No Nikon BIG Announcement

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by cjcampbell, Feb 17, 2009.

  1. cjcampbell

    cjcampbell Guest

    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.
     
    cjcampbell, Feb 17, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. cjcampbell

    Bruce Guest

    Rich <> wrote:
    >cjcampbell <> wrote in news:5c4cc322-1652-
    >:
    >
    >> 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?
     
    Bruce, Feb 17, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. cjcampbell

    RichA Guest

    On Feb 17, 3:48 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > Rich <> wrote:
    > >cjcampbell <> wrote in news:5c4cc322-1652-
    > >:

    >
    > >> 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.
     
    RichA, Feb 18, 2009
    #3
  4. cjcampbell

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Rivergoat <> 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 )
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Feb 18, 2009
    #4
  5. cjcampbell

    Paul Furman Guest

    Jeremy Nixon wrote:
    > Rivergoat <> 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, Feb 19, 2009
    #5
  6. cjcampbell

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Paul Furman <> 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 )
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Feb 19, 2009
    #6
  7. cjcampbell

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, 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.
     
    nospam, Feb 19, 2009
    #7
  8. cjcampbell

    Bruce Guest

    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. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Feb 19, 2009
    #8
  9. cjcampbell

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Bruce
    <> 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.
     
    nospam, Feb 19, 2009
    #9
  10. cjcampbell

    Nomen Nescio Guest

    "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > cjcampbell <> wrote in news:5c4cc322-1652-
    > :
    >
    >> 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.
     
    Nomen Nescio, Feb 19, 2009
    #10
  11. cjcampbell

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Bruce <> wrote:

    > 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.


    I'm quite sure that I do. However, there are real benefits in general,
    so we live with it. :)

    --
    Jeremy Nixon | address in header is valid
    (formerly )
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Feb 20, 2009
    #11
  12. cjcampbell

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    C J Campbell <> wrote:

    > But you don't really "need" new digital cameras, either. There are
    > people still using Nikon D70s, D100s, Canon EOS 1Ds, etc.


    You don't "need" a new anything. But, if you want to take advantage of
    new developments in image quality, with digital, you buy a new camera.
    With film, you buy a new roll of film.

    --
    Jeremy Nixon | address in header is valid
    (formerly )
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Feb 21, 2009
    #12
  13. cjcampbell

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    C J Campbell <> wrote:

    > A new roll of film gives you new autofocus systems, image
    > stabilization, sharper lenses, exposure meters, lighting systems,
    > viewfinders, faster frame rates, and like that? Amazing! I never knew a
    > new roll of film could do all that!


    The things you mention either don't require a new camera anyway, or don't
    really matter in terms of image quality.

    --
    Jeremy Nixon | address in header is valid
    (formerly )
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Feb 22, 2009
    #13
  14. cjcampbell

    frank Guest

    On Feb 22, 9:43 pm, C J Campbell
    <> wrote:
    > On 2009-02-22 13:36:13 -0800, Jeremy Nixon <~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net> said:
    >
    > > C J Campbell  <> wrote:

    >
    > >> A new roll of film gives you new autofocus systems, image
    > >> stabilization, sharper lenses, exposure meters, lighting systems,
    > >> viewfinders, faster frame rates, and like that? Amazing! I never knew a
    > >> new roll of film could do all that!

    >
    > > The things you mention either don't require a new camera anyway, or don't
    > > really matter in terms of image quality.

    >
    > They DON'T?!? Then why do photographers use them?
    >
    > --
    > Waddling Eagle
    > World Famous Flight Instructor


    I think what he means is its cheaper to buy film than a new camera
    body if you need to go to 25000 EI.

    Camera manufacturers know there are way too many people with more
    money than brains that go out and buy latest stuff they shill.

    Of course when they sell the old stuff, better for the rest of us who
    don't have $8k for a new camera.

    I'd argue way too much stuff packed into most bodies. High frame rates
    should be stripped from film or digital and sold with minimal add on.
    You're not shooting flash at 8 frames a second. Ditto lower shutter
    speeds, you can think of options. Conversely, if you're doing nature,
    you probably want a more rugged rain proof body with better battery
    usage. Or quieter.

    For Nikon there were a lot of people shooting with an F then using a
    Nikomat for a second body. They seem to have gotten away from that.
    Difficult to do that today. Now I'd argue there's more options in the
    used market , say film with a digital body. As far as whats sold, its
    hard to see what they're trying to do. Zooms are nice but sometimes
    you'll find that most shots are made at a specific length. Say you
    have a 50 - 300. If you're shooting only at 300, then shoot that
    again, it makes sense to take only a 300 prime. You might have a
    better f stop range of lenses available. They seem to be getting away
    from that.
     
    frank, Feb 23, 2009
    #14
  15. cjcampbell

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    C J Campbell <> wrote:
    > On 2009-02-22 13:36:13 -0800, Jeremy Nixon <~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net> said:
    >> C J Campbell <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> A new roll of film gives you new autofocus systems, image
    >>> stabilization, sharper lenses, exposure meters, lighting systems,
    >>> viewfinders, faster frame rates, and like that? Amazing! I never knew a
    >>> new roll of film could do all that!

    >>
    >> The things you mention either don't require a new camera anyway, or don't
    >> really matter in terms of image quality.

    >
    > They DON'T?!? Then why do photographers use them?


    They like them, I guess. They certainly have nothing to do with image
    quality, in film or digital.

    You could use a Nikon F3, nearly 30 years old, and get results exactly
    as good as with any modern film camera. If you like that F3, there isn't
    a reason in the world to replace it.

    A Nikon D1, however, merely 10 years old, is completely obsolete.

    That's all I'm saying.

    --
    Jeremy Nixon | address in header is valid
    (formerly )
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Feb 23, 2009
    #15
  16. cjcampbell

    ASAAR Guest

    On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:19:54 -0800 (PST), frank wrote:

    > I think what he means is its cheaper to buy film than a new camera
    > body if you need to go to 25000 EI.


    Cheaper to buy film? One reason I have much better cameras and
    lenses is that I can afford much better equipment, now that I don't
    pay so much for film, processing and prints. The flexibility of
    having a DSLR that can dial in any ISO from low to very high means
    it's not necessary to have to stock many types of film or go out of
    your way to find a shop that sells them, especially rare films that
    are difficult to find.


    > Camera manufacturers know there are way too many people with
    > more money than brains that go out and buy latest stuff they shill.
    >
    > Of course when they sell the old stuff, better for the rest of us who
    > don't have $8k for a new camera.


    When I was shooting with modest film gear yesteryear, there were
    neighbors that had Hasselblads and Linhofs. Whether they sold or
    kept them, they had no appeal, just as the tank-like FF DSLRs don't
    appeal to me today.



    > I'd argue way too much stuff packed into most bodies. High frame rates
    > should be stripped from film or digital and sold with minimal add on.
    > You're not shooting flash at 8 frames a second.


    But you could if you know what you're doing and don't waste flash
    power needlessly.


    > Ditto lower shutter
    > speeds, you can think of options. Conversely, if you're doing nature,
    > you probably want a more rugged rain proof body with better battery
    > usage. Or quieter.


    Or become an artist, sketching with multi-colored pencils, sitting
    under a wide umbrella if it rains, and you won't have to worry about
    ISO or EV, film or silicon, although the effective ISO of most
    artists is *extremely* low. :)
     
    ASAAR, Feb 24, 2009
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Douglas MacDonald

    Nikon Announcement 1st of the month

    Douglas MacDonald, Sep 1, 2005, in forum: Nikon
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    223
    Father Kodak
    Sep 3, 2005
  2. Not Disclosed

    Nikon D40 announcement next week

    Not Disclosed, Nov 3, 2006, in forum: Nikon
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    303
    Not Disclosed
    Nov 3, 2006
  3. Doug MacDonald

    Enlarging digital images - how big is big?

    Doug MacDonald, Jan 28, 2007, in forum: Digital SLR
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    386
    Pete D
    Jan 31, 2007
  4. JWBH
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    748
  5. ART SANTELLA

    HOW DO I GET BIG BIG ENLARGEMENT OF PIX?

    ART SANTELLA, Aug 29, 2003, in forum: Digital Cameras
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    264
Loading...

Share This Page