As I've previously stated, I have always had a hard time warming up to point-n-shoot cameras, digital or otherwise. I'm a 35mm SLR guy from way back and I've always liked being able to twiddle the knobs to control my exposures. A few years ago, I finally took the plunge on a Pentax DSLR camera and have accumulated an assortment of lenses but as much as I enjoy using that gear, sometimes it's nice to keep things simpler in order to stay in the moment.
As I was getting into the Pentax gear, I picked up a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5 bridge camera. It was a point-n-shoot with a zoom lens made by Leica. It was only 5MP resolution and although I was intrigued with it, I finally sold it on, more than doubling my money. While I didn't have any seller's remorse, the idea of an affordable camera that has some Leica DNA has stayed with me.
A year or so after that, I acquired another Leica-lensed Lumix, a DMC SZ1 pocket point-n-shoot. It takes amazing photos for its size, but size is one of its shortcomings in that it's almost too small to handle and I don't have big hands. Still, I've kept that one for those times when I just want to have a camera along but it's not the main focus of what I'm doing.
Eventually, I came across a newer and more sophisticated Lumix, a DMC-FZ35, again with a Leica lens. This one seems to combine the best of what the two previous cameras have to offer in a little more SLR like configuration. Lightweight and comfortable to carry, I thought this was my ultimate point-n-shoot until I came across its larger, slightly older sibling, the DMC-FZ50.
At a glance, this camera could easily be confused for a DSLR. It's beefy, heavier than the FZ35, and zoom and manual focus functions are on lens rings like a DSLR. Unlike the SZ1 and FZ35, which feature Leica designed lenses, the FZ50 was actually co-developed with Leica, which sold a variant of the camera as the V-LUX 1. Some critics like to say Leica's V-LUX1 isn't a real Lieca but rather a Panasonic in Leica clothing. It could as easily be said that the FZ50 offered an opportunity to own what is essentially a Leica without paying a Leica price for it.
The main difference between the Lumix and Leica variants was in the firmware, but according to what reviews I can find, the differences, other than cosmetics and Leica's three-year warranty, were minimal and neither variant was significantly better than the other. For considerable premium one would pay for the Leica name, I'm sure many buyers had no hesitation to "settle" for the Lumix.
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
Tuesday, February 6, 2018
Making Space Fun Again!
 |
| A Tesla Roadster, driven by a mannequin named 'Starman', hitches a ride aboard the Falcon Heavy test flight, blasting music from David Bowie and bearing a message from the late Douglas Adams on the instrument panel. |
Today, Elon Musk put the fun back into space in the form of a cherry red Tesla Roadster 'piloted' by a space suited mannequin named 'Starman' and blasting David Bowie's "Life on Mars" on a continuous loop from the radio, while displaying the words "Don't Panic!" in a nod to the late Douglas Adams, author of the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy books, on the instrument panel's video screen. All of this served as the dummy payload aboard the successful test launch of the SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket from the Kennedy Space Center's famed Launchpad 39A earlier today, 6 February 2018. The Falcon Heavy, with the Tesla Roadster and Starman aboard, is headed toward an orbit around Mars--not the sun--as some news outlets erroneously reported.
While some may dismiss it as a meaningless publicity stunt or at worst, a shameless plug for Musk's other company, Tesla—and who cares of Tesla uses it in their advertising—it's more than that. It made a positive and entertaining statement for a public that has become bored with space—bored because space has become numbingly routine. This was a hell of a lot more fun than some scientific experiments from Ms. Nelson's sixth grade class. I say kudos to Elon Musk and the rest of the SpaceX team for putting on a hell of a good show, turning a routine rocket launch into a memorable event. In fact, the only thing better, in my opinion, is if Starman's space suit were worn by the mortal remains of either David Bowie (1947-2016) or Douglas Adams (1952-2001). I wish both had been around to see the show they helped Mr. Musk create.
But seriously, this was a brilliant piece of marketing that might just help get people excited about getting back to space. And when—not if, but when—we get to Mars, let's hope Starman and the Tesla are waiting for us in orbit!
Saturday, January 13, 2018
What Apple Should Have Done
As an owner of an iPhone 6S, I have followed with interest the recent kerfuffle over Apple's decision to secretly throttle processor speed on older iPhone models to prevent malfunctions such as spontaneous shut-downs as the batteries age. When Apple finally acknowledged this practice, their stated rationale for doing it was to extend the life of older devices, albeit at the expense of performance. Many users were understandably upset, concluding that Apple's true motivation was to accelerate the upgrade cycle by frustrating users into replacing their devices at shorter intervals. Although Apple denies this, the damage was done. Apple's reputation took a big hit and users have become more mistrustful of the corporate entities that manufacture the devices upon which they have come to depend. And rightfully so.
The whole thing comes down to a question of ownership, as in who actually owns the devices you use? End user license agreements for software applications and operating systems state that ownership of, say MacOS or Micro$oft Office is retained by the manufacturer. When we 'buy' the software, we are really just buying the license to use it. This has become more and more obvious as software manufacturers have continued to scale back on the physical packaging of their products. Twenty years ago, M$ Office came in a large box, containing not only physical media on which the software was stored but extensive printed manuals as well. By the early 2000s, the printed manuals were gone and the much smaller package contained only the physical media and a copy of the end user agreement. Today, physical media is pretty much a thing of the past and the product has largely been reduced to bits and bytes transmitted over our broadband Internet connections. Some manufacturers such as Adobe have taken things a step further and have moved to a subscription model, where they only license the use of their software for a specific period of time and the customer must purchase a new license each year to continue to use it.
In this new paradigm, we grant software manufacturers access to our hardware so they can keep their products fully updated as a way to add 'value' to our purchase. It's pretty easy to see how a manufacturer like Apple, which makes both the hardware and the software, might see a blurry line between the two and use a software update as a way to control the hardware. But they also try to control the hardware in other ways such as making replacement parts available only to authorized service centers. And lest we forget, Apple has long regarded its devices—especially iPods and iPhones—as disposable items, designed to be used up and replaced over time. That's one reason the batteries aren't easily replaceable.
While I don't fully disagree with Apple's thinking regarding throttling processor performance to fit the capabilities of a degraded battery, I think they really messed up by not telling consumers what they were doing—and more importantly—by not giving them the ability to opt in or out. Given the opportunity to make an informed decision, many consumers would have doubtless agreed to give up a little performance to get another year or so out of their existing phone while preparing for an inevitable upgrade. Others would prioritize performance over longevity, taking the words of Neil Young to heart that "it's better to burn out that to fade away". The bottom line here is that giving consumers a choice in the matter would have also been giving them respect. Instead, by following its long established pattern of secrecy, Apple has alienated customers, fostering suspicion regarding its true motives.
In an attempt to make amends, Apple is offering $29 battery replacements for affected devices. With such an offer available, I naturally began wondering whether my 13-month-old iPhone might need a new battery. Earlier today, I used two free apps to determine that at the moment, my battery is very healthy and my phone's performance has not been throttled.
I downloaded and installed an app called Runtime and using its 'Battery Wear' function, I discovered that my phone's battery is at 99 percent of its original capacity. I then used Lirum Info Lite to determine that my phone's CPU is operating at its full clock speed of 1.85 GHz, so no throttling has been applied—at least not yet. Needless to say, I will be using these apps to continue monitoring my phone's health, especially between now and the time the $29 battery replacement offer expires. And in the meantime, I would urge Apple to make the CPU throttling feature optional going forward and thus let consumers decide what is in their own best interests. Such a practice would be entirely consistent with the time honored business axiom that the customer is always right.
Update—It seems Apple is now poised to do the right thing. Apple CEO Tim Cook has announced that the next update to iOS, coming in March 2018 will include the option to turn throttling off, along with more robust battery health monitoring options. This is what should have been done from the beginning, but I'll certainly give them credit for being responsive to consumers and ultimately doing the right thing when it's pointed out to them.
The whole thing comes down to a question of ownership, as in who actually owns the devices you use? End user license agreements for software applications and operating systems state that ownership of, say MacOS or Micro$oft Office is retained by the manufacturer. When we 'buy' the software, we are really just buying the license to use it. This has become more and more obvious as software manufacturers have continued to scale back on the physical packaging of their products. Twenty years ago, M$ Office came in a large box, containing not only physical media on which the software was stored but extensive printed manuals as well. By the early 2000s, the printed manuals were gone and the much smaller package contained only the physical media and a copy of the end user agreement. Today, physical media is pretty much a thing of the past and the product has largely been reduced to bits and bytes transmitted over our broadband Internet connections. Some manufacturers such as Adobe have taken things a step further and have moved to a subscription model, where they only license the use of their software for a specific period of time and the customer must purchase a new license each year to continue to use it.
In this new paradigm, we grant software manufacturers access to our hardware so they can keep their products fully updated as a way to add 'value' to our purchase. It's pretty easy to see how a manufacturer like Apple, which makes both the hardware and the software, might see a blurry line between the two and use a software update as a way to control the hardware. But they also try to control the hardware in other ways such as making replacement parts available only to authorized service centers. And lest we forget, Apple has long regarded its devices—especially iPods and iPhones—as disposable items, designed to be used up and replaced over time. That's one reason the batteries aren't easily replaceable.
While I don't fully disagree with Apple's thinking regarding throttling processor performance to fit the capabilities of a degraded battery, I think they really messed up by not telling consumers what they were doing—and more importantly—by not giving them the ability to opt in or out. Given the opportunity to make an informed decision, many consumers would have doubtless agreed to give up a little performance to get another year or so out of their existing phone while preparing for an inevitable upgrade. Others would prioritize performance over longevity, taking the words of Neil Young to heart that "it's better to burn out that to fade away". The bottom line here is that giving consumers a choice in the matter would have also been giving them respect. Instead, by following its long established pattern of secrecy, Apple has alienated customers, fostering suspicion regarding its true motives.
In an attempt to make amends, Apple is offering $29 battery replacements for affected devices. With such an offer available, I naturally began wondering whether my 13-month-old iPhone might need a new battery. Earlier today, I used two free apps to determine that at the moment, my battery is very healthy and my phone's performance has not been throttled.
I downloaded and installed an app called Runtime and using its 'Battery Wear' function, I discovered that my phone's battery is at 99 percent of its original capacity. I then used Lirum Info Lite to determine that my phone's CPU is operating at its full clock speed of 1.85 GHz, so no throttling has been applied—at least not yet. Needless to say, I will be using these apps to continue monitoring my phone's health, especially between now and the time the $29 battery replacement offer expires. And in the meantime, I would urge Apple to make the CPU throttling feature optional going forward and thus let consumers decide what is in their own best interests. Such a practice would be entirely consistent with the time honored business axiom that the customer is always right.
Update—It seems Apple is now poised to do the right thing. Apple CEO Tim Cook has announced that the next update to iOS, coming in March 2018 will include the option to turn throttling off, along with more robust battery health monitoring options. This is what should have been done from the beginning, but I'll certainly give them credit for being responsive to consumers and ultimately doing the right thing when it's pointed out to them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)