Nikon D3x buyers beware - D700x already in prototype

tony cooper wrote:
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.

Well, they weren't addressed that way of course but I'm sure even he
could read between the lines. Well, on second thought...

OTOH, I doubt very much that I was the only one to point out to him that
his "JPG only/JPG is enough" approach is pretty bad utilization of a
camera sensor. I can't remember offhand what other issues I had with
him ... I confuse him with the even more opaque generalizations of the
NYY's Pogue.

Suffice it to say that on the occasions that KR is right, you have to
double check with more reputable sources in any case before taking his
vice, er, advice.


--
-- 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 in message
...
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.

Are you sure about this? Because it has been reported Sony is losing money
on its DSLRs. But I can ask some people directly on the retail side and see
what they say.
It's been my experience that there is a bit of everything that drives retail
sellers, from spiffs to personal preference to genuine concern for what a
customer gets.

Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 13/12/2008 8:08 AM:


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.



Like that of many others, his opinion is that arseholes
who populate Usenet calling everyone an idiot are not
worth wasting time with.
And you fit the pattern perfectly.

Noons wrote:
Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 13/12/2008 8:08 AM:


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.



Like that of many others, his opinion is that arseholes
who populate Usenet calling everyone an idiot are not
worth wasting time with.
And you fit the pattern perfectly.

Ah, the perfect Pot-Kettle post.

SMS wrote in news:dVI%k.6340$pr6.583
@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com:

RichA wrote:
Potential Nikon D3x buyers beware - D700x is already in prototype!

You knew this would happen. Nikon got blindsided by Canon's 5D Mark II
which is far superior to the the D700.

At high ISOs, at the RAW level, this is true. The 5D2 has more resolution,
and less read noise per pixel, no less per image. However, the 5D2 is
horrible at ISO 100, in the deep shadows. The 5D2 has only 65% more read
noise at ISO 1600 than at ISO 100, and a good visible deal of that ISO 100
noise is banding noise. Canon blew the deep DR on this camera, completely.

Sabotaged to protect the 1Ds3 market, as far a studio work is concerned?
Perhaps.

John Sheehy wrote:
the 5D2 is horrible at ISO 100, in the deep shadows.

Why?


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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:58:49 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
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.

Well, they weren't addressed that way of course but I'm sure even he
could read between the lines. Well, on second thought...

OTOH, I doubt very much that I was the only one to point out to him that
his "JPG only/JPG is enough" approach is pretty bad utilization of a
camera sensor. I can't remember offhand what other issues I had with
him ... I confuse him with the even more opaque generalizations of the
NYY's Pogue.

Suffice it to say that on the occasions that KR is right, you have to
double check with more reputable sources in any case before taking his
vice, er, advice.

Don't take anything KR says about cameras to the bank. He doesn't
even know what he likes. With all his rants about how film is better
than digital, he still can't keep himself from pre-ordering every new
high-end dslr that comes along, only to say that his cheap film
cameras give better results. I also take issue with his rants
against RAW. If he is such an electronics imaging expert, then why
isn't he employed?

However, as I mentioned in another post, he does have some very good
insight into the subject of photography itself. Those writings of
his are very much worth reading. I just ignore what he says about
his favorite camera of the week. But on balance, his website is
entertaining and sometimes even useful.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:46:04 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

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.

Also, remember when film was king, Nikon and Canon were also "top
tier." But that never prevented anyone shooting Pentax, Minolta or
Olympus from getting excellent results.

It's what lies between your ears that matters, not what you hold in
your hands. Choose the tool that feels best and doesn't get in the
way of creating images.

But if absolute image quality is important, there is a reason why
Nikon and Canon are at the top of the heap. With film, the camera
brand wasn't nearly as important as long as you were using good film
and a decent lens.

Of course, those "second tier" cameras are quite capable of excellent
results.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:52:01 -0500, "RichA"
wrote:


"SMS" wrote in message
.. .
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.

Are you sure about this? Because it has been reported Sony is losing money
on its DSLRs. But I can ask some people directly on the retail side and see
what they say.
It's been my experience that there is a bit of everything that drives retail
sellers, from spiffs to personal preference to genuine concern for what a
customer gets.

Sony is losing money on their cameras? My personal biased opinion is
that they should have kept the Minolta name, which has a long history
of photography expertise behind it. The Sony brand is too much
associated with cheap consumer electronics and televisions, and
probably isn't the best choice for attracting serious photographers.

But what do I know, I don't have a degree in marketing.

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Stephen Bishop wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:52:01 -0500, "RichA"
wrote:


"SMS" wrote in message
. ..
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.

Are you sure about this? Because it has been reported Sony is losing money
on its DSLRs. But I can ask some people directly on the retail side and see
what they say.
It's been my experience that there is a bit of everything that drives retail
sellers, from spiffs to personal preference to genuine concern for what a
customer gets.

Sony is losing money on their cameras? My personal biased opinion is
that they should have kept the Minolta name, which has a long history
of photography expertise behind it. The Sony brand is too much
associated with cheap consumer electronics and televisions, and
probably isn't the best choice for attracting serious photographers.

What matters is not whether Sony makes cheap electronic goods, but
whether it's also capable of making very good ones. Historically Sony
has made some of the highest quality (and very expensive) TVs, very
high resolution CRT monitors, portable cassette recorders, and digital
movie cameras, in some cases making a product that many argue was the
best that could be got at any price. And it's still doing that.

Minolta had a reputation for making extremely good lenses and not
quite such good camera bodies. As any serious photographer ought to
know, you can fit those old Minolta lenses onto a new Sony DSLR. Of
course they are too old to have VR built into the lens, but that
doesn't matter because Sony has put the VR in the camera body. And as
any photographer serious enough to read serious technical reviews of
lenses ought to know, Sony's latest expensive high quality lenses seem
to be up to the old Minolta standards.

--
Chris Malcolm