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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Response from Nikon on their ****-take upgrade to D3.
I feel your pain, but this is just the facts of life as the technology
develops. Take, for instance, the fact that the D700 has sensor cleaning with the same chip as the D3. Obviously Nikon would have loved to put that in the D3 as well, but at a certain point they had to introduce a working model to market. If they had waited six months more to introduce the D3 perhaps they would have had the sensor cleaner ready, but that is then six months of lost sales. Actually I applaud Nikon for making the memory upgrade available, even at a cost. What other manufacturer ever offered an optional upgrade of this type? If you want or need the extra buffer it is available without you having to buy a new camera. And it would make no sense to just put it in all new D3s, as Nikon would then be obligated to upgrade all existing bodies at no cost. My guess is that soon there will be a new model with the sensor cleaner, upgraded buffer and perhaps a few other refinements. Me, I'm waiting for the 24 Mpx D3x or D4 or whatever it is going to be called. Toby |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Response from Nikon on their ****-take upgrade to D3.
I've upgraded the sensor in my cameras many times over the years: every
time an improved film comes out, I upgrade the ":sensor". The cost each time has only been a couple dollars. Pretty sweet for forty year old Canons! When you factor in the cost of film, processing and eventual scanning, digital is way cheaper, not to mention all the other advantages over film, such as white balance, better high ISO performance, etc. If I shoot 7200 frames/year, for example, or the equivalent of 200 rolls of chromes--that would cost me over $3000 for film vs. a few dollars to charge my batteries in digital. Now which sensor looks cheaper in the long run? Toby |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Response from Nikon on their ****-take upgrade to D3.
John O'Flaherty wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:30:21 -0700, John McWilliams wrote: C J Campbell wrote: On 2008-08-13 00:16:47 -0700, Dave said: in the US? I can see how you will irritate a lot of processional photographers with this. The assistants who have to snap walking backwards as the B+G leave the building. Wouldn't that be "recessional"? By Jingoe, it would be, for those who are close studies in language. Darn. I've never seen photogs on the procession, but, well, it loses something in the translation! -- john mcwilliams |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Response from Nikon on their ****-take upgrade to D3.
Toby wrote:
I've upgraded the sensor in my cameras many times over the years: every time an improved film comes out, I upgrade the ":sensor". The cost each time has only been a couple dollars. Pretty sweet for forty year old Canons! When you factor in the cost of film, processing and eventual scanning, digital is way cheaper, not to mention all the other advantages over film, such as white balance, better high ISO performance, etc. If I shoot 7200 frames/year, for example, or the equivalent of 200 rolls of chromes--that would cost me over $3000 for film vs. a few dollars to charge my batteries in digital. Now which sensor looks cheaper in the long run? Toby You might have missed something there Toby. I used a Mamiya 6x7 and a Pentax 645 for maybe 20 years. The maintenance cost was probably $500 tops. When I sold them, I got back what they cost me plus some. I wish now I hadn't sold them but that's life, eh? I've had six digital cameras in 5 years the upgrade / replacement costs to keep up with the changing quality of images they produce has been close to $20,000. And... The bloody things have a shelf life at which point they will become useless. All electronics are sunset stuff... Eventually they die. So suppose it cost me $3k a year for film and processing (more like $1900 but I'll work on your figures... I'd still be $5,000 in front if I hadn't gone digital. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Response from Nikon on their ****-take upgrade to D3.
Dave wrote:
[] So IF my calculations are correct (and of course I have no inside knowledge), Nikon decided to not put 512 MB of cheap PC memory in the camera, but rather make that an optional extra for which the camera would need to be returned. These sizes and speeds of memory have been available a long time, so I don't think availability of chips would have been an issue myself. As I say, I'm only making educated guesses here, but without detailed technical information, that is the best one can do. Bulk-manufacturerd PC memory in modules is /not/ what is used in digital cameras! [cross-posting trimmed] David |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Response from Nikon on their ****-take upgrade to D3.
C J Campbell wrote:
On 2008-08-13 00:16:47 -0700, Dave said: Gee. You wrote an incredibly rude and profane letter full of spelling and grammatical errors and got a polite and reasonable response. Good for Nikon. I remember why that message was below a standard one would normally expect when I write a letter/email - I had just come back from the pub after a few drinks! My spelling and grammar has never been one of my strongest points, but I have at least got an O-level in English, so it should not have been as bad as it was. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Response from Nikon on their ****-take upgrade to D3.
In message , Ron Hunter
writes Chris H wrote: In message , Dave writes I sent the following to Nikon about the D3 Buffer Memory Expansion option. Their response is below. I know there were a few spelling errors in my original post, but I've copied exactly what I sent them, and their response. Part of the problem may be the availability of memory chips. When the camera was initially designed (2 years ago?) they fitted the largest ones that were practical. 18 months on the capacity of parts that physical size and power consumption may have doubled. Just look at the size and cost of PC memory? 1GB strips now cost less than 256Mb strips did. My first 50 Mb hard drive cost twice the 500 Gbyte Serial ATA I bought last month. The problem is the new memory devices may not fit the old main board. There will almost certainly be a new pin out. Try fitting a serial ATA drive to an IDE connector. When I bought my current camera, I bought two 128 meg SD cards for $45 each. This morning I saw 4GB SD cards for $19.99! Exactly but you can bet the actual chips inside the SD card have a different pin-out. This is why Nikon say they have t5o replace the whole main board. Now if gasoline would just do that! :-)))) Might have helped if some idiot had not invaded Iraq. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Response from Nikon on their ****-take upgrade to D3.
In message , Dave writes
ASAAR wrote: On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:03:27 -0700, Paul Furman wrote: Perfectly legitimate explanation for the upgrade cost but not for why they don't just include it in the new models and charge $50 more. Perhaps they've already got a bunch built and when those are used up they'll start with a D3x. Possibly, but the new, higher density chips may be much more expensive per GB. The high price may also be to discourage D3 owners from upgrading unless they really could use the extra buffer memory. If all D3 owners want to upgrade, Nikon might have to hire many extra technicians in order to be able to return the upgraded cameras in a timely manner. I don't believe the higher density chips are an issue. See below. These sizes and speeds of memory have been available a long time, so I don't think availability of chips would have been an issue myself. It is... the memory used in PC-s is made up of multiple chips. Space is not a problem. Also power is not a problem, neither is heat output. The chips used in the Nikons will be a little different You could of course try fitting the PC memory sticks into a camera... As I say, I'm only making educated guesses here, but without detailed technical information, that is the best one can do. On the face of it it does look simple. I am an electronics engineer so I have a little more background knowledge. As I said the capacity of chips changes all the time ans does the power consumption. This is why PC memory is built on to standard simms. The cameras don't use simms -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Response from Nikon on their ****-take upgrade to D3.
D-Mac wrote:
You might have missed something there Toby. I used a Mamiya 6x7 and a Pentax 645 for maybe 20 years. The maintenance cost was probably $500 tops. When I sold them, I got back what they cost me plus some. Have you factored into that inflation? If not, that is meaningless. I wish now I hadn't sold them but that's life, eh? I'm thinking this about my F6 - should I sell it or not? Currently the D3 is worth a lot more used that the F6, but give it a few years and I suspect the F6 will be worth more than a D3. It's clear Nikon are not going to bring out a better film camera than the F6, but just as clear the D3 will be upgraded soon. I somewhat suspect the D4, D5, D6 etc will follow much more quickly than did the F3, F4, F5 and F6. I've had six digital cameras in 5 years the upgrade / replacement costs to keep up with the changing quality of images they produce has been close to $20,000. And... The bloody things have a shelf life at which point they will become useless. All electronics are sunset stuff... Eventually they die. True, and a they will be unrepairable in far less time than some earlier electronic equipment. The earliest valve equipment can be repaired easily to this day - valves are still made and have a very long lifetime if not used. Believe it or not, values (or tubes to Americans) are still manufactured to this day for high power use, where semiconductors are just not up to it. The 4CM2500KG from Eimac http://www.cpii.com/product.cfm/9/22/78 produces 2.8 MW - I can't see semiconductors ever being able to produce that sort of power economically - it might be possible to get it with combiners, but I doubt it would be practical. So suppose it cost me $3k a year for film and processing (more like $1900 but I'll work on your figures... I'd still be $5,000 in front if I hadn't gone digital. There is no doubt that specific models of digital camera will become obsolete very quickly. It is less certain whether one will need to upgrade those models. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Response from Nikon on their ****-take upgrade to D3.
On 8/13/2008 11:59 PM Chris H spake thus:
In message , Dave writes ASAAR wrote: On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:03:27 -0700, Paul Furman wrote: Perfectly legitimate explanation for the upgrade cost but not for why they don't just include it in the new models and charge $50 more. Perhaps they've already got a bunch built and when those are used up they'll start with a D3x. Possibly, but the new, higher density chips may be much more expensive per GB. The high price may also be to discourage D3 owners from upgrading unless they really could use the extra buffer memory. If all D3 owners want to upgrade, Nikon might have to hire many extra technicians in order to be able to return the upgraded cameras in a timely manner. I don't believe the higher density chips are an issue. See below. These sizes and speeds of memory have been available a long time, so I don't think availability of chips would have been an issue myself. It is... the memory used in PC-s is made up of multiple chips. Space is not a problem. Also power is not a problem, neither is heat output. The chips used in the Nikons will be a little different You could of course try fitting the PC memory sticks into a camera... As I say, I'm only making educated guesses here, but without detailed technical information, that is the best one can do. On the face of it it does look simple. I am an electronics engineer so I have a little more background knowledge. As I said the capacity of chips changes all the time ans does the power consumption. This is why PC memory is built on to standard simms. The cameras don't use simms This post is off-topic for this newsgroup, rec.photo.equipment.35mm, which is concerned with film cameras that use 35mm film, not digital cameras that look like 35mm SLRs. Please use an appropriate newsgroup for postings on digital cameras. One of the following groups would be a good place for such postings: rec.photo.equipment.digital rec.photo.equipment.digital.point+shoot rec.photo.equipment.digital.rangefinder rec.photo.equipment.digital.slr rec.photo.equipment.digital.slr-system -- "Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." - With apologies to H. L. Mencken |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon D3 firmware upgrade? | John Smith[_5_] | Digital Photography | 1 | June 13th 08 07:45 AM |
Canon's response to Nikon 10MP | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 36 | August 3rd 06 12:47 PM |
Nikon 8700 very slow sutter response? | 10-4 | Digital Photography | 3 | January 2nd 06 03:04 AM |
piss off | Paul Heslop | Digital Photography | 0 | October 19th 05 09:10 AM |
Upgrade to Nikon F6 from F100? | Alan Browne | 35mm Photo Equipment | 11 | September 30th 04 09:29 PM |