View Full Version : Nikon #1 in DSLR...but for how long ?
Nikon's last couple of years has, by any measure, been exceptional. the d80, d200, d40 have led a huge surge in technical competance and quality. then they follow it up by the D300, d3 and d700. impressive stuff to lead in performance in every department bar price.
BUT for how long will this hold true ? imo nikon are now showing the same sort of arrogant ass attitude canon held for years. a d3x asking $8k smacks of "we're #1 and this is the best camera on Earth so we'll charge what we f*ckin well like.".
if you ask me as a current nikon shooter this is not good news for us. why ? cos they have attained this #1 spot partly by default due competitors not being what they should be to keep the leader, (any leader), honest:
1. canon's lazy development program,
2. 4/3rds system shooting itself in the foot and cannabilising the format with m4/3rds,
3. pentax who have lost the plot completely
4. the promising Sony who have overpromised and quite frankly...underdelivered.
the MOST frustrating thing is that and they have delivered this result with minimum updates to a lens lineup begging for updates. so what impotus is there here to upgrade lens' now ? lets hope that the ethos that has driven Nikon to #1 holds true for a while longer but my fear is they think they've hit a finish line and we will be waiting far too long for crucial lens updates.
thanks for listening to my rant as i'm still here waiting for a 50/1.4 afs which was announced 3 months ago but STILL unavailable. :mad:
Nikon snaps up DSLR number one spot: Camera company finally knocks Canon off its perch
http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/nikon-snaps-up-dslr-number-one-spot-489831?src=rss&attr=news
Nikon has announced that it is now the UK's leading manufacturer of DSLRs. Speaking at the UK launch of the company's flagship D3X camera, the company boasted of a prosperous year, which has seen Nikon's DSLR sales growth expand by 333 per cent, compared 2004/05 figures.
The official announcement is that Nikon is "number one for share by volume in the UK, Europe, USA and Japan." The impressive figure of 333 per cent is mainly due to Nikon in recent years getting aggressive in the DSLR market, making sure that everyone from first-time DSLR buyers to high-end professionals have the option to buy a Nikon-branded camera. This includes the recently announced D3X (http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/nikon-d3x-dslr-officially-announced-489518).
Nikon beating Canon
The fight in the DSLR market between Canon and Nikon has always been a close one, with last year's figures suggesting that Canon won the camera war by just one per cent – taking a 41 per cent market share to Nikon's 40 per cent. Predicted DSLR sales for Nikon for this year are around 3.3 million. Compare this to just 2 million in 2004, and the company's fortunes are definitely going in the right direction.
You are sounding more like Mr Hogan every day. :D
DonSchap
12-02-2008, 11:41 PM
Hey, enjoy the slide! :D
Should be an interesting year, for sure.
swpars
12-02-2008, 11:52 PM
the MOST frustrating thing is that and they have delivered this result with minimum updates to a lens lineup begging for updates. so what impotus is there here to upgrade lens' now ? lets hope that the ethos that has driven Nikon to #1 holds true for a while longer but my fear is they think they've hit a finish line and we will be waiting far too long for crucial lens updates.
thanks for listening to my rant as i'm still here waiting for a 50/1.4 afs which was announced 3 months ago but STILL unavailable. :mad:
I agree wholeheartedly.
In the consumer/prosumer market, I'd like to see:
24mm f1.8 AF-S (A prosumer prime like the new 50mm AF-S)
35mm f2 AF-S (Slap on a micro-motor if need be to keep the price reasonable)
50mm f1.8 AF-S (just the micro-motor as in the D40 kit lens and Canon 50/1.8. Something for the more creative D40 users for $119 or so that should finally put to bed the need for a cheap, fast AF prime on the cheap Nikons)
300mm f4 AF-S VR (Way overdue to get VR, IMO - great otherwise)
80-400mm f3.5-5.6 AF-S VR (Needs fast AF-S...)
I don't think we'll get these very quickly, though, given Nikon's current focus (seemingly) on updating the high end stuff.
You are sounding more like Mr Hogan every day. :D
lol well...coulda been worse. you coulda said i sound like that "other guy".
e_dawg
12-03-2008, 02:24 AM
Yep, it really seems like they're out of touch with their lens lineup. They don't have a pulse on what people want. All they do is keep pumping out yet another 18-x f/4-5.6 consumer zoom and refusing to give us f/4 zooms or at least a decent standard zoom for FX that isn't the 24-70/2.8.
Visual Reality
12-03-2008, 04:03 AM
I agree wholeheartedly.
In the consumer/prosumer market, I'd like to see:
24mm f1.8 AF-S (A prosumer prime like the new 50mm AF-S)
35mm f2 AF-S (Slap on a micro-motor if need be to keep the price reasonable)
50mm f1.8 AF-S (just the micro-motor as in the D40 kit lens and Canon 50/1.8. Something for the more creative D40 users for $119 or so that should finally put to bed the need for a cheap, fast AF prime on the cheap Nikons)
300mm f4 AF-S VR (Way overdue to get VR, IMO - great otherwise)
80-400mm f3.5-5.6 AF-S VR (Needs fast AF-S...)
I don't think we'll get these very quickly, though, given Nikon's current focus (seemingly) on updating the high end stuff.
You forgot the 70-200 f/4 AF-S VRII.
Also, a micro motored 35mm f/2 would not be an upgrade from the current lens.
alessy
12-03-2008, 04:44 AM
I think everything has political background and has a purpose why some company has that kind of lenses, and other has other ...
erichlund
12-03-2008, 08:12 AM
Well...OK, but Nikon got to that #1 share on the low end. D40, D40x, D60. The recent D60 and D90 are an affirmation of that attitude. The D3x is an abberation. When they don't sell, the price will float down to what does. But Nikon did not get to the #1 share in anything on pro equipment. It's the consumer cameras that drive volume.
This is Nikon's first high megapixel camera with a fully pro body. They priced it just like Canon prices their high megapixel, fully pro body. Get over it. I suspect that within 6 months, the price of a D3x or a 1DsMkIII will be very close. They are, after all, clones of each other.
Nikon always prices high, initially. But, we have seen the price of the D700 float down to market value, very early in it's life cycle. Earlier than is usual with Nikon cameras. I don't expect any different with the D3x. Remember, even after the price comes down, we will always pay a bit of a premium for the quality and ergonomics of a Nikon body.
PS. Nikon has already introduced more lenses this year than is usual for the company. Give them a break. They aren't the mega corporation that is Canon, Sony or Panasonic. I'm sure they are working as fast as they can, but I'm rather glad that they stick to quality, rather than rush things to market that aren't ready.
PS. Nikon has already introduced more lenses this year than is usual for the company. Give them a break. They aren't the mega corporation that is Canon, Sony or Panasonic. I'm sure they are working as fast as they can, but I'm rather glad that they stick to quality, rather than rush things to market that aren't ready.
not the ones they need though. an 18-105VR was certianly NOT necessary. even the 16-85VR should not have been at the top of their list as far as lens releases go. then there are 2 T/S lens for a specialised market. sb900...nice but this could have waitied unitl next year. the sb800 was perfectly capable. the bread and butter lens' are still ancient and their priorities are out of whack imo.
e_dawg
12-03-2008, 02:16 PM
Definitely out of whack. It's like they don't have the capability to build f/4 lenses in-house or solve the engineering problems that are preventing them from updating the lenses that need updating, so they create a diversion by launching a whole bunch of lenses that they can build (but few people actually need), hoping that we'll be all like "Homer Simpson in the presence of donuts" (Mmmm.... donuts... drool...) and won't notice the gaps.
yepp. while the quality of the 2 T/S lens' are indisputable, whats the market for this ? how many of them do you reckon they sell ? i can think of plenty of lens' that will outsell them 100x over and make 1000x more people happy.
agreed nikon arent a mega-company like sony or canon, but they are not a boutique company either. they can only get away with this shit for so long.
Visual Reality
12-03-2008, 04:02 PM
If I ran the company I would hold public polls and solicit community feedback on what products would be most desirable. This way it is easy to know exactly what your market wants, and make those products.
This is demand-fueled supply, and is the heart of capitalism.
erichlund
12-03-2008, 04:05 PM
In the last year, going back to Nov 19
18-55VR, 16-85VR, 24mm PC-E, 60mm Micro, 45mm PC-E, 85mm PC-E, 18-105VR, and 50mm f1.4. They had already addressed their greatest need update for the pro market with the 24-70 PJ lens, and also the best super wide on the planet.
Yes, someday they need to address the f4 mid-cost zooms and update more primes. However, I'm not sure Nikon has ever been convinced that they want to build f4 zooms. But that all seems on the horizon. I can't argue with updating all three PC-E lenses in one year, because it improves the economy of scale for any common hardware and design concepts. Don't be surprised if the 105 and 135 DC lenses also get updated at the same time as each other.
Eventually, they need to update any lens that is not currently AF-S. But 8 new lenses in a year is pretty close to unprecedented for Nikon. You may not agree with their choices, but then if you want to use the argument about what lenses will serve the largest portion of the public, it's clearly the updated kit lenses, the 18-55 for the budget cameras and the 18-105VR for the D90 mid-range consumer camera. To keep with the competition, they needed VR on both so the old 18-55 had to be updated, and the 18-105 replaces the venerable 18-70, which was a little long in the tooth. The 16-85 is not really a kit lens, as it has several features that Nikon do not include on kit lenses, VRII and all the time manual focus override, plus increased build quality and probably a bit better glass. It's an option lens.
My main hope is that the AF-S 50mm f1.4 is the beginning of a trend. I expect the 35 and 28 will be next in line, then the 85 f1.8. They may do both 85s at the same time, but the 1.8 is the more general use lens, and the 1.4 glass doesn't really need update except for AF-S, and studio portrait photographers mostly focus manually, so AF method is not a huge thing for that lens. The DC lenses will also be interspersed here. The less than 28mm lenses will probably be the last. That's what I'm guessing, anyway. Of course, Nikon will have their other priorities, so don't be surprised to see the update to the primes take about 5 (or more) years. Nature of the beast.
you missed the point. i'm not taking isue with the number of lens' they updated. i take exception to the order of things. there are far more people wanting primes, f4 zooms, a DECENT FX kit lens and consumer tele updates, (300/4, 80-400VR etc), than there are wanting 2 more kit lens', (the 18-55 needed VR i accept that), and PC lens'. sorry, doesnt cut it any way you look at it.
Visual Reality
12-03-2008, 04:42 PM
A 70-200 AF-S VRII would sell like hotcakes. It would be a dream come true for everyone who hasn't yet forked out the dough for the giant f/2.8 and wants something 1/2 the price and 1/2 the weight, yet nearly every bit as good optically just like Canon has provided for their users. You lose 1 stop of light potential and probably a small concession in build but you do pay for those things.
It would be out of stock everywhere for some time.
erichlund
12-03-2008, 08:52 PM
And my point is, I don't buy into all the doom and gloom just because Nikon announced on overpriced camera very few people were going to buy anyway.
I suspect the PC-E lenses were on a long term upgrade plan, and that plan doesn't get shelved just because it doesn't match your idea of the ideal order of things.
Like I said before, I would not count on an f4 lens set. If that drives you to Canon...there are worse things in the world. They make good cameras too.
I'm not saying you shouldn't hope for the things you want, but look at Nikon's history with an unvarnished eye, and I just don't see that. All that could change in a heartbeat, or rather, at the next PMA. But I see what I currently see, which is an accelerated schedule of lens upgrades, but a continuation of the path Nikon has been on for some time. What you want is a new path. I don't see it happening. Sorry.
That said, if I'm wrong, it would not even be the first time today. ;)
ssil2000
12-03-2008, 09:15 PM
as an amateur it is bloody frustrating when it comes to lenses... you either stick with consumer zooms or fork out huge bux for the pro zooms, if they had an f4 line up i would be able to have a full set in a couple of year but instead i will be lucky to have 1 lens in two years!
yea, can always buy canon, but if i wanted canon i would of bought it in the first instance.
i guess as the bulk of their sales are geared around the amateur/advanced amateur you would think that an f4 lens set would go over well and generate a lot of sales but their marketing department doesnt see it that way.
anyway enough of my rant.
35f2 next then we shall see!
Sergio
DonSchap
12-03-2008, 09:48 PM
You know, reading through this ... it appears there is a big divide going on ... where you have a "Consumer" market ... and a "Pro" market. The "Prosumer" seems to be leaning out ... so it'll be a war between the haves and have-nots.
Inventory wise: How many $8K cameras can you sit on the shelf at one time? :confused:
Nikon managed to sell nearly 4 million DSLR's and nearly 5 million lenses in the last financial year.
I have serious reservations about whether they will listen to a few people worldwide who don't like their business model.
To VR.
The idea of people voting on what to build and what to sell has been tried before. It's called Communism not Capitalism as you wrongly asserted and it's been discredited even more than the current Capitalist model that is floundering so publicly.
And my point is, I don't buy into all the doom and gloom just because Nikon announced on overpriced camera very few people were going to buy anyway.
I suspect the PC-E lenses were on a long term upgrade plan, and that plan doesn't get shelved just because it doesn't match your idea of the ideal order of things.
Like I said before, I would not count on an f4 lens set. If that drives you to Canon...there are worse things in the world. They make good cameras too.
I'm not saying you shouldn't hope for the things you want, but look at Nikon's history with an unvarnished eye, and I just don't see that. All that could change in a heartbeat, or rather, at the next PMA. But I see what I currently see, which is an accelerated schedule of lens upgrades, but a continuation of the path Nikon has been on for some time. What you want is a new path. I don't see it happening. Sorry.
That said, if I'm wrong, it would not even be the first time today. ;)
admittabley, my OP was done at a time of frustration cos Nikon cannot give me an answer as to when my lens will be delvered. the lazy, "oh well" attitude really pissed the the f*ck off to be honest. then i read that article about their sales and well...i vented. in saying that, there is a pattern here. the pattern is one that nikon followeed prior to the 1d series, then canon took over with the 1d. the pattern is company arrogance and missing the mark with their consumers cos they wont listen.
the primary driver of these results are "in the past" already. the d40/80/200 were the primary drivers. the d300 will continue it, the d90 to a lesser degree and the d60 to a much lesser degree. the d3 is big but not volume wise. the d3x is evidence of that arrogance. i will be happy to eat my words if it performs as well as nikon say it will but i suspect it won't. time will tell.
my point all along has been that camera bodies are only a small part of the puzzle. buying into a system matters. you cant expect to release top end cameras like the d300, d3, d700 and now the d3x but not have the accompanying tools to get the very best out of it. imo their logical progression in lens' is fundamentally flawed. how many kit lens' do we really need ? 18-70, 18-135, 18-200, 18-55, 16-85, 18-105. i mean this is freakin absurd.
nikon's demise was originally due to them ignoring the top end. pros left nikon in droves cos they felt the compay wasnt listening and stubbornly resisted or refused to build a FF camera. many have returned at the promise of a better system future. they need to deliver.
will it drive me to canon ? i wouldnt have a problem if canon met my needs but unfortuantely they dont either. i am test running a 5dMkII in the early new year but my initial feel of it is not positive. unfortuantely i am torn between canon's crap responsiveness, AF and ergonomics but want some of the lens options canon deliver. hell, i can wait a while for lens redesigns like a 70-200/4. but an 85/ 35/ 28 update is not optical redesign, its simply afs. thats not too much to ask for surely.
both of 'em can go screw themselves. lol
DonSchap
12-03-2008, 10:42 PM
Nikon managed to sell nearly 4 million DSLR's and nearly 5 million lenses in the last financial year.
I have serious reservations about whether they will listen to a few people worldwide who don't like their business model.
"K1W1" ... Reach deeply into your pocket and yank out that quick $8,000.00 you seem to be so cavalier about having in your visionary customer model.
I was looking in mine for the same thing and ... guess what? Yeah, I do not live in Dubai, U.A.E.! Who knew? :D (shrug)
I was speaking more about the types of lenses that they are producing rather than the bodies in relation to the model. :D
I think with money the way it is only people who can truly afford the D3x will be buyers anyway and for them $8k, $10k, or $12k probably doesn't make much difference as the body is simply a business tool that they will buy on the basis of whether it will generate a return on the investment rather than what it actually costs.
admittabley, my OP was done at a time of frustration cos Nikon cannot give me an answer as to when my lens will be delvered. the lazy, "oh well" attitude really pissed the the f*ck off to be honest.I'm pissed as well. It's f'ed up to the max that I'm waiting two months for a lens! They really need to stop focusing on bodies and start focusing on lenses for the next 12-18 mos. Lets face it...they got the bodies covered in spades right now. Alright...maybe they need a D700 variant with HD video to go head-to-head with the 5DMkII...but if there's any more bodies beyond that but no massive lens update in 2009, then I'll be really pissed!
Nikon! Get it together!
erichlund
12-03-2008, 11:47 PM
See, with the wide primes, I don't see what the whole AF-S need is. I'm speaking from Rooz perspective. I fully understand that for <= D60, the AF lenses don't AF. I use my 35 f2 on my D200, and focus is very responsive. Not as quiet as an AF-S, but frankly, an AF-S is not really all that quiet either (I have several). You want quiet, get a Leica (flippant as that sounds, it's a truth).
I also understand that Nikon's not perfect. But like Rooz said, Canon isn't perfect either. Why aren't we pissed at Canon for failing to realize that we really want Nikon ergonomics. Then we could have the best of both worlds. The world is not perfect, and our system is what it is.
I guess maybe we need the 12 step program. "Hi, I'm Eric and I'm a Nikon user". See, I feel better already. Our drug of choice is not perfect. But it's a lot better than if I was admitting to a more serious problem.
I refuse to be pissed at Nikon because they don't respond in my time. C'est la vie. Perhaps all that's going on here is a little venting. My recommendation: Get off the computer, forget about the stuff you can't get, and go out and put what you do have to use.
Now, I have to go to bed, because I have to get up and go to work early tomorrow. Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to take my own advice.
See, with the wide primes, I don't see what the whole AF-S need is. I'm speaking from Rooz perspective. I fully understand that for <= D60, the AF lenses don't AF. I use my 35 f2 on my D200, and focus is very responsive. Not as quiet as an AF-S, but frankly, an AF-S is not really all that quiet either (I have several). You want quiet, get a Leica (flippant as that sounds, it's a truth).
huh ? af-s is MILES faster. hell even my 105VR which is a macro lens is way faster and is super quiet. the 14-24 is so quiet it cant be heard, and has bullet like speed. the 16-85 focussed perfectly aswell.
this is about speed when using af-c for moving objects and non afs lens' dont cut it. ie: how fast can a lens readjust itself to keep track of a moving child. thats why i want afs cos in lower lighting indoor conditions, my primes are not up to the task that i'm asking of them.
there is a vast difference in af-s lens'.
ie: how fast can a lens readjust itself to keep track of a moving child.
I guess your children move faster than Valentino Rossi on his Moto GP bike then. :D:D:D
(It's only a joke for those who don't get it)
Visual Reality
12-04-2008, 03:58 AM
Nikon managed to sell nearly 4 million DSLR's and nearly 5 million lenses in the last financial year.
I have serious reservations about whether they will listen to a few people worldwide who don't like their business model.
To VR.
The idea of people voting on what to build and what to sell has been tried before. It's called Communism not Capitalism as you wrongly asserted and it's been discredited even more than the current Capitalist model that is floundering so publicly.
Capatalism is not "floundering". Capitalism created the super power that we call the United States. Many of the products that we use today wouldn't even even exist without capitalism, and companies such as the ones in question wouldn't have a market to sell to. The financial market is "floundering" because of complete negligence of politicians in Washington, among other things. Government is the problem, not capitalism. Don't confuse the issue.
Capitalism is alive and well.
And please, tell me how soliciting consumer feedback on your products is considered communism? That's quite a reach :rolleyes:
Capitalism is alive and well.
lol sorry...this just made me laugh out loud...very loud. :D:p
yes, i agree in part that your previous corrupt and inept government was part of the problem. but so was greed, a lack of social conscience and the complete denial of personal and/ or corporate responsibility.
Visual Reality
12-04-2008, 04:12 AM
yes, i agree in part that your previous corrupt and inept government was part of the problem. but so was greed, a lack of social conscience and the complete denial of personal and/ or corporate responsibility.
Previous? We've had government negligence for many years now. Each administration has swept these problems under the rug for the next guy to find and its now finally blowing up in our face.
Looks like GWB got caught with the hot potato.
Getting OT but...
lol sorry...this just made me laugh out loud...very loud. :D:p;
Do you have an alternative? With a competent gov't that finally addresses the real issues of why we are on a course of complete wipeout, capitalism is the only thing that can dig us out of this hole and back to prosperity.
Do you have an alternative? With a competent gov't that finally addresses the real issues of why we are on a course of complete wipeout, capitalism is the only thing that can dig us out of this hole and back to prosperity.
i didnt, nor did kiwi, say that capitalism was BAD. there is no need to be so defensive. there are varying degrees of all things though. i'm quite left of middle so we will likey never agree on most political topics. particualrly ones where the free market and capitalism is a primary dirver over some form of socio economic policy and leadership.
i find it quite convenient and ironic at the same time that the solution for greed and overspending is actually greed and overspending. funny that.
and yes you have had govt incompetance for years, around 8 of the most incompetant and offensive years in world history actually.
Visual Reality
12-04-2008, 04:29 AM
Still, please don't confuse the issue. Capitalism is alive and well and working every day of our lives. For someone to say otherwise, doesn't understand economics (not everyone does) and gets their information from the mass media and/or politicians. Those are the LAST places I would go for this kind of information.
Too many people have jumped on the train and blame the last 8 years presidency for our current economic problems which is complete and udder ignorance for so many reasons. The real underlying issues of why we are in trouble have almost nothing to do with the president of the last 8 years and have been in the works for many years! Of course you wouldn't think that after watching the news, though :rolleyes:. Everyone loves to have a quick and easy scapegoat, without becoming informed on the real issues.
I know the reasons but I won't get into them here because this isn't the time or the place so I end my own post here. Besides I don't want to take this too far OT...PM me if you really want the facts...
Time to go to work :(
VR, dont confuse the ignorance of people you may be associated, with forum members you dont even know. you may find it hard to believe but some of us are reasonabley intelligent people who can form our opinions. God forbid, as hard as it may be for you to comprehend...some of us may actually know a little more about it than you give credit for.
i;d be a little more cautious when you throw around the ignorant tag when you have no clue who we are, what we do for a living and what we do and dont understand. if nothing else, it's utterly childish. thats the end of this conversation as far as i'm concerned cos you;re beginning to irritate me.
Some of us also from time to time love creating what might euphemistically be called "posts that generate discussion" and seeing who bites. :confused::):p:D
If "capitalism" is holding up my lens, then it's bad.
If "captialism" gets me my lens faster then it's good!
That's all the politics I care about! :p:p:p
erichlund
12-04-2008, 08:12 AM
One must understand that all of us are capitalists at heart, but somewhere inside of us, we all also have a communist concience. There is no such thing as true capitalism, just as the "communist" states are just the most socialist states. What we really object to when we talk about "communist" states is the totalitarian government model that the Soviet Union and China (and other "communist states) follow (or followed, in the case of now Russia).
For instance, our government taxes the people and then gives a large sum of money to a failing banking industry to prop them up. That is a socialist mechanism. In true communism, the people would have directly provided those funds to the banks, but there would only really have been one bank, the people's bank, in their self motivated need to have a healthy banking industry. In a pure capitalist society, those banks would have been allowed to fail, and more successful banks would have filled the void. Both communism and capitalism require total anarchy, at least insofar as the government cannot interfere in economic policy. Neither can truly succeed.
OK, the United States is perhaps the most capitalist of the large powers. But any local barter society is more capitalist than the United States, with it's legally backed labor unions, subsidized economy, and property ownership. I remember, many years ago, going to Tiajuana, and bartering for a nice leather belt. The price was set only by what the seller and I could agree upon. He was purely motivated by getting as much as possible for the belt, and I was purely motivated by paying as little as possible, and there was no government involved. There was no sales tax, price fixing or government subsidy. He had a product and I had a desire for that product. That's capitalism.
All communist powers are actually socialist, and none has any chance of becoming communist, even if they truly believe in the communist model. People in power are loathe to give up power, hence the totalitarian governments that prop up the purest of socialist states. One should also understand that China, despite espousing communism, is a largely capitalist society. The farther you get from Peking, the more capitalist it becomes. Do not mistake the totalitarian goverment for the economic model. The mostly agrarian society largely subsists in a barter model. On the industrial side, it could be said that the government itself has become the capitalist, though large parts of the industry are privately owned, again, more so, the farther you get from Peking.
And this means what vis-a-vis Nikon producing more lenses? :confused::p:D
Ive recently seen other threads that have gone the way of political topic and they have had to be locked by Jeff, and its starting to appear this one may be headed for the same fate. This is a camera forum, guys. Dont we have enough to argue and fight over without having to bring political views into the fray?
erichlund
12-04-2008, 03:00 PM
Sorry, I wasn't arguing for or against any particular model. Only educating about common misconceptions.
TheWengler
12-04-2008, 04:54 PM
If Nikon had a full lineup of AF-S primes and some of those f/4 zooms, I don't think there would be much of a reason to buy Canon.
VTEC_EATER
12-04-2008, 05:08 PM
If Nikon had a full lineup of AF-S primes and some of those f/4 zooms, I don't think there would be much of a reason to buy Canon.
Or to discuss politics on a camera forum.
Visual Reality
12-04-2008, 08:15 PM
VR, dont confuse the ignorance of people you may be associated, with forum members you dont even know. you may find it hard to believe but some of us are reasonabley intelligent people who can form our opinions. God forbid, as hard as it may be for you to comprehend...some of us may actually know a little more about it than you give credit for.
i;d be a little more cautious when you throw around the ignorant tag when you have no clue who we are, what we do for a living and what we do and dont understand. if nothing else, it's utterly childish. thats the end of this conversation as far as i'm concerned cos you;re beginning to irritate me.
I'm sorry if you're irritated, but that wasn't my intention. It seems it is hard to come across the right way on a forum without really constructing your posts carefully...I stopped and didn't elaborate because I don't want this thread to go off-topic. I just cannot understand why KIWI worded his post the way he did. He made a correlation between the current financial crisis and the floundering of capitalism which is very misleading. There is clear information out there on the real causes of our current situation and it boils down to too much government intervention where we don't need it, and not enough regulation where we do, aka incompetence of our political leaders. To put blame on the current admin is ignorant and not looking at the big picture. We have been living beyond our means for far too long and became artifically inflated with cheap credit and loose lending policies. A large portion of our wealth only existed on paper and that is exactly what you saw evaporate over the last 12 months. A giant balloon inflating larger every day with government imposing regulations that made things worse while at the same time ignoring the real causes and letting the next guy deal with it. Look up Clinton and the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and you will learn why this little piece of liberal spread the wealth policy started the avalanche down the mountain. Add to that cheap credit, the gotta-have-it-now mentality of our society to charge now, pay later. Add to that the do-nothing Congress that can't even work with our President to attempt to solve these problems before they blew up in our face (Bush tried to bring up these issues a reported 16 times and was turned away every time) and you have an incompetent government that cannot solve a crisis before it happens when all of the "smart" economists in the country were literally screaming for years that we were on a path of destruction.
Warren Buffett sold all interests in Fannie/Freddie way back in 2000. Why? He simply said "Their risk profile had changed". Gee, I wonder what the most successful investor in the world saw that many others didn't until years later? Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act that was pressuring banks to lower their standards to lend to more people! Primarily low-income, high risk households by offering them Sub-prime, adjustable mortgages. What happens when their rates are kicked up after this "introductory offer"? DEFAULT! These loans that were chopped up and repackaged and sold as A grade investments to other firms (Bear Stearns ring a bell?) suddenly became worthless as the defaults reach all-time highs.
This is all too much to type...especially on a camera forum. Forgive me for getting too into it, I just want people to know the truth. Education is power. The information is out there and goes much deeper than I ever could. Basically what I'm trying to say is capitalism is not to blame here, in fact capitalism is very much alive and well and will be what digs us out of the hole and back into prosperity with the right leadership. Government that gets it right, and gets out of the way.
I'm tired of government contributing to and/or directly causing our problems, then trying to convince us that they are going to save the day when things fail. Government is not always the answer to our problems, often times government is the problem.
One must understand that all of us are capitalists at heart, but somewhere inside of us, we all also have a communist concience. There is no such thing as true capitalism, just as the "communist" states are just the most socialist states. What we really object to when we talk about "communist" states is the totalitarian government model that the Soviet Union and China (and other "communist states) follow (or followed, in the case of now Russia).
For instance, our government taxes the people and then gives a large sum of money to a failing banking industry to prop them up. That is a socialist mechanism. In true communism, the people would have directly provided those funds to the banks, but there would only really have been one bank, the people's bank, in their self motivated need to have a healthy banking industry. In a pure capitalist society, those banks would have been allowed to fail, and more successful banks would have filled the void. Both communism and capitalism require total anarchy, at least insofar as the government cannot interfere in economic policy. Neither can truly succeed.
OK, the United States is perhaps the most capitalist of the large powers. But any local barter society is more capitalist than the United States, with it's legally backed labor unions, subsidized economy, and property ownership. I remember, many years ago, going to Tiajuana, and bartering for a nice leather belt. The price was set only by what the seller and I could agree upon. He was purely motivated by getting as much as possible for the belt, and I was purely motivated by paying as little as possible, and there was no government involved. There was no sales tax, price fixing or government subsidy. He had a product and I had a desire for that product. That's capitalism.
All communist powers are actually socialist, and none has any chance of becoming communist, even if they truly believe in the communist model. People in power are loathe to give up power, hence the totalitarian governments that prop up the purest of socialist states. One should also understand that China, despite espousing communism, is a largely capitalist society. The farther you get from Peking, the more capitalist it becomes. Do not mistake the totalitarian goverment for the economic model. The mostly agrarian society largely subsists in a barter model. On the industrial side, it could be said that the government itself has become the capitalist, though large parts of the industry are privately owned, again, more so, the farther you get from Peking.
Good post :)
I'd like to see:
12-24 f/4 AF-S (VR?)
24-70 f/4 AF-S VRII
70-200 f/4 AF-S VRII
Although, for a crop body these aren't ideal focal lengths. For a 1.5x crop body 10-16ish and 16-50ish would suffice with a constant f/4 aperture. Half the weight of most f/2.8 glass, nearly half the cost and I'd be a buyer. Again, probably some concessions with the build but nothing people who are looking at this range couldn't live with.
24 AF-S
35 AF-S
50 AF-S (recently released)
85 AF-S
And maybe a D800 with 1080p HD video, decent autofocus. This isn't a high priority.
Hopefully Nikon keeps R&D pumping during the global recession. I'm sure they will.
Jeff Keller
12-04-2008, 08:48 PM
No political or off-topic discusssions, please.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.