Nikon D800/E $3000, cheaper than I thought

On 2012-02-06 20:17:57 -0800, RichA said:

I figured they'd ask $3600 or so. Kiss the $8000 D3x goodbye...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02...0_D800E_launch

Why is it I find "cheaper than I thought" a poor choice of words to
describe the cost of these cameras?

Perhaps "less expensive than anticipated" might have been better. $3000
is certainly not "cheap".

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-02-07 16:30:04 -0500, Savageduck said:

On 2012-02-06 20:17:57 -0800, RichA said:

I figured they'd ask $3600 or so. Kiss the $8000 D3x goodbye...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02...0_D800E_launch

Why is it I find "cheaper than I thought" a poor choice of words to
describe the cost of these cameras?

Perhaps "less expensive than anticipated" might have been better. $3000
is certainly not "cheap".

in 1969 I got a Nikon F Photomic FTN with the f/1.4 50mm lens for about
$350 at a major photo store in NYC. American Market, not gray market.
For those who don't remember, the Photomic FTN version of the F was
considered to be the standard pro camera, and except for Leico
afficianados, was the best 36mm camera available. If you think about
it, cars are more than 10X the cost now as then, private colleges are
close to 20x their cost at that time. So $3000 for a "top of the line"
pro camera is not "uncheap."
assuming, of course, the D800 is the "top of the line" pro Nikon DSLR.
Which it may not be. How does it compare with the D3's?
--
Michael

"Bruce" wrote:
Savageduck wrote:

On 2012-02-06 20:17:57 -0800, RichA said:

I figured they'd ask $3600 or so. Kiss the $8000 D3x goodbye...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02...0_D800E_launch

Why is it I find "cheaper than I thought" a poor choice of words to
describe the cost of these cameras?

Perhaps "less expensive than anticipated" might have been better. $3000
is certainly not "cheap".

It is considerably cheaper than any other option with 30 MP. That
doesn't make it "cheap", though.

But what does make it cheap is that when the original 5D came out, the
US$2995 or so would buy you 345,000 Japanese Yen. Today, US$3,000 only gets
you 228,000 Yen.

So I call it as being an increadibly cheap increadibly good deal.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:10:45 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:
:
: "Bruce" wrote:
: Savageduck wrote:
:
: On 2012-02-06 20:17:57 -0800, RichA said:
:
: I figured they'd ask $3600 or so. Kiss the $8000 D3x goodbye...
:
: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02...0_D800E_launch
:
: Why is it I find "cheaper than I thought" a poor choice of words to
: describe the cost of these cameras?
:
: Perhaps "less expensive than anticipated" might have been better. $3000
: is certainly not "cheap".
:
: It is considerably cheaper than any other option with 30 MP. That
: doesn't make it "cheap", though.
:
: But what does make it cheap is that when the original 5D came out, the
: US$2995 or so would buy you 345,000 Japanese Yen. Today, US$3,000 only gets
: you 228,000 Yen.
:
: So I call it as being an increadibly cheap increadibly good deal.

Says the man without a collection of Canon lenses. While we Canonians continue
to sit here and wonder whether there will ever even be a 5D3. And whether we
can afford one if there is. :^|

Bob

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in
:


"Bruce" wrote:
Savageduck wrote:

On 2012-02-06 20:17:57 -0800, RichA said:

I figured they'd ask $3600 or so. Kiss the $8000 D3x goodbye...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02...0_D800E_launch

Why is it I find "cheaper than I thought" a poor choice of words to
describe the cost of these cameras?

Perhaps "less expensive than anticipated" might have been better.
$3000 is certainly not "cheap".

It is considerably cheaper than any other option with 30 MP. That
doesn't make it "cheap", though.

But what does make it cheap is that when the original 5D came out, the
US$2995 or so would buy you 345,000 Japanese Yen. Today, US$3,000 only
gets you 228,000 Yen.

So I call it as being an increadibly cheap increadibly good deal.


True, since it is still going to be made in Japan and not China or
Thailand. But then shifting production there yields reductions across
the lines.

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:48:41 -0500, Michael wrote:
: On 2012-02-07 16:30:04 -0500, Savageduck said:
:
: On 2012-02-06 20:17:57 -0800, RichA said:
:
: I figured they'd ask $3600 or so. Kiss the $8000 D3x goodbye...
:
: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02...0_D800E_launch
:
: Why is it I find "cheaper than I thought" a poor choice of words
: to describe the cost of these cameras?
:
: Perhaps "less expensive than anticipated" might have been better.
: $3000 is certainly not "cheap".
:
: in 1969 I got a Nikon F Photomic FTN with the f/1.4 50mm lens for
: about $350 at a major photo store in NYC. American Market, not gray
: market. For those who don't remember, the Photomic FTN version of
: the F was considered to be the standard pro camera, and except for
: Leica afficianados, was the best 36mm camera available. If you think
: about it, cars are more than 10X the cost now as then, private
: colleges are close to 20x their cost at that time. So $3000 for a
: "top of the line" pro camera is not "uncheap."
: assuming, of course, the D800 is the "top of the line" pro Nikon
: DSLR. Which it may not be. How does it compare with the D3's?

What we have here, I presume, is an omissive disparagement of the D4.

Bob

"Robert Coe" wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:10:45 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
:
: I figured they'd ask $3600 or so. Kiss the $8000 D3x goodbye...
:
: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02...0_D800E_launch
:
: Why is it I find "cheaper than I thought" a poor choice of words to
: describe the cost of these cameras?
:
: Perhaps "less expensive than anticipated" might have been better.
$3000
: is certainly not "cheap".
:
: It is considerably cheaper than any other option with 30 MP. That
: doesn't make it "cheap", though.
:
: But what does make it cheap is that when the original 5D came out, the
: US$2995 or so would buy you 345,000 Japanese Yen. Today, US$3,000 only
gets
: you 228,000 Yen.
:
: So I call it as being an increadibly cheap increadibly good deal.

Says the man without a collection of Canon lenses.

You mean the 17-40, Zeiss 21/2.8, 24TSE II, Voightlander 40/2.0, 50/1.4,
Stigma 70/2.8, 100/2.0, and 70-200/4.0 IS don't collectively count as "a
collection of Canon lenses"? ROFL.

While we Canonians continue
to sit here and wonder whether there will ever even be a 5D3. And whether
we
can afford one if there is. :^|

Well, my thought was that since Nikon held the price at US$3,000, we
Canonistas should be screaming "THANK YOU" at Nikon.

Here, I don't really need a 5D3. At 13x19, 5D2 images are gorgeous even with
one's nose on the print. I find that I can't push either 5D or 5D2 ISO 100
images 2 stops without things getting a bit funky, so if the 5D3 would allow
a 3-stop push that looked better than a 5D or 5D2 2-stop push, I'd probably
go for it. But in real life, correctly exposed 5D2 ISO 200 images are
breathtaking.

Also, 36MP is nearly twice as much data, for a 30% increase in resolution.
I'd have to print at 16x24 to even begin to see that, and for the nonce, I
don't need prints that big. And for the stuff I do, stitching is quite
possible.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On 2/7/2012 9:42 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:

Here, I don't really need a 5D3. At 13x19, 5D2 images are gorgeous even with
one's nose on the print. I find that I can't push either 5D or 5D2 ISO 100
images 2 stops without things getting a bit funky, so if the 5D3 would allow
a 3-stop push that looked better than a 5D or 5D2 2-stop push, I'd probably
go for it. But in real life, correctly exposed 5D2 ISO 200 images are
breathtaking.

Also, 36MP is nearly twice as much data, for a 30% increase in resolution.
I'd have to print at 16x24 to even begin to see that, and for the nonce, I
don't need prints that big. And for the stuff I do, stitching is quite
possible.


All true ... my 30D makes nice pictures. But I'd really love the
improved autofocus of the 7D. When the 5D Mk III comes out, I will
decide whether to get a 7D or go full frame and get the 5D Mk III ..
and buy a new ultrawide lens (16-35) to go with it.

I've got the money, its burning a hole in my pocket ... BUT ...
I 'm a very cheap Scot.

Doug McDonald

On 2/7/2012 10:18 PM, RichA wrote:


Dead-static subjects are the only ones fit for stitching, even
landscapes are unsuitable subjects if any wind is involved.

That's not true with modern stitching software!

I used to think the same thing, that high wind would
result in visible disaster. But it does not. Really.
And neither does handholding the camera for true
landscape panoramas (not architectural ones).
Nor does taking panoramas of waterfalls. Somehow the
'software seems to get it right.

What DOES cause problem in landscape panoramas is moving clouds.
But this can be fixed in Photoshop using "liquify".

Doug McDonald

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:43:10 +0000, Bruce wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
: While we Canonians continue to sit here and wonder whether there will
: ever even be a 5D3. And whether we can afford one if there is. :^|
:
: The Canon EOS 5D Mark III is imminent.
:
: It is just that Nikon got their (D800) retaliation in first. :-)

Canon's first retaliatory shot is an upgrade of their 24-70mm f/2.8 full-frame
walking around lens. If you believe B&H, the price of the new lens comes in at
almost twice the price of the old one. And it doesn't even have the image
stabilization that rumors had predicted. If the price point of the 5D3 is
comparably enriched (relative to the 5D2), there's probably no way I'm going
to be able to afford one.

$2300 for an f/2.8 walker?! The mind reels. Maybe the very absence of IS hints
that Canon considers it a specialty studio lens that will almost always be
used on a tripod-mounted camera. If so, maybe they'll keep the old 24-70 in
production for a while. Do you have any prediction on that score, Bruce?

A month ago I probably wouldn't have cared; FF was the farthest thing from my
mind. But now there's talk of blowing up some of my images to fit the side of
a good-sized truck, and my 7D and 50D seem marginal for that purpose.

Bob