Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest stnami

A sense of purpose by Nikon

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That all said, I am not sure how this all relates to the M8 other than both OEMs are offering upgrades.

 

Exactly, it's all Imants' fault ... unfortunately, somebody uses this as a weapon to attack Leica, and it really shows peoples' true colors. LOL

 

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is why you'd be shooting so fast. To freeze a moment that you wouldn't be able to discern, anticipate, or time otherwise. Not all photography is about previsualization. Some is exploration. Maybe what you want is the moment just before a high diver's head touches the water, or the exact instant a runner hits the tape, you name it, there are countless images you can think of but can't actually see happen.

 

Did you ever look at the flash photos by Edgerton, stroboscopic, or high speed motion picture photography? Then there is time exposure.

 

High speed photography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I have my own view on what is photography and what is simply ruthless picture taking by machines.

 

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso
What is your point Simon other than the fact you like rant about Nikon because they don't build all their cameras in Japan. If you think it is to expensive (assuming you own a D3) then don't up upgrade the buffer - simple as that. Similarly not everyone will need it and the same applies. I think the M8 upgrades are to expensive and have decide not to buy-in - so I move on....it is so easy.

 

That all said, I am not sure how this all relates to the M8 other than both OEMs are offering upgrades.

 

Terry.

 

I think that is the key point Terry being Nikon, Leica, canon or whoever. The idea is to expand what they have on the market without building another bread box right away. Part of the issue is it maybe 18 months before new technology or ramp up for another body. So this gives some extra life to existing camera's which i think is a great idea. The nice thing is you can ignore it and continue as always or if it appeals to you and your style than upgrade. I think to often we don't see this as a option.

 

Simon i have to disagree with you on the price. 500 dollars is really not that much when you consider you have to crack open a body to do that. Let's look at the bench time the engineering costs involved, R&D and than you have to make sure everything is back in order before shipping back to customer. I realize the part maybe 25 dollars overall but there is a lot that goes into that part before it is even manufactured. Besides all that the big word is PROFIT. No one works for free. Seriously the guy that needs that kind of horsepower will pay 500 gladly without blinking a eye. This is a Pro camera also and designed with the Pro in mind and that little cost will get absorbed almost immediately in the cost of doing business. To me this is not really a hobbyist feature but keyed at very specific needs of a Pro sports shooter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the timing is bad - one week before the Olympics. Unless Nikon plans to do on the spot upgrades in Beijing.

 

I suspect that any sports photogs using Nikon in Beijing have probably already got this upgrade ahead of time anyways via NPS or 'placed' equipment.

 

Coulda sworn this was the M8 forum ...

 

Thinks to self: "Have I somehow stumbled through hyperspace onto the Nokin forum?"

 

Pete.

 

Don't worry, as soon as the Canon 5D successor comes out all of this Nikon love fest will be forgotten and it'll be:

  • a Canon love fest,
  • how obsolete Canon gear is,
  • how pretty & shiny the new camera is,
  • why Leica is going to implode unless it produces an AF 50mp R replacement,
  • how crap the M series upgrades are,
  • how stupid digital shooters are and why we should use film,
  • how dumb film users are and why don't they use digital,
  • various posters being ass's etc etc.
     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest stnami

Simon your days of puberty are over, time to buy a pair of mittens:) , this will curb your need to grin out loud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have my own view on what is photography and what is simply ruthless picture taking by machines.

 

Jeff

 

 

That's fine with me. But I put more weight on the picture, not how the photographer got it. If he/she can get in 1 frame, fine. If it took 10,000 frames that's fine with me too.

 

I had a discussion once with Bianca Lavies who used to shoot nature/wildlife for the NGS.

I asked her how she got the picture of the armadillo jumping in the air that was on the cover of the magazine many years ago. She said she knew that if a flash fired the animal would jump. So she had a pad made that once the armadillo stepped on it a flash would go off causing the jump. It was calibrated to trigger from the weight of an armadillo. Then a short time later the camera would be triggered with another flash for the photo. She knew a spot where there was a good amount of armadillo traffic. I think it was a trail in Louisianna. She set up her gear there, lived in a nearby cabin, and checked it every morning. After a month she got a photo that she was happy with.

 

I know this may not be your kind of photography but to me it showed some real knowledge and dedication to get an interesting photo.

 

Every once and a while I shoot at an air show to test my timing skills. I fire single shots not bursts and try to capture fast jets as they are crossing each other. I seem to have close to a 50% ratio of actually getting the two planes in the same frame even though I track one and have to anticipate the other out of the corner of my eye. I can't see it entering the frame and somehow must press the shutter release before it does so.

 

But If I were on assignment to shoot these jets and wanted to get a good crossing shot, I'd be blasting away as fast as I could as many times as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't quite understand that we are giving justice to Nikon for charging $500 for some memory increase, while at the same time we are cursing Leica for asking E1200 to replace sapphire glass and a new shutter mechanism.

QUOTE]

 

speaking only for myself:

Nikon's upgrade is increasing the utility of a camera in an area where it is already competitive. (hence theupgrade will not be universally attractive)

Leica's upgrade is fixing problems with the original design. (hence most M8 owners would like the new 'features' but might gag on the cost)

 

My first dslr came with a cover for the lcd so the expensive lcd was protected at the cost of a few cents (or 100 Yen for a replacement cover) my second dslr came with a hardened lcd screen. My M8 screen was scratched within a few weeks of me getting it. Then there is the issue of Leica spending he last few decades telling us how the whisper quiet shutter of the M cameras is a major Leica advantage and part of the M DNA, except they launch the M8 with a shutter that is lauder than a good few slrs (subjectively to my ears).

I didnt notice anyone moaning about the D3 buffer till now, but there has been lots of moans about M8 screen and shutter noise. That surely is the difference...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/nikoneurope_en.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=25465&p

 

 

 

 

 

beats getting a screen and a bit of a shutter silence

 

Let's see, first the announcement that Nikon will not make a full frame sensor camera. Introduction of DX lenses so you can sell all your old lenses and upgrade to the new format. Out comes the D3 and D700 with full frame sensor. And your not getting duped?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The assumption above that Nikon can just plug in the memory chip is naive at best. Given the compact nature of cameras today and the amount of electronics crammed in the memory chips are most likely soldered in and either must be desoldered or the board containing the chips replaced. Thus $500 is a deal compared to any other camera upgrade. And to compare the chip cost to a stand alone box like a Dell is ridiculous. Try upgrading the memory in your iTouch if you want a comparison. It will cost you more than an iTouch.

Bottom line is, that you pay $500 to buy memory. Please realize that there's a lot of premium in that $500.

 

As to whether the upgrade is useful I would suppose that it depends on the kind of shooting you do. Being able to shoot 10fps for 4 seconds versus 1.5 may be the difference between the shot you want and not getting it. In any case tell me how the new sapphire glass on the M8 will improve your photography or chances of capturing that killer shot.

And what if that shot you are chasing comes in 4.3s? you've thrown away $500 or you will wait until Nikon asks for $1000 for the other upgrade that will let you shoot for 10s?

What are you photographing? LHC particles?

The sapphire glass makes the m8 even more robust and the shutter even more quiet: to some this might make a difference, as it makes for you the memory you buying..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't quite understand that we are giving justice to Nikon for charging $500 for some memory increase, while at the same time we are cursing Leica for asking E1200 to replace sapphire glass and a new shutter mechanism.

QUOTE]

 

speaking only for myself:

Nikon's upgrade is increasing the utility of a camera in an area where it is already competitive. (hence theupgrade will not be universally attractive)

Leica's upgrade is fixing problems with the original design. (hence most M8 owners would like the new 'features' but might gag on the cost)

it seems to me that both companies do the same then: nikon expands competing in making machine guns, leica which is already quiet with the m8 wants to make it even more quiet for those that need it (remember that the new shutter also makes for a lot less impact and so, more handshake free shots)

My first dslr came with a cover for the lcd so the expensive lcd was protected at the cost of a few cents (or 100 Yen for a replacement cover) my second dslr came with a hardened lcd screen. My M8 screen was scratched within a few weeks of me getting it. Then there is the issue of Leica spending he last few decades telling us how the whisper quiet shutter of the M cameras is a major Leica advantage and part of the M DNA, except they launch the M8 with a shutter that is lauder than a good few slrs (subjectively to my ears).

I didnt notice anyone moaning about the D3 buffer till now, but there has been lots of moans about M8 screen and shutter noise. That surely is the difference...

Im sure you can, as a Leica m8 owner, spend some 5 cents and purchase a protective film for your LCD cover, but that sapphire glass costs E700. It's entirely up to you.

People used to compare noises, when the shutter was a cloth: less moving masses, less energy produced, less noise. Now the shutter is metal, it is a lot faster and also somewhat noisier, but please tell me which dSLRs are quieter than the m8, with the old shutter not the new one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...please tell me which dSLRs are quieter than the m8, with the old shutter not the new one?

According to Chasseur d'Images # 290, 300 & 302:

 

/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/Shut_nois_comp.gif&key=3943efec4a83466e21778a90660908a130b00d80770bc7a1a4fe20ea4e3f09ae">

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

diogenis,

if you think Leica are doing a good job, that your prerogative. I disagree, and that my prerogative.

I have indeed put a piece of crappy adhesive film on my M8, it makes an expensive camera look crap, but what the heck at least it saves me the 800 euros. Shame that I have to do it for myself while on my nikon its done for me.

From memory (going back to early 2007 when I could drop into any of Tokyo's camera stores and try out any number of cameras) several of the entry level dslrs, be they canon, nikon, olympus or whoever sounded as or quieter, and they also had a faster frame rate. No doubt due to extensive use of plastic. But I really don’t give a monkeys what the shutter/mirror is made of, I use my cameras to take pictures, not materials studies. I just think Leica made a poor design choice, and their subsequent reaction confirms that (to me at any rate). Sure the D2/3 makes more noise, but it not only has a mirror but also has a Much higher frame rate.

YMMV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
diogenis,

if you think Leica are doing a good job, that your prerogative. I disagree, and that my prerogative.

I have indeed put a piece of crappy adhesive film on my M8, it makes an expensive camera look crap, but what the heck at least it saves me the 800 euros. Shame that I have to do it for myself while on my nikon its done for me.

From memory (going back to early 2007 when I could drop into any of Tokyo's camera stores and try out any number of cameras) several of the entry level dslrs, be they canon, nikon, olympus or whoever sounded as or quieter, and they also had a faster frame rate. No doubt due to extensive use of plastic. But I really don’t give a monkeys what the shutter/mirror is made of, I use my cameras to take pictures, not materials studies. I just think Leica made a poor design choice, and their subsequent reaction confirms that (to me at any rate). Sure the D2/3 makes more noise, but it not only has a mirror but also has a Much higher frame rate.

YMMV

 

It is the same old argument.

 

As a small company Leica is limited as to what it can achieve in the timescale that so many people seem to expect. They made mistakes but so for example has the great God of Canon with the AF issues on its top of the range 1D series cameras. (Not fixed by the way after more than a year of denial and then coming up with patches)

 

An M8 gets you away from frame rate and AF and everything else that goes with a modern DSLR. I cant imagine why frame rate would be important to anyone wanting to use a RF camera with no autofocus and no telephoto lens capability.

 

I mean do you want to take the photograph or do want the camera to take it for you?

 

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's see, first the announcement that Nikon will not make a full frame sensor camera. Introduction of DX lenses so you can sell all your old lenses and upgrade to the new format. Out comes the D3 and D700 with full frame sensor. And your not getting duped?

 

Duped - pretty strong stuff...

 

Nikon, Canon, Pentax et al have all introduced DX lenses, all have maintained their FX line-up or added to it (14-24, 24-70, etc). In the case of Nikon they have a stellar DX body in the D300, and my guess is there will be a new D90 although the D80 and D60 both are good and very inexpensive DX bodies. More important the D700 and D3 both have in camera support for the DX lenses. Although I have only a couple of DX lenses they work amazingly well on both the D700 and D3.

 

It is Internet myth that Nikon said they would not a make a full frame sensor body...... Just didn't happen that way and I am not talking about regional managers who flap-off without knowing Nikon Japan plans.

 

Best to all. Terry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three pages. This thread is three pages long. Insane. Like or need an upgrade buy it, don't? Then don't. Pretty freakin' simple.

 

Neil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I mean do you want to take the photograph or do want the camera to take it for you?

 

Jeff

 

have you bothered to read both of my posts?

 

Thanks for your contribution, nevertheless you havnt influenced my opinion.

As I already said, I buy cameras to take pictures, not because of the size of the company or the brand name, thats why I have I have various cameras from 5 different maufacturers (having sold off cameras from an additional 3 different manufaturers...), none of which I use on motodive mode....

Funnily enough my favorite pictures often come from a leica, just not the M8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Duped - pretty strong stuff...

 

Nikon, Canon, Pentax et al have all introduced DX lenses, all have maintained their FX line-up or added to it (14-24, 24-70, etc). In the case of Nikon they have a stellar DX body in the D300, and my guess is there will be a new D90 although the D80 and D60 both are good and very inexpensive DX bodies. More important the D700 and D3 both have in camera support for the DX lenses. Although I have only a couple of DX lenses they work amazingly well on both the D700 and D3.

 

It is Internet myth that Nikon said they would not a make a full frame sensor body...... Just didn't happen that way and I am not talking about regional managers who flap-off without knowing Nikon Japan plans.

 

Best to all. Terry

Terry, yes they have all introduced DX lenses but this post is specifically about Nikon whose history has been about keeping the same lens mount and persuading loyalists that it was a positive thing while they lost ground to Canon who dumped their FD mount for the EOS system. Nikon continued the same old path that led loyalist to believe their old lenses would work on expensive pro cameras when most of the features paid for were lost unless upgrades to the new lenses were made. The shaft drive hunt and peck AF system turned into the shaft for the consumer because Canons system was blowing it away. What Nikon has finally done is create a viable AF system based on electronics and motors in the lenses which they should have done years ago but were too arrogant to admit that Canon had created a winner. Yes your DX lenses work fine on your D3 and D700 but at the cost of cropping the sensor. If this post about Nikon products is being made on a Leica forum to try to make some point about purpose then if and when Leica comes out with a full frame sensor M my old lenses will work the same on it as they do on the APS H sized sensor without sacrifice. Who then has the better sense of purpose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An M8 gets you away from frame rate and AF and everything else that goes with a modern DSLR. I cant imagine why frame rate would be important to anyone wanting to use a RF camera with no autofocus and no telephoto lens capability.

 

Jeff

 

Maybe that is why Nikon made the upgrade optional. I wouldn't need it, but I certainly can see that some types of photographers could benefit. Perhaps the larger buffer will also be useful for fast, but not high speed burst, shooting. (I don't know how easy it is to fill the buffer on the non-updated D3.) Excessive price? Since when is that news when it comes to camera gear? (The cheap plastic Polaroid back for my Rollei 6006 cost $660 in 1986 or so. It looks just like the back end of a $40 Polaroid camera.)

 

At one time, motor drives were optional also. A small group of people seemed to appreciate them on rangefinder cameras.

 

Nikon SP Motor Jacobson Powercon Battery* Pack

 

Berning Robot Royal 36 - Lights in the Box

 

Antique Soviet Camera: Leningrad camera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are so many people talking about the Nikons becoming obsolete? A camera will only become obsolete for those who have to have the newest products every time they get released. The D3 is an unbelievable camera if you don't mind its weight and will remain a great camera for many years to come. The M8 however desperately needs an upgrade. A good friend of mine is a professional photographer who shoots celebrity portraits. He is still working with a Canon 1Ds. He skipped the upgrade to the MarkII and he admired the low noise of my 5d when I owned it. When the MarkIII came out, he told me what a fantastic camera that is and that he would finally upgrade. That was five months ago. He is still taking fantastic portraits of some of our biggest celebrities, still with his Canon 1Ds. He says that the camera is simply good enough for what he does and he just cannot justify not using it anymore. So much for cameras becoming obsolete.

 

And to get back to the original post: Nikon is a great company and definitely out to kick some butt with the D3. They lost a lot of customers to Canon, when Canon came out with a full-frame sensor, and with the D3 (and D300 and 700) they are out to rectify the situation. Good for them.

 

I love my M8 and it will not become obsolete for me for a long time, but I sure hope that under new leadership, Leica will get off their high horse and start working on something that is really useful as an upgrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Terry, yes they have all introduced DX lenses but this post is specifically about Nikon whose history has been about keeping the same lens mount and persuading loyalists that it was a positive thing while they lost ground to Canon who dumped their FD mount for the EOS system. Nikon continued the same old path that led loyalist to believe their old lenses would work on expensive pro cameras when most of the features paid for were lost unless upgrades to the new lenses were made. The shaft drive hunt and peck AF system turned into the shaft for the consumer because Canons system was blowing it away. What Nikon has finally done is create a viable AF system based on electronics and motors in the lenses which they should have done years ago but were too arrogant to admit that Canon had created a winner. Yes your DX lenses work fine on your D3 and D700 but at the cost of cropping the sensor. If this post about Nikon products is being made on a Leica forum to try to make some point about purpose then if and when Leica comes out with a full frame sensor M my old lenses will work the same on it as they do on the APS H sized sensor without sacrifice. Who then has the better sense of purpose?

 

 

Well, OK. Try putting your Canon DX lenses on their full frame cameras and let me know what happens. I thought it was quite innovative on the part of Nikon to add DX to the full frame bodies. What in heavens name lens mounts has to do with Nikon v Canon is smoke and mirrors Internet bullshit and you know it.

 

It seems you have a bug in your ass about Nikon - that's OK too - I applaud and support you on that point. Canon is great kit enjoy it.

 

My personal preferences aside we should applaud innovation, such as the ability to use DX designed lenses on an FX body - imagine the howl if Leica is the least bit innovative with the M9.

 

One more point - cut the lecture crap... I don't need to be lectured by you or anyone else. These forums apparently are wide-open discussion. Don't lecture.

 

Best Regards. Terry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy