Poor Dpreview. Forced to review rubbish like this because ofthe Japan slowdown and camera release pull-backs

On 6/1/2011 8:20 AM, RichA wrote:
http://dpreview.com/reviews/nikonp300/page10.asp

That list of "cons" is really terrible. $325.00 for that camera? Not
in this lifetime.

Even more amazing is that they gave this POS a 70% rating.

Bruce wrote in
:

RichA wrote:
On Jun 1, 1:19*pm, Bruce wrote:
Bowser wrote:
On 6/1/2011 8:20 AM, RichA wrote:
http://dpreview.com/reviews/nikonp300/page10.asp

That list of "cons" is really terrible. *$325.00 for that camera?
*Not in this lifetime.

Even more amazing is that they gave this POS a 70% rating.

Nikon lost its way with P&S digicams several years ago, and there is
no sign of getting back on track. *


Remember the Coolpix 990/5 and 8800 with tears in your eyes.


I'm not sure about the tears, but I agree that those two were probably
the last good Nikon P&S digicams. The 995 was introduced in 2001 and
the 8800 in 2005. Says it all, really.



I'd suggest to Nikon, forget any more forays into the +$400 realm (not
that particular camera) P&S's, then resurrect the 2/3" sensor, limit it
to 10 megapixels and give it interchangeable lenses.

RichA wrote:
On Jun 1, 1:19 pm, Bruce wrote:
Bowser wrote:
On 6/1/2011 8:20 AM, RichA wrote:
http://dpreview.com/reviews/nikonp300/page10.asp

That list of "cons" is really terrible. $325.00 for that camera?
Not in this lifetime.

Even more amazing is that they gave this POS a 70% rating.

Some of the features (fast 24mm equiv. at the short end, built-in HDR, a few
interesting trick "filters") I think give it a certain appeal for buyers
interested in those things -- and anyway it won't be selling for $325 very
long; like most recent Coolpixes it will quickly come down in price, I'll
bet.


Nikon lost its way with P&S digicams several years ago, and there is
no sign of getting back on track.


Remember the Coolpix 990/5 and 8800 with tears in your eyes.

And the 8400, and even the slightly earlier 8700.

Happily, I don't have to remember 'em, I bought all three 8xxx models new
and don't expect ever to sell them. While they have some shortcomings
compared to newer hardware (chiefly, the almost comically small LCDs) they
are still impressive cameras.

But there just isn't a market for magnesium-bodied cameras of those types
anymore. They'd be too expensive to build today, and could never compete
with plastic-bodied DSLRs.

On 6/1/2011 10:24 PM, Rich wrote:
snip
I'd suggest to Nikon, forget any more forays into the +$400 realm (not
that particular camera) P&S's, then resurrect the 2/3" sensor, limit it
to 10 megapixels and give it interchangeable lenses.

Exactly what qualifications do you have that Nikon, or any other
business entity would take anything you say seriously.


--
Peter

On 6/2/2011 8:26 AM, RichA wrote:

No camera ever meets someone's requirements 100%, until the Japanese
embrace modularity. Until then, anyone is free to say anything they
want.



And you illustrate the point perfectly, that it is not necessary to have
any knowledge to spout.



--
Peter

On 6/2/2011 8:26 AM, RichA wrote:
On Jun 2, 12:25 am, wrote:
On 6/1/2011 10:24 PM, Rich wrote:
snip

I'd suggest to Nikon, forget any more forays into the +$400 realm (not
that particular camera) P&S's, then resurrect the 2/3" sensor, limit it
to 10 megapixels and give it interchangeable lenses.

Exactly what qualifications do you have that Nikon, or any other
business entity would take anything you say seriously.

--
Peter

I buy and use a lot of cameras? Unlike professional reviewers who
seem to have cameras (or claim they do) for months and miss all the
problems the users find.

Specifically?
Does your use of cameras give you any more qualifications to give
business advice?

Have you done cost analysis, on behalf of the business entity.
And what about market research.

--
Peter

RichA wrote:
On Jun 1, 10:59 pm, "Neil Harrington" wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Jun 1, 1:19 pm, Bruce wrote:
Bowser wrote:
On 6/1/2011 8:20 AM, RichA wrote:
http://dpreview.com/reviews/nikonp300/page10.asp

That list of "cons" is really terrible. $325.00 for that camera?
Not in this lifetime.

Even more amazing is that they gave this POS a 70% rating.

Some of the features (fast 24mm equiv. at the short end, built-in
HDR, a few interesting trick "filters") I think give it a certain
appeal for buyers interested in those things -- and anyway it won't
be selling for $325 very long; like most recent Coolpixes it will
quickly come down in price, I'll bet.



Nikon lost its way with P&S digicams several years ago, and there
is no sign of getting back on track.

Remember the Coolpix 990/5 and 8800 with tears in your eyes.

And the 8400, and even the slightly earlier 8700.

Happily, I don't have to remember 'em, I bought all three 8xxx
models new and don't expect ever to sell them. While they have some
shortcomings compared to newer hardware (chiefly, the almost
comically small LCDs) they are still impressive cameras.

But there just isn't a market for magnesium-bodied cameras of those
types anymore. They'd be too expensive to build today, and could
never compete with plastic-bodied DSLRs.

No, but a small body with small (within telephoto lens and speed
constraints) lenses could be a seller at $800 or so.
Sony's NEX seems to be doing pretty well. I think.

Hmmm. I got the idea from some review or other that the NEXs weren't that
popular, but I may have misinterpreted something. I haven't had much
interest in Sony stuff anyway.

Checking Adorama just now, I see that most of Sony's other
interchangeable-lens cameras, both conventional DSLRs and the pellicle
models, are "currently back ordered" and with "no estimated time of
arrival." I wonder what that signifies? Is Sony dropping all other ILCs and
concentrating entirely on the NEX line, I wonder?

I think I'd better eBay off my load of Maxxum lenses. Probably should have
done that already.

On 6/2/2011 12:11 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Jun 1, 10:59 pm, "Neil wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Jun 1, 1:19 pm, wrote:
wrote:
On 6/1/2011 8:20 AM, RichA wrote:
http://dpreview.com/reviews/nikonp300/page10.asp

That list of "cons" is really terrible. $325.00 for that camera?
Not in this lifetime.

Even more amazing is that they gave this POS a 70% rating.

Some of the features (fast 24mm equiv. at the short end, built-in
HDR, a few interesting trick "filters") I think give it a certain
appeal for buyers interested in those things -- and anyway it won't
be selling for $325 very long; like most recent Coolpixes it will
quickly come down in price, I'll bet.



Nikon lost its way with P&S digicams several years ago, and there
is no sign of getting back on track.

Remember the Coolpix 990/5 and 8800 with tears in your eyes.

And the 8400, and even the slightly earlier 8700.

Happily, I don't have to remember 'em, I bought all three 8xxx
models new and don't expect ever to sell them. While they have some
shortcomings compared to newer hardware (chiefly, the almost
comically small LCDs) they are still impressive cameras.

But there just isn't a market for magnesium-bodied cameras of those
types anymore. They'd be too expensive to build today, and could
never compete with plastic-bodied DSLRs.

No, but a small body with small (within telephoto lens and speed
constraints) lenses could be a seller at $800 or so.
Sony's NEX seems to be doing pretty well. I think.

Hmmm. I got the idea from some review or other that the NEXs weren't that
popular, but I may have misinterpreted something. I haven't had much
interest in Sony stuff anyway.

Checking Adorama just now, I see that most of Sony's other
interchangeable-lens cameras, both conventional DSLRs and the pellicle
models, are "currently back ordered" and with "no estimated time of
arrival." I wonder what that signifies? Is Sony dropping all other ILCs and
concentrating entirely on the NEX line, I wonder?

I think I'd better eBay off my load of Maxxum lenses. Probably should have
done that already.


I wouldn't change my socks, based upon something rich posts.

--
Peter

On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 12:44:49 -0400, PeterN
wrote:


I wouldn't change my socks, based upon something rich posts.

That comma placement is funny enough to comment on. The meaning given
by that placement is that you refuse to change your socks because of
something Rich posted. I hope that's not what you meant.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 6/2/2011 8:59 AM, Bruce wrote:
wrote:
I buy and use a lot of cameras? Unlike professional reviewers who
seem to have cameras (or claim they do) for months and miss all the
problems the users find.


Many so-called "professional reviewers" get someone else to do the
testing. Then they write an article based on the other person's
conclusions, usually without giving them any recognition.

Many less-than-professional reviewers *have never even touched* the
equipment they are "reviewing", let alone used it.

Did I hear the name Ken Rockwell mentioned?


Many "reviewers" are swayed by offers to keep the equipment they
review, either for free or for a silly cheap price. This almost
guarantees a favourable "review".

Some manufacturers send review samples that are carefully selected or
even hand built to ensure good performance and therefore a good
"review".

Samples of cheap lenses suddenly acquire stellar performance
characteristics through selection and/or careful centering of lens
elements. They get great reviews, but no-one can ever buy one in a
store that performs remotely as well as the review sample.

Finally, a manufacturer/importer with a healthy advertising budget can
use the fear of withdrawal of their advertising account as an
incentive to encourage positive magazine reviews.

All of this has gone on for decades.

The only way to be sure that you got a good item is to buy it from a
store with a good returns policy and test it yourself. If it falls
short, return it. But most people just trust reviews.