Nikon D2x - it's official

TP wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

One scary thought about that. If the editor is then the sole individual who
chooses the images, is there really much need for talent from the
photojournalist? Many news events could almost be covered in a sweeping and
careless P&S manner, letting the editor figure it all out at the office.

In what way is that different to current practice?

F/8 and be there!

;-)

The big difference is that the photojournalist would never see all the images
he shot. The editor could just pack up the laptop, and that would be the last
of any review. The infamous "all right" contracts are already in place at many
news organizations, and the wireless instant transmission of images is yet one
more way to take images from photojournalists. These things really make me
wonder why anyone would now get involved in photojournalism.

I am curious to see how the Digital Journalist web site views this latest
technology development. It makes it even easier for each news organization and
editor to even more tightly control images. That is why it is such a bad
development, despite possible advantages.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

TP wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

One scary thought about that. If the editor is then the sole individual who
chooses the images, is there really much need for talent from the
photojournalist? Many news events could almost be covered in a sweeping and
careless P&S manner, letting the editor figure it all out at the office.

In what way is that different to current practice?

F/8 and be there!

;-)

The big difference is that the photojournalist would never see all the images
he shot. The editor could just pack up the laptop, and that would be the last
of any review. The infamous "all right" contracts are already in place at many
news organizations, and the wireless instant transmission of images is yet one
more way to take images from photojournalists. These things really make me
wonder why anyone would now get involved in photojournalism.

I am curious to see how the Digital Journalist web site views this latest
technology development. It makes it even easier for each news organization and
editor to even more tightly control images. That is why it is such a bad
development, despite possible advantages.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

TP wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

One scary thought about that. If the editor is then the sole individual who
chooses the images, is there really much need for talent from the
photojournalist? Many news events could almost be covered in a sweeping and
careless P&S manner, letting the editor figure it all out at the office.

In what way is that different to current practice?

F/8 and be there!

;-)

The big difference is that the photojournalist would never see all the images
he shot. The editor could just pack up the laptop, and that would be the last
of any review. The infamous "all right" contracts are already in place at many
news organizations, and the wireless instant transmission of images is yet one
more way to take images from photojournalists. These things really make me
wonder why anyone would now get involved in photojournalism.

I am curious to see how the Digital Journalist web site views this latest
technology development. It makes it even easier for each news organization and
editor to even more tightly control images. That is why it is such a bad
development, despite possible advantages.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

Gordon Moat wrote:

TP wrote:


Gordon Moat wrote:

One scary thought about that. If the editor is then the sole individual who
chooses the images, is there really much need for talent from the
photojournalist? Many news events could almost be covered in a sweeping and
careless P&S manner, letting the editor figure it all out at the office.

In what way is that different to current practice?

F/8 and be there!

;-)


The big difference is that the photojournalist would never see all the images
he shot. The editor could just pack up the laptop, and that would be the last
of any review. The infamous "all right" contracts are already in place at many
news organizations, and the wireless instant transmission of images is yet one
more way to take images from photojournalists. These things really make me
wonder why anyone would now get involved in photojournalism.

I am curious to see how the Digital Journalist web site views this latest
technology development. It makes it even easier for each news organization and
editor to even more tightly control images. That is why it is such a bad
development, despite possible advantages.

A Nat Geo photog off somewhere in the world probably never sees
even 10% of his shots. An assignment running 20,000 to 30,000
images and more, all couriered in prior to development and
sorted, selected and merged with the story... the rest get
indexed and stored ...

Cheers,A
Alan.


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

Gordon Moat wrote:

TP wrote:


Gordon Moat wrote:

One scary thought about that. If the editor is then the sole individual who
chooses the images, is there really much need for talent from the
photojournalist? Many news events could almost be covered in a sweeping and
careless P&S manner, letting the editor figure it all out at the office.

In what way is that different to current practice?

F/8 and be there!

;-)


The big difference is that the photojournalist would never see all the images
he shot. The editor could just pack up the laptop, and that would be the last
of any review. The infamous "all right" contracts are already in place at many
news organizations, and the wireless instant transmission of images is yet one
more way to take images from photojournalists. These things really make me
wonder why anyone would now get involved in photojournalism.

I am curious to see how the Digital Journalist web site views this latest
technology development. It makes it even easier for each news organization and
editor to even more tightly control images. That is why it is such a bad
development, despite possible advantages.

A Nat Geo photog off somewhere in the world probably never sees
even 10% of his shots. An assignment running 20,000 to 30,000
images and more, all couriered in prior to development and
sorted, selected and merged with the story... the rest get
indexed and stored ...

Cheers,A
Alan.


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

Gordon Moat wrote:

TP wrote:


Gordon Moat wrote:

One scary thought about that. If the editor is then the sole individual who
chooses the images, is there really much need for talent from the
photojournalist? Many news events could almost be covered in a sweeping and
careless P&S manner, letting the editor figure it all out at the office.

In what way is that different to current practice?

F/8 and be there!

;-)


The big difference is that the photojournalist would never see all the images
he shot. The editor could just pack up the laptop, and that would be the last
of any review. The infamous "all right" contracts are already in place at many
news organizations, and the wireless instant transmission of images is yet one
more way to take images from photojournalists. These things really make me
wonder why anyone would now get involved in photojournalism.

I am curious to see how the Digital Journalist web site views this latest
technology development. It makes it even easier for each news organization and
editor to even more tightly control images. That is why it is such a bad
development, despite possible advantages.

A Nat Geo photog off somewhere in the world probably never sees
even 10% of his shots. An assignment running 20,000 to 30,000
images and more, all couriered in prior to development and
sorted, selected and merged with the story... the rest get
indexed and stored ...

Cheers,A
Alan.


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

Alan Browne wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

TP wrote:


Gordon Moat wrote:

One scary thought about that. If the editor is then the sole individual who
chooses the images, is there really much need for talent from the
photojournalist? Many news events could almost be covered in a sweeping and
careless P&S manner, letting the editor figure it all out at the office.

In what way is that different to current practice?

F/8 and be there!

;-)


The big difference is that the photojournalist would never see all the images
he shot. The editor could just pack up the laptop, and that would be the last
of any review. The infamous "all right" contracts are already in place at many
news organizations, and the wireless instant transmission of images is yet one
more way to take images from photojournalists. These things really make me
wonder why anyone would now get involved in photojournalism.

I am curious to see how the Digital Journalist web site views this latest
technology development. It makes it even easier for each news organization and
editor to even more tightly control images. That is why it is such a bad
development, despite possible advantages.

A Nat Geo photog off somewhere in the world probably never sees
even 10% of his shots. An assignment running 20,000 to 30,000
images and more, all couriered in prior to development and
sorted, selected and merged with the story... the rest get
indexed and stored ...

I know the new technology does not create a unique situation, but the possibility
at least existed previously for the photojournalist to review their images. Whether
the photographer made a choice in the past not to review their images is another
matter. With the newer technology, the possibility could be removed entirely, and
very easily. That is what I find disturbing.

Also, anything moving through wireless communication could easily be intercepted
and redirected, or simply erased. While I would imagine encryption is part of this
technology, it is amazing how many people leave wireless networks either on default
settings, or just wide open. I think we will hear more about this newest technology
soon.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

Alan Browne wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

TP wrote:


Gordon Moat wrote:

One scary thought about that. If the editor is then the sole individual who
chooses the images, is there really much need for talent from the
photojournalist? Many news events could almost be covered in a sweeping and
careless P&S manner, letting the editor figure it all out at the office.

In what way is that different to current practice?

F/8 and be there!

;-)


The big difference is that the photojournalist would never see all the images
he shot. The editor could just pack up the laptop, and that would be the last
of any review. The infamous "all right" contracts are already in place at many
news organizations, and the wireless instant transmission of images is yet one
more way to take images from photojournalists. These things really make me
wonder why anyone would now get involved in photojournalism.

I am curious to see how the Digital Journalist web site views this latest
technology development. It makes it even easier for each news organization and
editor to even more tightly control images. That is why it is such a bad
development, despite possible advantages.

A Nat Geo photog off somewhere in the world probably never sees
even 10% of his shots. An assignment running 20,000 to 30,000
images and more, all couriered in prior to development and
sorted, selected and merged with the story... the rest get
indexed and stored ...

I know the new technology does not create a unique situation, but the possibility
at least existed previously for the photojournalist to review their images. Whether
the photographer made a choice in the past not to review their images is another
matter. With the newer technology, the possibility could be removed entirely, and
very easily. That is what I find disturbing.

Also, anything moving through wireless communication could easily be intercepted
and redirected, or simply erased. While I would imagine encryption is part of this
technology, it is amazing how many people leave wireless networks either on default
settings, or just wide open. I think we will hear more about this newest technology
soon.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

Alan Browne wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

TP wrote:


Gordon Moat wrote:

One scary thought about that. If the editor is then the sole individual who
chooses the images, is there really much need for talent from the
photojournalist? Many news events could almost be covered in a sweeping and
careless P&S manner, letting the editor figure it all out at the office.

In what way is that different to current practice?

F/8 and be there!

;-)


The big difference is that the photojournalist would never see all the images
he shot. The editor could just pack up the laptop, and that would be the last
of any review. The infamous "all right" contracts are already in place at many
news organizations, and the wireless instant transmission of images is yet one
more way to take images from photojournalists. These things really make me
wonder why anyone would now get involved in photojournalism.

I am curious to see how the Digital Journalist web site views this latest
technology development. It makes it even easier for each news organization and
editor to even more tightly control images. That is why it is such a bad
development, despite possible advantages.

A Nat Geo photog off somewhere in the world probably never sees
even 10% of his shots. An assignment running 20,000 to 30,000
images and more, all couriered in prior to development and
sorted, selected and merged with the story... the rest get
indexed and stored ...

I know the new technology does not create a unique situation, but the possibility
at least existed previously for the photojournalist to review their images. Whether
the photographer made a choice in the past not to review their images is another
matter. With the newer technology, the possibility could be removed entirely, and
very easily. That is what I find disturbing.

Also, anything moving through wireless communication could easily be intercepted
and redirected, or simply erased. While I would imagine encryption is part of this
technology, it is amazing how many people leave wireless networks either on default
settings, or just wide open. I think we will hear more about this newest technology
soon.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

(bayydogg) wrote in message . com...
nikon has a way to promote a deficiency, so kudos to them for making
something negative look positive. there probably was no way nikon
could squeeze 8fps from a 12.4mp camera, and they know they need 8fps
to satisfy the sports market.

The professional sports segment of photography went the Canon route
beginning when the EOS system was introduced. The D2X isn't going to
win it back with this funky feature.

OTOH, the professional portrait and landscape market won't stand for a
1.5 crop factor, it's just too limiting. 1.3 is a reasonable
compromise of price versus sensor size, but 1.5 is too large of a crop
factor.

The D2X competes favorably against the Canon EOS 20D, but it's not
going a competitor to the 1D Mark II, no matter how much Canon wishes
it was.

Nikon desperately needs a larger sensor.