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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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 /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

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 /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

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.

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