The Nikon D3 makes everyone's life better, even mine!!!

Tony Polson wrote:
That's certainly one way of looking at it. Given Nikon's commitment
to some kind of backward compatibility, I think adding features on the
one hand and taking away some of the backward compatibility with the
other is probably inevitable, given the restriction of using the basic
F mount.

However, let us not forget that Canon abandoned its loyal FL and FD
customer base (and largely alienated it) with the introduction of
the EF mount. At least Nikon has avoided that, going for step by
step changes that keep most Nikon users on board rather than
Canon's one step change that turned off a whole community of loyal
fans.

Canon certainly abandoned their users with the change. That was
what brought me to Nikon.

For me, the N80/F80 was the straw that broke the camel's back. I also
had serious issues with the optical performance of some of my Nikkors.

If everything you've said about this in this thread is true, and I have
nothing with which to dispute it, then it seems that Canon actually
made the better long-term choice in changing everything to EF as far as
the customer is concerned.

On Mar 9, 3:49*pm, "The Dave©" wrote:
Tony Polson wrote:
That's certainly one way of looking at it. *Given Nikon's commitment
to some kind of backward compatibility, I think adding features on the
one hand and taking away some of the backward compatibility with the
other is probably inevitable, given the restriction of using the basic
F mount.

However, let us not forget that Canon abandoned its loyal FL and FD
customer base (and largely alienated it) with the introduction of
the EF mount. *At least Nikon has avoided that, going for step by
step changes that keep most Nikon users on board rather than
Canon's one step change that turned off a whole community of loyal
fans.

Canon certainly abandoned their users with the change. That was
what brought me to Nikon.

For me, the N80/F80 was the straw that broke the camel's back. *I also
had serious issues with the optical performance of some of my Nikkors.

If everything you've said about this in this thread is true, and I have
nothing with which to dispute it, then it seems that Canon actually
made the better long-term choice in changing everything to EF as far as
the customer is concerned.

I tend to agree. Canon made a bold choice and committed to the future
(being AF).

I must admit that I never gave it a second thought, AF was the best
thing since sliced bread back then and I was not at all interested in
my old MF lenses. There were those that were however (having made the
"choice" to stay with manual focus) and I got very good money the old
kit. :-)

"Rita Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Yup.....One of the reasons why I'm still a film shooter......I've
still got my $1700 F5........

Let's see, take a rough figure... 10,000 shots per year,
20,000 shots per year? Even at only 5,000, a film
camera costs a *fortune* to use. If you only spent 50
cents per exposure with film, the top digital camera
will pay for itself in 2 years if you hardly use it.

On the flip side of that coin, you won't see the film shooter waste as
many
frames as you would see some of the people we now have "machine gunning"
10,000 shots at a horse show with digital and praying for a single keeper.




Rita

Yes.....Well, I also like having the "hard copy" of my slides. (I almost
exclusively shoot slide film) And, I rather like the brilliant colors of the
slides, too. I seldom project them. but I view them with a high quality
loupe against a special light box that I built just for that purpose. I also
play around with digital by scanning them into my computer and screw with
the images with Photoshop......Everything except take the images with a
digital camera to begin with......I just have a hard time laying out 3 or 4
thousand dollars for something that I know will be obsolete in 18
months......I know it's not very reasonable, but that's the way it is......

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
The Dave© wrote:
Matt Clara wrote:
They're all overpriced these days. Time was (7 years ago or less)
$1700 would have bought you arguably the best 35mm camera in the
world, and those of us here were paying $500 or less for most of
ours. Now the top camera costs $8000+

Hey, you think the cost of gas has gone up??? This **** is unreal.

Makes one wonder why prices have gone up so dramatically. Cost of
technology? Popularity, i.e. supply-and-demand... or just demand?

Could have something to do with how they've reduced an
entire darkroom put it into the camera, eh?

Digital camera's are extremely inexpensive compared to
film cameras.

Date: 2070
Place: The attic of grandpa's old place, just before we put it on the
market.
Found in a box: A bunch of CD's with Grandpa's old pictures on
them.......
Found in a box: A bunch of grandpa's old slides.

Which are more likely to be viewed and enjoyed by the grandkids? Will the
computers of 2070 even be able to accept the CD's of 2008? And, even if they
are, will the grandkids ever get around to actually installing them in a
machine? For sure, they won't have one with them in that attic. But they
will be able to hold a slide up to the light and look at it.

"The Dave©" wrote:

If everything you've said about this in this thread is true, and I have
nothing with which to dispute it, then it seems that Canon actually
made the better long-term choice in changing everything to EF as far as
the customer is concerned.


I agree. However, I suspect that neither you nor I had a big
investment in Canon FD lenses at the time the EOS system was
introduced.

A friend was heavily into Canon equipment and was very annoyed. Canon
had tried AF versions of the FD mount (in the T80 if I recall
correctly) and he felt reassured that Canon would stay with FD. When
they announced EOS, he was livid.

He is still using Canon T90s and FD lenses and still uses only film!

Rita Berkowitz wrote:
rwalker wrote:

since I have all the Canon stuff worked out of my blood and
it's Nikon forever.

What a stupid attitude.

Why? Because you can't do it?

Do you think that Nikon cares whether you idolize them or not?

--
Ray Fischer

TH O wrote:
In article ,
"William Graham" wrote:

Date: 2070
Place: The attic of grandpa's old place, just before we put it on the
market.
Found in a box: A bunch of CD's with Grandpa's old pictures on
them.......

They are probably coasters because he used CD-Rs and didn't realize that
they are not archival media and can fail over years.

Found in a box: A bunch of grandpa's old slides.

Year: 2500
Place: Every Museum in the World

Found: Thousands of reproducable 500 year old digital images,
all as "new" as they were when taken.

Not Found: Even one surviving photograph that preceeded digital
archiving.

If they haven't melted from the attic heat, there is a greater chance of
them being viewable.

Viewable, but in horribly faded condition.


Which are more likely to be viewed and enjoyed by the grandkids? Will the
computers of 2070 even be able to accept the CD's of 2008? And, even if they
are, will the grandkids ever get around to actually installing them in a
machine? For sure, they won't have one with them in that attic. But they
will be able to hold a slide up to the light and look at it.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
et...
TH O wrote:
In article
,
Matt Clara wrote:

On Mar 7, 1:07 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Rita Berkowitz wrote:
A midlife crisis camera, in other words. Instead of an overpriced
sports car you have an overpriced camera.

They're all overpriced these days. Time was (7 years ago or less)
$1700 would have bought you arguably the best 35mm camera in the
world, and those of us here were paying $500 or less for most of
ours. Now the top camera costs $8000+

Hey, you think the cost of gas has gone up??? This **** is unreal.

And best of all, Nikon has introduced planned obsolescence into its line.
We used to be able to use manual focus lenses on all cameras but now you
need an $1800 camera or better (D300) since Nikon has removed metering
and aperture coupling ability from lower end bodies.

Aperture coupling isn't removed but I agree this is lame.

Which means that now the customers are more likely to buy new lenses.
With the D40/D40x/D60, half of the autofocus lenses won't AF on the
bodies,


I guess they have done their homework and know that many buyers of the lower
end cameras will only ever buy a couple of lenses but they do appreciate the
better quality results and the far better handling of even a low end D-SLR
over any P&S. These lower end cameras are just fat P&S's after all.

Well there are good reasons for this: lowered cost & smaller size but yeah
I'm sure part of the motivation was to encourage new lens purchases. OTOH
most entry level buyers aren't interested in more than a couple lenses.

so it further limits the available used lenses, makes many AF lenses
obsolete, and leads customers towards new lenses.

"The Dave©" wrote in message
...
dj_nme wrote:
Rita Berkowitz wrote:
Now you are starting to see the real deal, but your timeframe is
totally wrong unless you plan on only living 18-months.

So' you expect the camera to stop functioning after only 18 months?
I would call the camera lemon if that was the case.

Must've bought the 'Mission Impossible' model.

Quite true. Rita thinks that purchashing an expensive camera will allow
'her' to take great photos. So Rita does have the 'Mission Impossible' model.

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
TH O wrote:
In article ,
"William Graham" wrote:

Date: 2070
Place: The attic of grandpa's old place, just before we put it on the
market.
Found in a box: A bunch of CD's with Grandpa's old pictures on
them.......

They are probably coasters because he used CD-Rs and didn't realize that
they are not archival media and can fail over years.

Found in a box: A bunch of grandpa's old slides.

Year: 2500
Place: Every Museum in the World

Found: Thousands of reproducable 500 year old digital images,
all as "new" as they were when taken.

Not Found: Even one surviving photograph that preceeded digital
archiving.

If they haven't melted from the attic heat, there is a greater chance of
them being viewable.

Viewable, but in horribly faded condition.


Which are more likely to be viewed and enjoyed by the grandkids? Will
the
computers of 2070 even be able to accept the CD's of 2008? And, even if
they
are, will the grandkids ever get around to actually installing them in a
machine? For sure, they won't have one with them in that attic. But they
will be able to hold a slide up to the light and look at it.

Not likely there will be any originals left by 2500, but I scan my slides
too, (The ones that are worth it) so there is some possibility that they
might make it till then. The question is, will there be anything in 2500 at
all?