Nikon D2x - it's official

(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.

(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.

From: (Steven Scharf)

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.

Why would Canon want the D2X to be a competitor for the Mark II?

From: (Steven Scharf)

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.

Why would Canon want the D2X to be a competitor for the Mark II?

From: (Steven Scharf)

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.

Why would Canon want the D2X to be a competitor for the Mark II?

Steven, Steven, Steven,

Your bias is getting in the way of your thinking. I laughed it off with the
Sigmas, since they, well, crap, but please.

You're entitled to your opinion, but don't count on everyone agreeing with
you. Your opionions do not make fact.

Tom
"Steven Scharf" wrote in message
om...
(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.

Steven, Steven, Steven,

Your bias is getting in the way of your thinking. I laughed it off with the
Sigmas, since they, well, crap, but please.

You're entitled to your opinion, but don't count on everyone agreeing with
you. Your opionions do not make fact.

Tom
"Steven Scharf" wrote in message
om...
(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.

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
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.


The photojournalist of tomorrow will just be a robot, that carries the
automatic digital camera into the disaster scene, and creates images until
he/it is consumed by fire, or makes it out the other side to safety.....The
publisher will be on the other end, looking at the images, and operating the
controls accordingly......

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
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.


The photojournalist of tomorrow will just be a robot, that carries the
automatic digital camera into the disaster scene, and creates images until
he/it is consumed by fire, or makes it out the other side to safety.....The
publisher will be on the other end, looking at the images, and operating the
controls accordingly......

"Steven Scharf"


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.


LOL. Keep saying it over and over until you believe it.

HMc