And I think a big motivator for that thinking is Walmart. According to them the only think that matters is price. And then throw in the stores such as best buy with all of the marketing about low prices and how their almost minimum wage "associates" are all experts.
Agree, you get what you pay for definitely applies to cameras.
You mean you can't appreciate how "pure copper" cables make a audio system sound so much better?
I think the big point of "Monster cables" is that it caters to the "mine is bigger that yours" bragging rights crowd.
The speaker cable I used once had a copper core about the size of a regular Sharpie permanent marker, but then it was a 150 ft. run at times and amps were two kilowatts.
Don't you mean 4 squared better, for 16 times better?
[snicker mode off]
Test pictures using the Toshiba IK-WB21A. Can't give out dealer cost, but it retails for $1,300.
George hath wroth:
You mean they've given up on "oxygen free copper" cable?
Some of the "features" of the $1,000 power cable are rather interesting:
Ah, the secret formula for 100% pure copper conductors. I wonder what else is in the formula for a 100% pure copper mix?
Neato. Same as my shotgun.
Another secret formula?
Whatgate? Oh...
I gotta admit, that is a nifty looking connector.
Really? I couldn't find anything in the UL certification search under Kimber Kable and associated trademarks.
Yep. There's a technically ignorant sucker born every millisecond brought to you by our American edukational system. "Education through Advertising" and such.
They (walmart) have a point, otherwise they would not be the biggest retailer in the world. In my town we still have an old fashion service station. You pull in a fellow comes to your car puts gas in, washes the windshield, checks the oil and vacummes out the inside. Gas costs about $0.40 +- a gallon more then the 'zippy' mart about half a mile away. I know the owners of both, guess who ends up with the greatest profit from gas sales. Of course zippy, what keeps the other one actually going is tune ups and normal mechanic stuff (he's one of those few you can say somthing isn't right, fix it and charge my credit card what you think is fair - and you know you won't be burned). The public is not willing to spend on quality nor service anymore. Yes there are a few exceptions, but the key here is FEW.
Of course, but then two most people are just taking snapshots anyway, a cheap camera is good enough...
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 09:10:56 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote in :
Neato. Same as my cheap Romex. :)
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:18:50 GMT, rico snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote in :
Walmart has been struggling of late -- the bloom appears to be off the low price rose.
I strongly disagree -- the difference is patently obvious.
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:51:50 GMT, DTC wrote in :
Blurry. My Leica lens, which cost less than $200 (camera included), will blow it away. For example, see -- click on More Image Info and then View Original Image.
And you are using what kind of camera????
I disagree, why accept mediocrity when it is so easy to take decent photos? This isn't decades ago where the only way you could get a decent photo was by going to a studio/hiring a photographer.
But just consider it is 100x better than what someone will get from the "security" camera they are going to find at "reallycheapsecurity.com".
Moot point, the OP was talking about wireless web cams not digital cameras.
My IP camera will blow your digital camera away with remote control pan, tilt, and 22x zoom, full motion video, and virtually unlimited storage capacity. No comparison to your set up at all.
Please insert another quarter to play Scrabble again.
You travel in a rarified world (lucky you). Most people I know are just literally taking snap shots. Often with disposable/one time cameras. Indeed there are photographers and then there are the rest of us.
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
I can't view the original image. "Feature available only to premium members".
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 08:50:25 GMT, DTC wrote in :
Check the EXIF (more image info), and you'll see it's a Panasonic DMC-FZ5.
dOn Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:28:17 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote in :
Try again -- I made it a public album.
Moot point, the OP was talking about wireless web cams not digital cameras. Why are you confusing the issue?
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 02:30:59 GMT, DTC wrote in :
I'm not confusing anything. There are both good and bad webcams, just as there are both good and bad digital cameras. The lens matters in both cases, which was (and is) my point.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.