly easier (or at least, less of a compromise) to make good rangefinder/non-SLR wides (which applies to the G1) than SLR wides, though. SLR's need to compromise with a retrofocus element in the back as to not make the lens too long and bump into the mirror -- without a mirror you can get much closer to the film plane. I don't know a lot about optics but I'm pretty sure it should be easier to make wides for the G1 than for an SLR.

RiceHigh · 03-04-2009, 02:44 AM

Originally posted by welshwizard645

Would have been better as a Burberry model

For the Chav market

So, they should make it WHITE, with a white camera, everyone will be easy to paint anything on it, for anything they like, just see:-

RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: Star Wars Stormtrooper K2000W LE ?

I think girls or children will love the Hello Kitty model, won't they?

ballgofar · 03-04-2009, 04:29 AM

Originally posted by ryan s

It's not the worst camera I've ever seen. That lens has to leave though...small cam with huge lens equals design fail

I have a feeling the lens is smaller than it looks in this picture. This perspective is weird.

whatever7 · 03-04-2009, 05:07 AM

Originally posted by jake123

The blue/red ones look pretty good to me.

It's a shame that the new 14-150 and 7-14 is gona be around 1000(euro?usd?)

And I thought wide angle lenses were supposed to be easier to make.

You are telling me the wide angle zoom will sell more than the Tokina 11-16 2.8 and in the neighborhood of Nikon 14-24mm 2.8 FF zoom?

If so I will wish m4/3 to fail.

vinzer · 03-04-2009, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by lurchlarson

Hmm...dirt color....seems to fit its predecessor's IQ...

Frickin' bubble gum woulda' been a better color.

Oh, the shame! Pentax is supreme in IQ! All hail Pentax!

While I agree the G1 has some quibbles in IQ, it's not that far-off in quality compared to the K200D, unless one wants to pixel-peep, which I don't do as much lately (I'd rather judge resized images and prints, which is the final output of my images, anyway).

I hate to be the contrarian in all this, but no one manufacturer has a lock on good image quality.

That said, the color's not for me. But the gold LX is also appalling to look at, and I'm very partial towards the LX as a camera, at that.

bladerunner0427 · 03-04-2009, 10:20 AM

The red Lumix looks the best among the colors that it's offered in.

AndrewG NY · 03-04-2009, 10:23 AM

I don't think it's that bad either. Better than red or blue, I think. Obviously many people prefer black or silver for their cameras, just as they do for their cars.

As for the desire for 'Apple Designers', if Apple designed our D-SLRs it would probably have one button and one stupid touch wheel--they frequently go in the direction of minimalistic (one-size-fits-everyone) design with clean aesthetics getting top priority. Don't get me wrong because I like some of what Apple does but sometimes tools work better when "ugly".

03-04-2009, 01:19 AM	#20
RiceHigh Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,934	Not Really Originally posted by Erik Regarding the design and typography of this thing: I really wish they would dump the stupid "LUMIX" name. Not only is the logo unprintably ugly, the name is completely arbitrary and meaningless. You are Panasonic, write Panasonic on your cameras if you want anyone to take you seriously. I'm not a marketing guy but I'm pretty sure this is not the way to do things. LUMIX is the name of camera line of Panasonic. Ditto Panasonic was the name of AV line of National/Matsushita. And, more importantly, PENTAX was the name of SLR family of the Asahi Optical Company. Penta=Pentaprism X=refleX. So, it is exactly "the way of doing things" here! :-) Now, PENTAX is again no different from LUMIX, it is the name of camera line of the HOYA Corporation. (Do you think it should print "HOYA" on our cameras instead of PENTAX, if it is exactly what you think?)

03-04-2009, 10:20 AM	#29
bladerunner0427 Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 113	The red Lumix looks the best among the colors that it's offered in. Last edited by bladerunner0427; 03-04-2009 at 10:43 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Macro Ugly mug	yeatzee	Post Your Photos!	31	09-15-2010 12:21 AM
Macro Hello, Ugly	MrEspie	Post Your Photos!	1	08-14-2010 09:00 AM
things are getting ugly around here...	123K10D	Pentax News and Rumors	48	01-26-2008 10:16 PM
Ugly cuss...	scott-devon	Post Your Photos!	3	11-02-2007 06:43 AM
Ugly ducks with the ugly duckling lens	rfortson	Post Your Photos!	3	03-01-2007 03:43 PM

03-04-2009, 12:13 AM	#16
jake123 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada Posts: 130	The blue/red ones look pretty good to me. It's a shame that the new 14-150 and 7-14 is gona be around 1000(euro?usd?) And I thought wide angle lenses were supposed to be easier to make.

03-04-2009, 12:15 AM	#17
RiceHigh Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,934	Originally posted by ryan s It's not the worst camera I've ever seen. That lens has to leave though...small cam with huge lens equals design fail This Pana 10X super zoom lens is still smaller than any APS-C 10X zoom for the size.

03-04-2009, 12:17 AM	#18
RiceHigh Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,934	Originally posted by jake123 And I thought wide angle lenses were supposed to be easier to make. "Standard" lenses are easier to make and thus they are cheaper. Wide or tele lenses are more costly.

03-04-2009, 01:02 AM	#19
Erik Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Umeå, Sweden Posts: 755	Regarding the design and typography of this thing: I really wish they would dump the stupid "LUMIX" name. Not only is the logo unprintably ugly, the name is completely arbitrary and meaningless. You are Panasonic, write Panasonic on your cameras if you want anyone to take you seriously. I'm not a marketing guy but I'm pretty sure this is not the way to do things.

03-04-2009, 01:49 AM	#21
Erik Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Umeå, Sweden Posts: 755	Originally posted by RiceHigh (Do you think it should print "HOYA" on our cameras instead of PENTAX, if it is exactly what you think?) Not anymore than I think every General Motors car should be branded "General Motors". Who owns the brand is irrelevant. The point here is that the Panasonic name is well-regarded while Lumix means nothing to the general consumer. I'm not really saying what they're doing should be shunned as a general practice, but in this particular case I just don't think it works. The branding is terrible, with a generic name, generic logo, and no history to go with it. When I say "this is not the way to do it" I'm not saying it's unpredecented to do this sort of thing. However -- the reason it worked for Asahi was that the Pentax camera became a smash hit in the market place FIRST, and THEN they rebranded themselves after their most popular product. This is a smart marketing move. Barging into the camera business, as a respected company, with a totally new brand no one cares about (with a butt ugly logo) is probably not. It's common that people refer to the G1 as the "Panasonic G1" despite it saying this nowhere on the actual camera. "Panasonic Lumix G1" is even more common, (where "Lumix" works as a model name, like "Canon Rebel XT") but barely anyone refers to it as just the "Lumix G1". That's a failure in branding.

03-04-2009, 01:52 AM	#22
zntgrg Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Verona, Italy Posts: 202	Originally posted by RiceHigh "Standard" lenses are easier to make and thus they are cheaper. Wide or tele lenses are more costly. Wides are very difficult to develop too....in a tele is a matter of making the longest focal lenght, using bigger lens elements to compensate light loss. The weight is the limit. Instead wide angles use very complex schemes, they are optical engineer's worst nightmare, or biggest glory.

03-04-2009, 02:12 AM	#23
welshwizard645 Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Denbigh, Wales Posts: 62	Would have been better as a Burberry model For the Chav market

03-04-2009, 02:41 AM	#24
Erik Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Umeå, Sweden Posts: 755	Originally posted by zntgrg Wides are very difficult to develop too....in a tele is a matter of making the longest focal lenght, using bigger lens elements to compensate light loss. The weight is the limit. Instead wide angles use very complex schemes, they are optical engineer's worst nightmare, or biggest glory. It is supposedly easier (or at least, less of a compromise) to make good rangefinder/non-SLR wides (which applies to the G1) than SLR wides, though. SLR's need to compromise with a retrofocus element in the back as to not make the lens too long and bump into the mirror -- without a mirror you can get much closer to the film plane. I don't know a lot about optics but I'm pretty sure it should be easier to make wides for the G1 than for an SLR.

03-04-2009, 02:44 AM	#25
RiceHigh Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,934	Originally posted by welshwizard645 Would have been better as a Burberry model For the Chav market So, they should make it WHITE, with a white camera, everyone will be easy to paint anything on it, for anything they like, just see:- RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: Star Wars Stormtrooper K2000W LE ? I think girls or children will love the Hello Kitty model, won't they?

03-04-2009, 04:29 AM	#26
ballgofar Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Rochester, NY Posts: 87	Originally posted by ryan s It's not the worst camera I've ever seen. That lens has to leave though...small cam with huge lens equals design fail I have a feeling the lens is smaller than it looks in this picture. This perspective is weird.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-04-2009, 05:07 AM	#27
whatever7 Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 278	Originally posted by jake123 The blue/red ones look pretty good to me. It's a shame that the new 14-150 and 7-14 is gona be around 1000(euro?usd?) And I thought wide angle lenses were supposed to be easier to make. You are telling me the wide angle zoom will sell more than the Tokina 11-16 2.8 and in the neighborhood of Nikon 14-24mm 2.8 FF zoom? If so I will wish m4/3 to fail.

03-04-2009, 09:58 AM	#28
vinzer Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Philippines Posts: 1,399	Originally posted by lurchlarson Hmm...dirt color....seems to fit its predecessor's IQ... Frickin' bubble gum woulda' been a better color. Oh, the shame! Pentax is supreme in IQ! All hail Pentax! While I agree the G1 has some quibbles in IQ, it's not that far-off in quality compared to the K200D, unless one wants to pixel-peep, which I don't do as much lately (I'd rather judge resized images and prints, which is the final output of my images, anyway). I hate to be the contrarian in all this, but no one manufacturer has a lock on good image quality. That said, the color's not for me. But the gold LX is also appalling to look at, and I'm very partial towards the LX as a camera, at that.

03-04-2009, 10:23 AM	#30
AndrewG NY Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Chappaqua, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 688	I don't think it's that bad either. Better than red or blue, I think. Obviously many people prefer black or silver for their cameras, just as they do for their cars. As for the desire for 'Apple Designers', if Apple designed our D-SLRs it would probably have one button and one stupid touch wheel--they frequently go in the direction of minimalistic (one-size-fits-everyone) design with clean aesthetics getting top priority. Don't get me wrong because I like some of what Apple does but sometimes tools work better when "ugly".