No Nikon BIG Announcement

cjcampbell wrote in news:5c4cc322-1652-
:

The Nikon-sponsored (invitation only) cocktail party before the Blues
Traveler concert was nice, as was the concert itself. However, Nikon
had nothing to announce, although we left early because I have signed
up for Matt Mendelsohn's Master Class first thing in the morning.
About half way through the cocktail party various Nikon people took
the stage for announcements. Nothing.

Yes, it's a pathetic PMA, with loads of unprofitable P&S's being announced
by the mfgs. Do they really think it's a good idea to devote fab space to
making so many of these crummy things when DSLRs are the only cameras
showing profitability and increased sales numbers? P&S sales have been
flat or sinking (depending on brand) since 2005.

Rich wrote:
cjcampbell wrote in news:5c4cc322-1652-
:

The Nikon-sponsored (invitation only) cocktail party before the Blues
Traveler concert was nice, as was the concert itself. However, Nikon
had nothing to announce, although we left early because I have signed
up for Matt Mendelsohn's Master Class first thing in the morning.
About half way through the cocktail party various Nikon people took
the stage for announcements. Nothing.

Yes, it's a pathetic PMA, with loads of unprofitable P&S's being announced
by the mfgs. Do they really think it's a good idea to devote fab space to
making so many of these crummy things when DSLRs are the only cameras
showing profitability and increased sales numbers? P&S sales have been
flat or sinking (depending on brand) since 2005.


Surely the only reason for Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Olympus to continue
making and selling P&S cameras is the hope that P&S users will upgrade
to a DSLR of the same brand?

"Rich" wrote in message
...
cjcampbell wrote in news:5c4cc322-1652-
:

The Nikon-sponsored (invitation only) cocktail party before the Blues
Traveler concert was nice, as was the concert itself. However, Nikon
had nothing to announce, although we left early because I have signed
up for Matt Mendelsohn's Master Class first thing in the morning.
About half way through the cocktail party various Nikon people took
the stage for announcements. Nothing.

Yes, it's a pathetic PMA, with loads of unprofitable P&S's being announced
by the mfgs. Do they really think it's a good idea to devote fab space to
making so many of these crummy things when DSLRs are the only cameras
showing profitability and increased sales numbers? P&S sales have been
flat or sinking (depending on brand) since 2005.

I wonder if they're holding back due to the global recession? Either way,
this looks like the most boring PMA in quite a while. Fuji is hell-bent on
turning digicams into colorful toys, it seems.

Being a lifelong film user, I only began a journey to the Dark Side
last year when I recevied a nice, little digital P&S. To me, very
handy on local hikes, though for the "real' trips, the SLRs are out in
force (I have 2 Canons and a Nikon). Not staying up on all the
announcements, I was slightly surprised to see Nikon's web site
advertising only 2 film cameras on the market anymore, one just over
$300, one just under $3000. The digital market, however, abounds. Oh
well, my mini-rant about the demise of film. If I venture into the
Dark Side of digital SLR, nice to see Nikon has a lot ofchoices, and
that they work with my current lenses, of course. Plentry to be had at
a variety of price ranges (although the D3x listing for $8000 seems a
bit rich for my blood )

Rivergoat wrote:

Not staying up on all the announcements, I was slightly surprised to
see Nikon's web site advertising only 2 film cameras on the market
anymore, one just over $300, one just under $3000. The digital market,
however, abounds. Oh well, my mini-rant about the demise of film.

The thing about film is that you don't *need* new cameras, so it doesn't
really matter. Once you get a good film camera you don't need to replace
it basically ever. With digital, they have finally found a way to make
us think it's normal to drop a few grand on a new camera every few years
while simultaneously thinking digital is "cheaper". It's brilliant.

--
Jeremy Nixon | address in header is valid
(formerly )

Jeremy Nixon wrote:
Rivergoat wrote:

Not staying up on all the announcements, I was slightly surprised to
see Nikon's web site advertising only 2 film cameras on the market
anymore, one just over $300, one just under $3000. The digital market,
however, abounds. Oh well, my mini-rant about the demise of film.

The thing about film is that you don't *need* new cameras, so it doesn't
really matter. Once you get a good film camera you don't need to replace
it basically ever. With digital, they have finally found a way to make
us think it's normal to drop a few grand on a new camera every few years
while simultaneously thinking digital is "cheaper". It's brilliant.

Well you do get new features with the upgrades but yes that's a valid
point! I think of the digital camera body as equal to film in terms of
cost and performance.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Paul Furman wrote:
Jeremy Nixon wrote:

The thing about film is that you don't *need* new cameras, so it doesn't
really matter. Once you get a good film camera you don't need to replace
it basically ever. With digital, they have finally found a way to make
us think it's normal to drop a few grand on a new camera every few years
while simultaneously thinking digital is "cheaper". It's brilliant.

Well you do get new features with the upgrades but yes that's a valid
point!

If you separate the "digital" from the "camera", I think the last new feature
added to cameras that I'd care much about would be autofocus. And even that
I consider optional.

I would rather have the ability to replace the "digital" part but keep the
"camera". Of course, they didn't go that route, because this way they can
sell us more cameras.

I think of the digital camera body as equal to film in terms of cost and
performance.

Well, in fairness, in terms of performance, we're at the point where digital
beats film in image quality by basically any technical measure. And if you
shoot a whole lot, it really can be cheaper.

--
Jeremy Nixon | address in header is valid
(formerly )

In article , Jeremy Nixon )@(
wrote:

The thing about film is that you don't *need* new cameras, so it doesn't
really matter. Once you get a good film camera you don't need to replace
it basically ever.

you just have to keep buying film and processing.

With digital, they have finally found a way to make
us think it's normal to drop a few grand on a new camera every few years
while simultaneously thinking digital is "cheaper". It's brilliant.

even if you upgrade every so often, it's still much less than the
ongoing costs for film and processing and having to carry all that bulk
as well as keep it cool.

Jeremy Nixon ~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net wrote:

And if you
shoot a whole lot, it really can be cheaper.


I would bet that the average DSLR user spends far more on equipment each
year than the average 35mm SLR user ever did on film, developing and
printing.

With film, once you built up an outfit, that was that. You could just
get on with your photography, and the only cost was film, developing and
printing.

With digital, your DSLR needs replacing every couple of years - just to
"keep up".

Clever advertising makes us believe that we must replace our lenses to
"get the best out of digital" and buy ever more complex accessories.
There is a grain of truth in the argument about lenses, but the truth is
that the better lenses from film days are more than capable of producing
fine digital images.

So with a new DSLR every 2 years, all those accessories you never seemed
to need with film, and all those hardware and software upgrades to your
computer to edit and store your images, and you have the most expensive
replacement for film that could possibly have been devised. ;-)

In article , Bruce
wrote:

And if you
shoot a whole lot, it really can be cheaper.

I would bet that the average DSLR user spends far more on equipment each
year than the average 35mm SLR user ever did on film, developing and
printing.

then you'd likely lose.

With film, once you built up an outfit, that was that. You could just
get on with your photography, and the only cost was film, developing and
printing.

and that adds up *fast*. plus, even film users were buying various
accessories, lenses, etc.

and with digital, there's no need to worry about keeping film cool or
needing the space to carry enough for a particular trip. the
equivalent of dozens of rolls of film fit on a couple of cards that
slip into a pocket.

With digital, your DSLR needs replacing every couple of years - just to
"keep up".

only if you want to. old cameras still work just fine and produce
images just as good as the day they were bought.