«

The Nikon-sponsored (invitation only) cocktail party before the Blues
Traveler concert was nice, as was the concert itself. However, Nikon
had nothing to announce, although we left early because I have signed
up for Matt Mendelsohn's Master Class first thing in the morning.
About half way through the cocktail party various Nikon people took
the stage for announcements. Nothing. A little later, the head of
Nikon marketing in the USA took the stage. He said that although "the
Internet" had already decided what would be announced tonight, Nikon
would not be announcing a new format DSLR. He did not mention "MX" by
name, but said that they thought that the name given to Nikon's
supposed new camera by "the Internet" was a great name and that
perhaps Nikon should license it.

He then went on to say that Nikon felt that the medium format DSLR
market was well served by Hasselblad and others and that Nikon had no
interest in developing such a camera. (My immediate thought was that
the rest of the DSLR market was pretty well served by other companies,
too, but that did not keep Nikon from competing with them...) Anyway:
no new camera. Not a Nikon MX. No Nikon D700x.

I did not win the drawing for a new Nikon D700 (or anything else, for
that matter), which goes to show that the whole door prize thing was
rigged from the start. :-)

As for the rest of WPPI so far, pretty good. I got to spend two days
in a workshop with two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Gregg Gibson,
learning about documentary wedding photography. Fun exercise at the
end. Brooks Whittington led us one by one into the classroom where
actors had set up several scenarios. It differed slightly for
different students, but in my case Brooks had two girls playing patty-
cake in one corner, some sort of family activity in another corner,
and an Elvis impersonator doing a mock striptease in front of a small
crowd that was throwing money at him and taking pictures with cell
phones. We were told, without knowing what we would see, that we would
have two minutes to take five good pictures which must include and
over-all shot, a detail shot, an action shot, a portrait, and an
unusual angle or layered shot. One of these would be "the shot" of the
most important activity. Gregg was in there yelling directions at us
and telling us what he thought we should be doing, but I immediately
saw through that as a deliberate distraction -- not much different
than some weddings, actually. I ignored him and went about my
business, zeroing in on the Elvis impersonator. I got one good frame
between the guy's legs at ground level, with the crowd in the
background and money and cell phones in the air. It helped a lot that
I was using two bodies, one with a wide zoom and the other with a
telephoto zoom.

Brooks had a lot to say about my camera technique -- none of it very
good -- but he did like my pictures. He was very helpful in adjusting
my camera grip, the way I carried my cameras (agreeing that the strap
should be long enough to keep them at my hip, but criticizing the fact
that I did not have a camera near eye level and ready at all times).
Then, just for fun, he ran Gregg through the same exercise.

Gregg gave us a great slide show of his personal project documenting
cowboys of the Pantanal. Gregg was one of the first photographers to
go digital, starting with the Kodak DCS with which he documented the
1992 Presidential campaign which won him his first Pulitzer. (The
second was for his coverage of Clinton's impeachment.) His shot of
President Bush with then-candidate Bill Clinton and H. Ross Perot made
the cover of Newsweek, the first time a digital photo had been used on
a cover. He hated the DCS; it shot one frame every 1.5 seconds. And
people complain that the D3x is slow... But even then, the DCS enabled
him to transmit his images instantly, while the film photographers
were still relying on runners to pick up their film. His pictures were
often in print six hours or more before those of the film guys. Sadly,
Gregg has almost none of his own work. His early years were all on
film, which he rarely if ever saw developed. Most of his life's work
is lost, including most of the photos for which he won his Pulitzers.
No one knows where most of the originals are. One of the great things
about digital, he says, is that he has more control over his work. It
is not snatched away from him the moment he takes a picture and then
filed away and lost.

In case anyone is wondering, here is what is in Gregg's camera bag:

2 Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III
1 Canon EOS 1D Mark III
1 5D Camera
Canon 580 EXII Flash
ThinkTank Photo Airport Security Bag, Urban Disguise 60 and Urban
Disguise 40 Bags
Lexar and SanDisk 8gb and 4gb CF and SD cards
Lenses (in order of preference)
70-200mm f/2.8 IS
16-35mm f/2.8
85mm f/1.2
24mm f/1.4
50mm f/1.2
24-70mm f/2.8 (actually workhorse, just doesn't like it)
100mm f/2.8 macro
300mm f/2.8
35mm f/1.4
135mm f/2.0

The reason Gregg does not like the 24-70mm lens for weddings is that
every point and shoot owned by every guest pretty much duplicates that
zoom range. The consequence is that this lens gives the same
perspective as the point and shoots -- and customers do not always
understand the difference. Nevertheless, he admits that it is a real
work horse and he uses it constantly.

Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>cjcampbell <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:5c4cc322-1652-
>4496-94ad-(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> The Nikon-sponsored (invitation only) cocktail party before the Blues
>> Traveler concert was nice, as was the concert itself. However, Nikon
>> had nothing to announce, although we left early because I have signed
>> up for Matt Mendelsohn's Master Class first thing in the morning.
>> About half way through the cocktail party various Nikon people took
>> the stage for announcements. Nothing.
>
>Yes, it's a pathetic PMA, with loads of unprofitable P&S's being announced
>by the mfgs. Do they really think it's a good idea to devote fab space to
>making so many of these crummy things when DSLRs are the only cameras
>showing profitability and increased sales numbers? P&S sales have been
>flat or sinking (depending on brand) since 2005.


Surely the only reason for Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Olympus to continue
making and selling P&S cameras is the hope that P&S users will upgrade
to a DSLR of the same brand?

On Feb 17, 3:48*pm, Bruce <n...@nospam.net> wrote:
> Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >cjcampbell <christophercampb...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:5c4cc322-1652-
> >4496-94ad-c5f51bb8f...@m4g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> The Nikon-sponsored (invitation only) cocktail party before the Blues
> >> Traveler concert was nice, as was the concert itself. However, Nikon
> >> had nothing to announce, although we left early because I have signed
> >> up for Matt Mendelsohn's Master Class first thing in the morning.
> >> About half way through the cocktail party various Nikon people took
> >> the stage for announcements. Nothing. *
>
> >Yes, it's a pathetic PMA, with loads of unprofitable P&S's being announced
> >by the mfgs. *Do they really think it's a good idea to devote fab space to
> >making so many of these crummy things when DSLRs are the only cameras
> >showing profitability and increased sales numbers? *P&S sales have been
> >flat or sinking (depending on brand) since 2005.
>
> Surely the only reason for Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Olympus to continue
> making and selling P&S cameras is the hope that P&S users will upgrade
> to a DSLR of the same brand?

Could be a number of things. They may function as advertising, they
could be allowing them to reach a certain economy of scale in
production.

Rivergoat <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Not staying up on all the announcements, I was slightly surprised to
> see Nikon's web site advertising only 2 film cameras on the market
> anymore, one just over $300, one just under $3000. The digital market,
> however, abounds. Oh well, my mini-rant about the demise of film.

The thing about film is that you don't *need* new cameras, so it doesn't
really matter. Once you get a good film camera you don't need to replace
it basically ever. With digital, they have finally found a way to make
us think it's normal to drop a few grand on a new camera every few years
while simultaneously thinking digital is "cheaper". It's brilliant.

--
Jeremy Nixon | address in header is valid
(formerly (E-Mail Removed))

Jeremy Nixon wrote:
> Rivergoat <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Not staying up on all the announcements, I was slightly surprised to
>> see Nikon's web site advertising only 2 film cameras on the market
>> anymore, one just over $300, one just under $3000. The digital market,
>> however, abounds. Oh well, my mini-rant about the demise of film.
>
> The thing about film is that you don't *need* new cameras, so it doesn't
> really matter. Once you get a good film camera you don't need to replace
> it basically ever. With digital, they have finally found a way to make
> us think it's normal to drop a few grand on a new camera every few years
> while simultaneously thinking digital is "cheaper". It's brilliant.

Well you do get new features with the upgrades but yes that's a valid
point! I think of the digital camera body as equal to film in terms of
cost and performance.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> Jeremy Nixon wrote:
>
>> The thing about film is that you don't *need* new cameras, so it doesn't
>> really matter. Once you get a good film camera you don't need to replace
>> it basically ever. With digital, they have finally found a way to make
>> us think it's normal to drop a few grand on a new camera every few years
>> while simultaneously thinking digital is "cheaper". It's brilliant.
>
> Well you do get new features with the upgrades but yes that's a valid
> point!

If you separate the "digital" from the "camera", I think the last new feature
added to cameras that I'd care much about would be autofocus. And even that
I consider optional.

I would rather have the ability to replace the "digital" part but keep the
"camera". Of course, they didn't go that route, because this way they can
sell us more cameras.

> I think of the digital camera body as equal to film in terms of cost and
> performance.

Well, in fairness, in terms of performance, we're at the point where digital
beats film in image quality by basically any technical measure. And if you
shoot a whole lot, it really can be cheaper.

--
Jeremy Nixon | address in header is valid
(formerly (E-Mail Removed))

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Jeremy Nixon < )@(>
wrote:

> The thing about film is that you don't *need* new cameras, so it doesn't
> really matter. Once you get a good film camera you don't need to replace
> it basically ever.

you just have to keep buying film and processing.

> With digital, they have finally found a way to make
> us think it's normal to drop a few grand on a new camera every few years
> while simultaneously thinking digital is "cheaper". It's brilliant.

even if you upgrade every so often, it's still much less than the
ongoing costs for film and processing and having to carry all that bulk
as well as keep it cool.

Jeremy Nixon <~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net> wrote:
>
>And if you
>shoot a whole lot, it really can be cheaper.


I would bet that the average DSLR user spends far more on equipment each
year than the average 35mm SLR user ever did on film, developing and
printing.

With film, once you built up an outfit, that was that. You could just
get on with your photography, and the only cost was film, developing and
printing.

With digital, your DSLR needs replacing every couple of years - just to
"keep up".

Clever advertising makes us believe that we must replace our lenses to
"get the best out of digital" and buy ever more complex accessories.
There is a grain of truth in the argument about lenses, but the truth is
that the better lenses from film days are more than capable of producing
fine digital images.

So with a new DSLR every 2 years, all those accessories you never seemed
to need with film, and all those hardware and software upgrades to your
computer to edit and store your images, and you have the most expensive
replacement for film that could possibly have been devised. ;-)

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Bruce
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >And if you
> >shoot a whole lot, it really can be cheaper.
>
> I would bet that the average DSLR user spends far more on equipment each
> year than the average 35mm SLR user ever did on film, developing and
> printing.

then you'd likely lose.

> With film, once you built up an outfit, that was that. You could just
> get on with your photography, and the only cost was film, developing and
> printing.

and that adds up *fast*. plus, even film users were buying various
accessories, lenses, etc.

and with digital, there's no need to worry about keeping film cool or
needing the space to carry enough for a particular trip. the
equivalent of dozens of rolls of film fit on a couple of cards that
slip into a pocket.

> With digital, your DSLR needs replacing every couple of years - just to
> "keep up".

only if you want to. old cameras still work just fine and produce
images just as good as the day they were bought.

"Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> cjcampbell <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:5c4cc322-1652-
> 4496-94ad-(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> The Nikon-sponsored (invitation only) cocktail party before the Blues
>> Traveler concert was nice, as was the concert itself. However, Nikon
>> had nothing to announce, although we left early because I have signed
>> up for Matt Mendelsohn's Master Class first thing in the morning.
>> About half way through the cocktail party various Nikon people took
>> the stage for announcements. Nothing.
>
> Yes, it's a pathetic PMA, with loads of unprofitable P&S's being announced
> by the mfgs. Do they really think it's a good idea to devote fab space to
> making so many of these crummy things when DSLRs are the only cameras
> showing profitability and increased sales numbers? P&S sales have been
> flat or sinking (depending on brand) since 2005.
>

Hmmm, already have a review for PMA 09, which hasn't opened yet! PMA is
March 3~5 2009.