Nikon D3x buyers beware - D700x already in prototype

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:37:03 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

John Smith wrote:
Come on: "Some people need the resolution"???? 99.9999% of the
prints made in the world are 11x14 and under. Just ask ANY film lab
anywhere.

Read Ken Rockwell's astute article on the D3x.

Perhaps 1/100 of 1% of us ever print larger than 16x20. Who the ****
needs 25mp for anything 11x14 and under???

I'm staying with my D3 and saving $5,000

1. Don't top post.

2. Ken Rockwell is an idiot.

I don't believe thet Ken Rockwell is an idiot, although at times he
seems to have multiple personalities in that he can't decide what he
likes better... Canon or Nikon, Film or digital, dslr or p&s.. etc.

Regardless of his inconsistent approach to discussing camera gear, he
is 100% spot-on with many of his writings about the subject of
photography and what makes for a good image. He may not always
practice what he preaches, but at least he knows that there is a huge
difference between a photographer and a mere camera enthusiast.

These articles of his are absolutely brilliant:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/howto.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/spectator.htm





3. You ever hear of crop margin?

4. I know one print lab nearby that prints nothing less than 36" wide by
typically that long and much longer. (photo banners for trade shows,
other events, corporate lobby artwork, clubs, etc.)

5. You can be sure that a "pro-sumer" FF Nikon at 24.6 Mpix is just
around the corner, likely to be announced or leaked at about PMA time.

Then like all the Nikon cry babies arguing that 12 Mpix is enough,
you'll kneel before your wife and beg for the credit card promising her
the moon and the stars if you can spend the $3K or whatever for the camera.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:56:04 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:37:03 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

John Smith wrote:
Come on: "Some people need the resolution"???? 99.9999% of the
prints made in the world are 11x14 and under. Just ask ANY film lab
anywhere.

Read Ken Rockwell's astute article on the D3x.

Perhaps 1/100 of 1% of us ever print larger than 16x20. Who the ****
needs 25mp for anything 11x14 and under???

I'm staying with my D3 and saving $5,000

1. Don't top post.

2. Ken Rockwell is an idiot.

I don't believe thet Ken Rockwell is an idiot, although at times he
seems to have multiple personalities in that he can't decide what he
likes better... Canon or Nikon, Film or digital, dslr or p&s.. etc.

Regardless of his inconsistent approach to discussing camera gear, he
is 100% spot-on with many of his writings about the subject of
photography and what makes for a good image. He may not always
practice what he preaches, but at least he knows that there is a huge
difference between a photographer and a mere camera enthusiast.

These articles of his are absolutely brilliant:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/howto.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/spectator.htm





3. You ever hear of crop margin?

4. I know one print lab nearby that prints nothing less than 36" wide by
typically that long and much longer. (photo banners for trade shows,
other events, corporate lobby artwork, clubs, etc.)

5. You can be sure that a "pro-sumer" FF Nikon at 24.6 Mpix is just
around the corner, likely to be announced or leaked at about PMA time.

Then like all the Nikon cry babies arguing that 12 Mpix is enough,
you'll kneel before your wife and beg for the credit card promising her
the moon and the stars if you can spend the $3K or whatever for the camera.

Some people think Ken Rockwell is an idiot. Others think he is right on.
When that happens he knows he is a success for his objective is to be
controversial.

I do not agree with all his opinions and it is easy to tell they are
opinions. Many times he takes a grain of fact and magnifies it. But I do
find him entertaining and one can lean things by overlooking certain
things. For the most part he is partial to Nikon for DSLR and Canon for
P&S. He does like the image quality of the Canon 5D but prefers the
handling of Nkons.

Stephen Bishop wrote:

The Olympus 4/3 system is innovatve in its design, but ultimate image
quality is still limited by the smaller sensor size. Again, check any
camera review. Nikons are simply better.

I was referring more to the erroneous claim that a camera store clerk
would try to sell someone Nikon gear in order to generate a higher
margin sale or an additional spiff, versus selling them a less popular
brand.

If you know anything about the retail camera business, you know that in
fact it's the less popular products from the second tier manufacturers
that use spiffs and higher margins to try to have stores promote their
products in the store.

SMS wrote:
Stephen Bishop wrote:

Yet the Nikon gear is still capable of better image quality than any
Olympus. Look at any camera review online. Maybe the clerk knows
more than you think?

Also, the store's margins on off-brand equipment like Olympus, Pentax,
and Minolta were always higher than the margins on Canon and Nikon. If

"off-brand"?


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

SMS wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
nospam wrote:
In article , John Smith wrote:

Read Ken Rockwell's astute article

you mean the guy who fabricates a lot of what he writes? that's not
what i'd call astute.

How the hell can you accuse him of not being an astute fiction writer?

Did you send him any money to help him continue his fiction career?

I've sent him e-mails telling him what an idiot he is on a few of his
pet issues.

He doesn't seem to have profited from that.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Alan Browne wrote:
SMS wrote:
Stephen Bishop wrote:

Yet the Nikon gear is still capable of better image quality than any
Olympus. Look at any camera review online. Maybe the clerk knows
more than you think?

Also, the store's margins on off-brand equipment like Olympus, Pentax,
and Minolta were always higher than the margins on Canon and Nikon. If

"off-brand"?

Yeah, my mistake. I meant "second-tier." The less popular gear comes
with bigger spiffs and bigger margins from the manufacturers. Of course
it varies by product, with the top-selling products receiving the least
spiffs and the smallest margins.

SMS wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
SMS wrote:
Stephen Bishop wrote:

Yet the Nikon gear is still capable of better image quality than any
Olympus. Look at any camera review online. Maybe the clerk knows
more than you think?

Also, the store's margins on off-brand equipment like Olympus,
Pentax, and Minolta were always higher than the margins on Canon and
Nikon. If

"off-brand"?

Yeah, my mistake. I meant "second-tier." The less popular gear comes
with bigger spiffs and bigger margins from the manufacturers. Of course
it varies by product, with the top-selling products receiving the least
spiffs and the smallest margins.

There is nothing "2nd tier" about any of them, although the lack of full
frame in Pentax and Oly is certainly excluding them from top
consideration now.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:08:14 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

SMS wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
nospam wrote:
In article , John Smith wrote:

Read Ken Rockwell's astute article

you mean the guy who fabricates a lot of what he writes? that's not
what i'd call astute.

How the hell can you accuse him of not being an astute fiction writer?

Did you send him any money to help him continue his fiction career?

I've sent him e-mails telling him what an idiot he is on a few of his
pet issues.

He doesn't seem to have profited from that.

Strangely enough, people don't seem to be receptive to "Dear Idiot"
e-mails.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:40:34 -0600, MoronPatrol
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:25:43 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 07:52:02 -0600, B.Crewlins
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 06:22:47 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:09:47 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:52:23 -0600, charles-billings
wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:59:04 -0500, tony cooper
wrote:

The people who have trouble with camera store sales clerks are the
amateurs who come into the store thinking that they know more than the
clerk and are more intent on proving this than they are in being
informed. The clerks usually figure this out early in the
conversation and stop being helpful. They know they aren't going to
convince this know-it-all that (brand) lenses are good, and they just
lay back and let the customer run the show. Then the customer struts
out thinking "That guy isn't qualified to sell cameras".
No, the people who have problems with camera store clerks are those that know
more than the clerk ever will. They quickly find out that the clerk is trying to
pawn off the item that will make the most money for the store or clerk and has
the highest retail markup. Then when you try to explain to the ignorant clerk
whey they are ignorant, the start pulling red-herring sales tactics that make
themselves look even more stupid. So you have to sit there and argue with that
ignorant moron clerk trying to convince them you don't want what's popular and
what all the other people are buying, because you only want the camera that you
came for, which you've already researched and found it to be better than
anything that idiot clerk would ever know about.

I can't even begin to tell you how many times this happened in the SLR days when
I was trying to buy Olympus and Zuiko gear and the ****ing moron clerk would
always try to pawn off that "popular" crap-Nikon **** on me. That made more
money for him, and that's the ONLY reason they would try that sales-tactic crap.

You sound just like one of those gawd-awful idiot sales clerks trying to defend
your stupidity and ignorance. I've come this close to punching your
particular kind of self-serving idiot in the face, many times.

Your comments prove my point. The person who truly knows photography
and photographic equipment - and know what they want - doesn't get
into discussions with camera store clerks. They walk in, tell the
clerk what they want to buy, pay for it, and leave. No customer has
to "sit there" and listen to anything.

The fact that you've engaged in argumentive discussions with camera
store clerks indicates that you went in looking for an argument. No
clerk is going to engage in an argument with a buyer that specifies
exactly what he wants unless the buyer provides the opening. When you
say you "explain" why the "ignorant clerk" is "ignorant", you are
admitting that you are looking for an argument. You only tried to
explain because you wanted the argument.

What you wanted was an audience; someone who had to listen to you
blather on about your expertise. Your audience is trapped because
they were paid to stand behind the counter. You, on the other hand,
could have said "Ring up the (item)" and been out of there.

My guess is that the reaction of the camera store clerks when you walk
in the store in your area is "Here comes the blowhard again".

Of course, tony, you are right, but you are also "conversing" with the
pest. The nym-shifting coward polluting the group with his manifesto of
P+S malarky.

Not that there's anyting wrong with that....

:-)

What, are you suggesting that our p&s friend was actually in a camera
store looking at dslr gear?

Hmmmm... maybe we're finally getting through to him.



Dear Resident-Tr

But you WERE shopping for dslr gear.

Busted again!

Wow. You ARE a moron. They were talking about SLR gear, can't you read?

Why is it that only people with an inflated sense of self-importance
have to call other people morons to make a point? :-)

Yes, I see that he was talking about the slr days. That was hidden in
the f-bomb laden "I'm so superior" tone of the posting. Sorry.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:32:08 -0800, SMS
wrote:

Stephen Bishop wrote:

The Olympus 4/3 system is innovatve in its design, but ultimate image
quality is still limited by the smaller sensor size. Again, check any
camera review. Nikons are simply better.

I was referring more to the erroneous claim that a camera store clerk
would try to sell someone Nikon gear in order to generate a higher
margin sale or an additional spiff, versus selling them a less popular
brand.

If you know anything about the retail camera business, you know that in
fact it's the less popular products from the second tier manufacturers
that use spiffs and higher margins to try to have stores promote their
products in the store.


I don't disagree a bit.