If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
D300 took years to fall to 1/2 price. D7000 took months.
In article , me
wrote: Do you KNOW how many Nikon users are enraged that a D400 was never produced?? it was called the d7000/7100. Having just picked up a 7100 this week, as my D200/D300 each exhibit various fallings, I would say it is immediately apparent upon picking it up that it not in the class a 400 would be. what features would you put in a d400 that the d7100 lacks? Bigger buffer, real weather sealing, better release mechanism on the door to flash memory, controls layout similar to D200/300. It reminds me of the my old D70. The release mode dial and lock button are quite difficult to operate even with very thin Head digital activity gloves on. Forget about operating it with any real gloves on. Doesn't even have a way to use a snap on monitor protector. Heck, the D70 even had one of those. This is just after one morning's shooting. What nospam, no come back? the weather sealing is the same as a d300. the buffer isn't as big, but that's rarely an issue in most situations. the control layout and door mechanism are *very* subjective and slrs are a rule are hard to use with gloves anyway. nikon decided to position a camera above the top selling d70/d80/d90 series that's in many ways a successor for the d200/d300 (not all, nor does it need to be all). they also positioned the d600 for roughly what the d400 would likely have been. it many ways, it is also a successor to the d300 series. in other words, the d300 split into something a little above and a little below, with both being successors. thats a good thing. now the user has a choice of two paths. there would have been a lot of overlap had there been a d400 and given the success of the d7000/d7100, they chose well. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
D300 took years to fall to 1/2 price. D7000 took months.
On 3/16/2014 5:26 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , me wrote: Do you KNOW how many Nikon users are enraged that a D400 was never produced?? it was called the d7000/7100. Having just picked up a 7100 this week, as my D200/D300 each exhibit various fallings, I would say it is immediately apparent upon picking it up that it not in the class a 400 would be. what features would you put in a d400 that the d7100 lacks? Bigger buffer, real weather sealing, better release mechanism on the door to flash memory, controls layout similar to D200/300. It reminds me of the my old D70. The release mode dial and lock button are quite difficult to operate even with very thin Head digital activity gloves on. Forget about operating it with any real gloves on. Doesn't even have a way to use a snap on monitor protector. Heck, the D70 even had one of those. This is just after one morning's shooting. What nospam, no come back? the weather sealing is the same as a d300. the buffer isn't as big, but that's rarely an issue in most situations. the control layout and door mechanism are *very* subjective and slrs are a rule are hard to use with gloves anyway. nikon decided to position a camera above the top selling d70/d80/d90 series that's in many ways a successor for the d200/d300 (not all, nor does it need to be all). they also positioned the d600 for roughly what the d400 would likely have been. it many ways, it is also a successor to the d300 series. in other words, the d300 split into something a little above and a little below, with both being successors. thats a good thing. now the user has a choice of two paths. there would have been a lot of overlap had there been a d400 and given the success of the d7000/d7100, they chose well. Ah! The marketing expert speaks yet again. -- PeterN |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
D300 took years to fall to 1/2 price. D7000 took months.
In article , PeterN
wrote: Ah! The marketing expert speaks yet again. go bitch at nikon and tell them they're wrong. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
D300 took years to fall to 1/2 price. D7000 took months.
On 3/17/2014 8:52 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote: Ah! The marketing expert speaks yet again. go bitch at nikon and tell them they're wrong. it's you who knows all about their motives.I humbly apologize for questioning yet another of your pontifications. -- PeterN |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
D300 took years to fall to 1/2 price. D7000 took months.
In article , PeterN
wrote: Ah! The marketing expert speaks yet again. go bitch at nikon and tell them they're wrong. it's you who knows all about their motives.I humbly apologize for questioning yet another of your pontifications. they didn't pick their strategy at random. i'm *quite* sure that nikon knows *way* more about the camera industry than you do (not that would be difficult). nikon decided that they wanted to have something between the d90 and d300 and between the d300 and d700. it's worked out well (other than some manufacturing issues). but feel free to set them straight. maybe they could use your supposed expertise. or maybe they'll just laugh at your stupidity. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
D300 took years to fall to 1/2 price. D7000 took months.
On 3/17/2014 8:26 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote: Ah! The marketing expert speaks yet again. go bitch at nikon and tell them they're wrong. it's you who knows all about their motives.I humbly apologize for questioning yet another of your pontifications. they didn't pick their strategy at random. i'm *quite* sure that nikon knows *way* more about the camera industry than you do (not that would be difficult). nikon decided that they wanted to have something between the d90 and d300 and between the d300 and d700. it's worked out well (other than some manufacturing issues). but feel free to set them straight. maybe they could use your supposed expertise. or maybe they'll just laugh at your stupidity. You are amazing. Here's another question that you will not directly answer. Just exactly where did I criticize Nikon? Indeed I marvel at you knowledge of the thinking of a successful Japanese company. BTW It would be interesting to know how you have even a rudimentary understanding of Japanese culture. My understanding comes from years of acting as a business and legal adviser to Japanese and Korean corporations, whose names would be familiar to you. -- PeterN |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
D300 took years to fall to 1/2 price. D7000 took months.
In article , PeterN
wrote: Here's another question that you will not directly answer. wrong. Just exactly where did I criticize Nikon? try to keep up. i told you the reasons why nikon did what they did and then you tried to turn it into a bash me session, which of course failed, as it always does. what you refuse to acknowledge is that nikon has their reasons for splitting the d300 line as they did. they know more about the camera industry than you or i do. if you think you know better, go tell them they're wrong. good luck. Indeed I marvel at you knowledge of the thinking of a successful Japanese company. BTW It would be interesting to know how you have even a rudimentary understanding of Japanese culture. My understanding comes from years of acting as a business and legal adviser to Japanese and Korean corporations, whose names would be familiar to you. i wasn't commenting on the japanese culture. more of your twisting. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
D300 took years to fall to 1/2 price. D7000 took months.
On 3/17/2014 10:27 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote: Here's another question that you will not directly answer. wrong. Just exactly where did I criticize Nikon? try to keep up. i told you the reasons why nikon did what they did and then you tried to turn it into a bash me session, which of course failed, as it always does. what you refuse to acknowledge is that nikon has their reasons for splitting the d300 line as they did. they know more about the camera industry than you or i do. if you think you know better, go tell them they're wrong. good luck. Stop twisting. Do answer the question. You gave very specific reasons that were stated as fact, not opinion. I challenged the basis for your statement. In response you accuse me of Nikon bashing. As I suspected, we have seen no clear comment from you where I bashed Nikon. You do have to learn the difference between fact and opinion. Indeed I marvel at you knowledge of the thinking of a successful Japanese company. BTW It would be interesting to know how you have even a rudimentary understanding of Japanese culture. My understanding comes from years of acting as a business and legal adviser to Japanese and Korean corporations, whose names would be familiar to you. i wasn't commenting on the japanese culture. more of your twisting. Because you understand neither. -- PeterN |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
D300 took years to fall to 1/2 price. D7000 took months.
In article , PeterN
wrote: Just exactly where did I criticize Nikon? try to keep up. i told you the reasons why nikon did what they did and then you tried to turn it into a bash me session, which of course failed, as it always does. what you refuse to acknowledge is that nikon has their reasons for splitting the d300 line as they did. they know more about the camera industry than you or i do. if you think you know better, go tell them they're wrong. good luck. Stop twisting. Do answer the question. You gave very specific reasons that were stated as fact, not opinion. i'm not twisting anything and i did answer it. you just don't like the answer you got. look at what nikon did with the d300-d7000/d600 transition. it's obvious. too bad if you can't see it. maybe you ought to stfu. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
D300 took years to fall to 1/2 price. D7000 took months.
On 3/18/2014 8:50 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote: Just exactly where did I criticize Nikon? try to keep up. i told you the reasons why nikon did what they did and then you tried to turn it into a bash me session, which of course failed, as it always does. what you refuse to acknowledge is that nikon has their reasons for splitting the d300 line as they did. they know more about the camera industry than you or i do. if you think you know better, go tell them they're wrong. good luck. Stop twisting. Do answer the question. You gave very specific reasons that were stated as fact, not opinion. i'm not twisting anything and i did answer it. you just don't like the answer you got. look at what nikon did with the d300-d7000/d600 transition. it's obvious. too bad if you can't see it. maybe you ought to stfu. "Just exactly where did I criticize Nikon?" It is a clear and unambiguous question. It does not require a rant, just a reference: I asked that question in response to the following statement by you: "but feel free to set them straight. maybe they could use your supposed expertise. or maybe they'll just laugh at your stupidity." To paraphrase: I am still waiting for my answer. I anticipate a long wait, so I will do other thngs while waiting. -- PeterN |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
D7000 | C J Campbell[_2_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | October 30th 10 02:49 AM |
D7000 | Robert Coe | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | October 29th 10 02:42 AM |
Better in low light: D7000 or D300? | Don Wiss | Digital SLR Cameras | 23 | October 23rd 10 10:50 AM |
Hey Noons, Has it Really Been 6 Months? | tony cooper | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | May 31st 09 05:26 AM |