Why the Nikon F6?

Kibo informs me that McLeod stated that:

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 22:11:00 +0000 (UTC), (Geoffrey
S. Mendelson) wrote:

Until someone invents a digital camera that cannot be tampered with (i.e.
the images edited) film cameras will stay in the police and forensics
business.

Police services are using digital now. All it requires is the
officer's or photographic technician's testimony that the image
appears the way they photographed it, exactly the same thing that is
done with film right now.

Not to mention the fact that you can get data-verification gizmos for
Canon digitals (& most likely for other brands) that make it possible to
prove that a digital photo hasn't been altered since it was taken.
Eg:
---------
"Canon’s DVK-E2 Data Verification Kit is designed to work with the
EOS-1Ds and EOS-1D Mark II D-SLR cameras – it provides the facility to
prove that images taken with these cameras have not been tampered with
or manipulated in any way. Commenting on this award, the TIPA judges
stated: “Digital photography has an inherent problem with the
authenticity of images. Anyone can alter the image, making it impossible
to use digital images for forensic photography and other forms of
photography where authenticity is vital. Canon’s Data Verification
Software solves this problem by adding a ‘seal of authenticity’ to
digital images."
---------

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

In article , Scott Chapin wrote:

Actually it's good to know that film is still solid. So many are blindly
bashing it in other forums. I had just figured that there wouldn't be a
strong market for expensive 35mm still cameras, though I don't know what the
street price of the F6 will be.


We get CSI as reruns here in Israel and last night we had a New Year's
treat of 4 in a row. Since the F6 had just been announced I payed close
attention to the cameras they used.

Until someone invents a digital camera that cannot be tampered with (i.e.
the images edited) film cameras will stay in the police and forensics
business.

er, been out for a while actually. And I believe SD memory can
also be used to verify non-tamering of a final image and/or to
produce archive versions that are verifiable originals.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0006/00061402veripic.asp

I have seen reference to a police oriented camera and software
package as well ... google away.




--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

In article , Scott Chapin wrote:

Actually it's good to know that film is still solid. So many are blindly
bashing it in other forums. I had just figured that there wouldn't be a
strong market for expensive 35mm still cameras, though I don't know what the
street price of the F6 will be.


We get CSI as reruns here in Israel and last night we had a New Year's
treat of 4 in a row. Since the F6 had just been announced I payed close
attention to the cameras they used.

Until someone invents a digital camera that cannot be tampered with (i.e.
the images edited) film cameras will stay in the police and forensics
business.

er, been out for a while actually. And I believe SD memory can
also be used to verify non-tamering of a final image and/or to
produce archive versions that are verifiable originals.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0006/00061402veripic.asp

I have seen reference to a police oriented camera and software
package as well ... google away.




--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Justin F. Knotzke wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:

I'm also (while happy that Nikon have launched a major new film
camera) curious to know how people are reacting to it.


I bought a used F5 about 3 months ago.

I don't get the F6 _at all_.

When I saw the F6 announcement you were #1 in my mind as to those
F5 shooters who might be a little 'wonderous' over the F6.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Justin F. Knotzke wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:

I'm also (while happy that Nikon have launched a major new film
camera) curious to know how people are reacting to it.


I bought a used F5 about 3 months ago.

I don't get the F6 _at all_.

When I saw the F6 announcement you were #1 in my mind as to those
F5 shooters who might be a little 'wonderous' over the F6.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

William Graham wrote:

There is one, little talked about advantage of the heavier bodies....They
are a little more stable for hand-held shooting.....IOW, if you don't have a
tripod, you can take slightly longer exposures with a cast aluminum 2 pound
body than you can with a 1/2 pound plastic one......This is especially true
if you are older and "shakier".......


This has always been a fable to me. Muscles are part of feedback
systems and it is always harder to control something that is
heavier than lighter. Hand hold a big metal camera for an hours
worth of steady shooting and stability becomes harder and harder.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

William Graham wrote:

There is one, little talked about advantage of the heavier bodies....They
are a little more stable for hand-held shooting.....IOW, if you don't have a
tripod, you can take slightly longer exposures with a cast aluminum 2 pound
body than you can with a 1/2 pound plastic one......This is especially true
if you are older and "shakier".......


This has always been a fable to me. Muscles are part of feedback
systems and it is always harder to control something that is
heavier than lighter. Hand hold a big metal camera for an hours
worth of steady shooting and stability becomes harder and harder.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

William Graham wrote:



Well, Nikon has been making the "F" cameras for 45 years now, (since 1959)
and the F model has traditionally been the top of their line in professional
bodies.....I think they wanted to continue that tradition......

One should surmise that Nikon have found sufficient intererest
via their maketing department to validate the investment. A
company with a financially questionable camera division cannot
afford traditions that do not help the bottom line.

The one tradition that Nikon do (properly) depend on is the
F-mount. A strategy that has done well over the long term, but
that is showing strain in terms of various body/lens combos.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

William Graham wrote:



Well, Nikon has been making the "F" cameras for 45 years now, (since 1959)
and the F model has traditionally been the top of their line in professional
bodies.....I think they wanted to continue that tradition......

One should surmise that Nikon have found sufficient intererest
via their maketing department to validate the investment. A
company with a financially questionable camera division cannot
afford traditions that do not help the bottom line.

The one tradition that Nikon do (properly) depend on is the
F-mount. A strategy that has done well over the long term, but
that is showing strain in terms of various body/lens combos.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

William Graham wrote:



Well, Nikon has been making the "F" cameras for 45 years now, (since 1959)
and the F model has traditionally been the top of their line in professional
bodies.....I think they wanted to continue that tradition......

One should surmise that Nikon have found sufficient intererest
via their maketing department to validate the investment. A
company with a financially questionable camera division cannot
afford traditions that do not help the bottom line.

The one tradition that Nikon do (properly) depend on is the
F-mount. A strategy that has done well over the long term, but
that is showing strain in terms of various body/lens combos.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--