|
|
December 29, 2005 - A reader asked about my thoughts on a possible Nikon F100 replacement, due to a recent Photo.net forum posting and thread. The F100 is dear to my heart because I still use a pair of them for certain types of event photography and even run an occasional roll of film through them for my own purposes. I’m even thinking about buying another one or two to enhance my ability to cover a wedding. Why three or four F100 cameras for a wedding? Two for color photos with a 28-70mm f2.8 lens on one camera and a 70-200mm f2.8 on another. One for B&W with a normal range lens such as the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 or 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 lens. And the fourth for use with either a wide-angle zoom lens, or as an infrared film camera, or as a high-speed B&W camera. Of course for you digital photographers, you only need two cameras with all considerations for B&W and/or infrared look done in post-production. Why continue buying F100 cameras instead of say one or two brand new, state of the art F6 cameras? Continuity. Hey, I’d love to own three or four F6 cameras instead like Joe Buissink, but that’s about 9 to 12 grand worth of film cameras that I don’t want to spend money on, especially since used F100 cameras in excellent condition can be bought for about 50 cents on the dollar of new list price. That’s about $600 to $700 per camera, maybe even less depending on where you’re buying from. Using all the same cameras means no need to think about how one camera works versus another. Every button, function, and control is identical to all the others. Switching cameras means no slow down – as long as you know which camera has which type of film loaded. Using older cameras does mean no access to the latest and greatest technology – I’d love to have access to the amazing i-TTL technology in Nikon’s latest digital and film cameras, but I and many others have gotten along fine without it. Focusing speed has also been fast enough with AF-S lenses that I don’t feel I’m missing anything, although more accurate tracking focus for moving brides would be nice. So, while not a perfect camera, there’s isn’t a great deal more needed in the F100 for a potential F200 upgrade. A F200 unit would obviously have the additional focus points a la the F6/D2 series of cameras (or perhaps more appropriately, the D200). The aforementioned i-TTL flash technology and a similar build quality and sealing as the D200. In fact, the D200 is priced about the same as what my F100 cost me new back in 2000. Photo.net’s Nikon forum moderator Shun Chung, posted a comment that he figured the F100’s replacement was in fact the D200 and I concur with that thought. I came across another posting some time ago about the F6 (don’t recall if it was Photo.net, or another forum) and the gist of it was that the F6 was a “f*** you” to Canon. A challenge, a throwing down of the gauntlet to Canon to dare to put resources into building a state of the art, world class film camera for the ages. Not likely to happen because Canon puts a lot of resources into cultivating and dominating the professional photographers market and this market have abandoned film for the vast majority of their photographic needs. Thus the F6 is likely to be the last of the great, professional, auto focus film cameras and while I don’t see anything wrong with producing a statement film camera this far into the digital era, I don’t see the point of producing more prosumer/consumer film cameras to add to the stable and replace the current cameras. From a legacy perspective it “would” be nice to see a full lineup of about four film SLRs, from entry, to consumer, to prosumer, to professional level, but who’s going to buy them in the key markets that matter the most of Europe and North America, not to mention the massive emerging middle class market of China and India – as large, if not larger than the whole of the US population per country. The market trend has been pointing to the D-SLR as the next segment to compete in and is why companies such as Sony, Samsung, and Panasonic have partnered with traditional SLR makers. Sony, Samsung, and Panasonic have no history or tradition as camera companies. They’re huge consumer electronics companies that became photographic players only in the digital era. The companies
they have partnered with, Konica Minolta, Pentax, and
I’ve opined in the past that the biggest obstacle to getting mass market support for digital is pricing. Get the prices down low enough so that digital cameras sell for the same as film cameras and watch out for the damn bursting with buyers. It’s happened with digicams, so much so that there is market saturation and few companies are able to make much of a buck in this segment. When Nikon hit one out of the park with the D70, a mid-level SLR camera with just the right mix of features and at the right price to become a runaway bestseller (probably Nikon’s best selling SLR ever, based on some production numbers floated around the ‘net last year) it gave notice to everyone else that this is the new game in town. Now the pricing is lowering even more with the D50 and Canon D-Rebel models. Again, the D200 sells for about the same money as when the F100 was relatively new to the market and the D200 is clearly the reciprocal of the F100 in the D-SLR line-up. Yes, the pop-up flash takes away some of the professional credentials and Nikon did not use the same D2 level focusing engine in the D200, as they did vis a vis the F5 and F100’s CAM 1300 engine. However, without having used one (haven’t even seen one) I think I would be quite happy swapping out the F100’s for the D200. And this is my longer term goal, to eventually move away from shooting weddings with film and doing them digitally. The D100 and D70 cameras were not the cameras that would sway me for such a switch because of their speed and buffer limitations shooting RAW, but the D200 has got the right mix of features and especially price to entice me fully over to the digital dark side. The other aspect of getting consumers over to digital is convenience. Shoot off a roll of film and then drop off to any one-hour mini lab and get some nice 4x6 prints. Most consumers don’t want to bother with editing and printing at home and once the mini labs and other labs finally brought in digital ordering stations, then the consumer experience became exactly as it was with film. Shoot off a flash card’s worth of photos, drop by the mini lab, insert card into a Noritsu station, select which images to print, come back and pick up a stack of 4x6 prints – all for the same, or less cost as with film prints in that same one-hour period. So nowadays, be it with film, or with digital, there’s little to no difference for the consumer and the end product desired, the ubiquitous 4x6 inch print. The pricing isn’t quite there yet in the low-end SLR market, as cheap film SLR kits can be bought for about $400 while the D50 kit is still pushing $1000, but if the salesperson can do the sales job properly and highlight the lack of film costs and being able to print only what you want, the extra cost for the convenience eventually gets recouped. And you know for sure that the $1000 price tag won’t remain at that level for very long. I’d expect the next generation of entry-level SLRs to push the kit prices down near the $500 range, at which point, the future of film SLRs will be done for in the mass market segment. Thus, I see no point for a F200 replacement of the F100 camera. It would not be a wise use of R&D and production costs when every other company is trying to take away market share from Nikon in the surging D-SLR segment – a few said exactly the same thing about the F6, but I kind of like the “f*** you” quotient as one possible reason amongst the others J November 25, 2005 - I’ve been following a thread at Photo.net about the HP Designjet 130 dye ink printer versus the Epson 4800 K3 pigment ink printer, and how one writer considers the Epson K3 printers to be supreme, while another questions that assertion and favors the HP professional series of printers due to higher DMAX from the HP dye inks. Higher DMAX apparently lending a more striking print quality than the Epson K3 printers. It's unfortunate that the discussion turned into a personal slagging match that seems to run a little too rampant on some Photo.net forums.I’m mildly curious because at one point in time I was interested in the DJ130 because it’s the most cost-effective way to get a 24-inch wide printer. For less money than the Epson 4800, one could buy the DJ130 with the roll kit and print larger than the Epson 4800 can, as it’s only a 17-inch wide printer. However, I think I’m pretty much set to get my own Epson R2400, or, if the heavens shine on me favorably, the larger 4800 at some point in the future. There are certain considerations that appeal to me about the Epson products that work strongly towards their favor. As most would know by now, I’m working towards setting myself up as a wedding photographer and I’d like to be able to offer both film and digital coverage. For digital, I’d prefer to be able to do as much of the printing myself with a unique approach to creating the albums. This requires A3 sized albums and of course, A3 sized paper and there are choices available from Epson for this size. Specifically, the two types of papers I’d most likely use for my future album printing would be Epson Enhanced Matte and Epson Premium Luster, both of which just happen to be available in A3 size. It makes things simple and convenient for me to print and that goes a long ways for the choice of printer. Also, while I don’t consider myself to be a B&W printer, I appreciate the ease of which Epson has made B&W printing through its Advanced B&W option in its driver settings. It’s good to know that I can get great B&W prints with minimal fuss and without need of an expensive RIP. I’ve only seen the output of a DJ130 via a sample print sent to me by HP and while it’s a nice looking glossy print, I wasn’t totally blown away by the quality. One print doesn’t make for a proper conclusion about the printer’s capabilities and if I were doing a lot of 24-inch wide printing on glossy paper, the DJ130 would have to be strong consideration. But, for me, the current Epson K3 printers and paper offerings provide me with the just the right mix of overall features to make them my choice. November 17, 2005 - Came across a posting on Photo.net that claimed that Canon has 90-percent market share amongst professional photographers. Allegedly, Dirck Halstead of digitaljournalist.org made these comments in an email answering some questions by a reader. Halstead was concerned by this sad state of affairs, because Nikon is a sponsor of his website and feared that such lack of success would eventually mean losing their support. Now, Halstead, being a professional photographer would certainly have the pulse of the pro market, but 90-percent?! Holy smokes, if that were really the case then Nikon should be on life support and be ready to be bought up by an angel investor. However, the posting did not provide any further details so we're not entirely sure if Halstead meant just the photojournalist market that he works in, or if he meant the entire pro market writ large. My thought is that Halstead might have meant the PJ market and not the whole market of pros that run the gamut of sports, wildlife, landscape, stock, travel, wedding, portrait, et al. I don't think anyone, even the most ardent Nikon supporter, would deny that Canon is indeed the market leader by a comfortable margin, but 90-percent seems dubious. I can't speak for any other market, but my own observations in Vancouver is about a 1/3 to 1/2 ratio of Nikon users to Canon for PJs, sports, and wedding pros. Heading down to Seattle for a Seahawks game usually has 1/3 of the pros using Nikon. These are far from the heady days of the 1960s to 1980s when Nikon ruled the roost, but it isn't quite as tragic as others would suggest. These claims also beg the question, if Nikon were doing so poorly, who the heck are buying all those D2 series cameras? There is also a tendency to look at the market from a very localized, or regional perspective and ignore what happens in the rest of the world. Case in point, Japanese wedding photographers apparently still shoot film and the vast majority shoot Nikon. Anecdotal comments tend to peg the numbers of Japanese wedding pros using Nikon as...90-percent of the market (uh-oh!) ;^) Novemer 3, 2005 - Other people more capable and much more knowledgeable than I have already weighed on the Nikon D200 and how it has met, or not met the high expectations that Nikon users (and non-users) have had of this camera. The D200 was a longtime coming given the typical cycle of D-SLRs, as the predecessor D100 was released in 2002. Since that time period, Canon had released the 10D, 20D, as well as a full frame variant in the 5D. Nikon chugged along the entry to mid-level track with the D70, D70s, and D50, leaving an obvious gap between the modest cost D70s and the high cost D2X. Many prognostications and wish lists were posted about what this hoped-for camera should offer. Full frame is always at the top of the list, but nothing more than a pipedream at this stage of digital SLR development. While kudos goes to Canon for being able to bring down the price point of a full frame chip in the 5D, it is still a fairly expensive camera for most consumers to contemplate. You could buy two D200s for the price of one 5D and I would certainly choose that route if given a choice (or two 30Ds instead of one 5D, to be fair in the choices offered). The D200 is a very pleasant surprise. While one can suggest that the Nikon engineers could have designed the D200 within a bubble environment with nary an input from outside sources, it doesn’t seem that way at all. What it shows, gasp, is that Nikon has actually listened to the complaints and suggestions from its user base about what it should do to improve on future products. Viewfinder coverage and AI/AIS compatibility have been the two most constant gripes from users about Nikon’s middling cameras (besides the aforementioned full frame, but some users still don’t seem to understand the relationship between chip yield and how it affects the retail pricing). While only a select few have had the opportunity to look through the D200’s viewfinder, the general consensus appears to be that it is a marked improvement over previous consumer level cameras, while still retaining the desirable feature of on-demand grid lines. I’m not a manual focus lens user, but I’m still happy to see an improved viewfinder for macro focusing work. AI/AIS compatibility is another feature that I have no need for, but again, I’m glad to see Nikon act to placate so many of its loyal users. The ability to mount 30 year old lenses on a current D-SLR is a rather dubious feature (IMHO) and while I understand and support the need to move on in technology and the benefits of all electronic interfaces, Nikon built it’s loyalty and following in large part by maintaining backwards compatibility with the lenses of yesteryear. It's a tradition that they cannot turn their backs to especially since they still manufacture a desirable manual focus camera in the FM3A that harkens back to some stellar cameras of old in the FM and FE series. Nikon has sold over 30 million lenses worldwide and while it’s not going to make a dime on any of the numerous second hand sales, maintaining the backwards compatibility is the right thing to do and restores faith amongst the user base. Adding in $50, $100, or whatever it cost Nikon to add the AI/AIS compatibility is really a small cost to pay because it opens up a market of old lens users that desire to taste the digital nectar without the princely budget to afford the D2 series. Which leads to one of the most important aspects about the D200, its list price of US $1700, or CAN $2150 (CameraCanada.com). Some had feared that Nikon would place a premium on its D100 replacement and keep it above US $2000, but as with the other points, it does seem like Nikon is starting to clue in about how it needs to compete against Canon, its primary competition. It also has to face down future competition from the new partnerships that have recently emerged. It’s a distinction that Nikon, despite being a much smaller company than Canon, can still independently design and manufacture state of the art SLRs and lenses without partnering up with a mass electronics company. Look at how digital has shaken up the old world of photography and forced venerable brands to find partners, or disappear altogether:
There might still come a day when Nikon will need a partner, or be bought out, but that day is not now. Nikon has also shown that it will introduce products on its own schedule despite what the competition might be doing. If that means three-years between product cycles then users should get use to that cycle and not expect Nikon to respond to every incremental product upgrade its competitor might produce. There will always be people wanting an immediate response from Nikon for whatever Canon is going to produce, but for me, three-years is a more budget friendly cycle than every 18-months (oh, for the glory days of film when cycles were eight-years long). Some are distracted by the D200’s inclusion of a built-in flash head and of a white focus assist light, neither of which should detract from the other fine features of the camera. Metal build, weather sealing, 1/250 flash sync speed: these are all pro features found in the F100 film camera, a favorite of many National Geographic photographers. The new CAM1000 AF module might not be up to the standard of the CAM1300 used in the F100 and F5, but then you didn’t really think that the CAM2000 used in the US $5000 D2X would find its way into the US $1700 D200, did you? There has to be a certain give and take for Nikon to continue to justify the D2X’s existence. Some are also distracted by DPReview’s suggestion that the D200 could be competition for the Canon 5D, but then these people seem to be not aware of the D2X’s ability to compete effectively against the larger chipped and higher resolution Canon 1Ds Mk II. They see the D200 as a very tardy response to the Canon 20D. My take is that the D200 is both; it will compete head to head with the 20D’s eventual successor because of resolution and price point, but based on the D2X and IDs Mk II comparisons, I think the D200 will come out just fine against the 5D, with the only major concession being noise when using higher ISO settings. It took a while, but now Nikon users have a selection of five D-SLRs of varying capabilities and price points. It’s not a bad group with perhaps the only question mark being the D2Hs, but only because it’s a rather lowish 4 MP. However, most news and sports pros, the D2Hs’ target market, seldom need more resolution than 4 MP and for those that do need more, the D2X is the more appropriate choice. Now, we need to see what Nikon will do on the lens front, which does need a few more lenses to round out the range. Something along the lines of:
October 16, 2005 - I sometimes see Canon's availability of super telephoto lenses with IS as being one major factor in Canon being "the" choice for those in the know, as claimed by some Canon users. Indeed, it is valid up to a point that Nikon does not have AF-S, VR versions of the three big super telephoto lenses of the 400mm f2.8, 500mm f4, and 600mm f4 focal lengths. However, it's not quite as cut and dried as some Canon users make it out to be. Since "so many" have switched already due to Canon's availability of full-frame D-SLRs and many fine the 500mm f4 lens to be a good compromise between telephoto reach versus size, weight, and cost vis a vis the 600mm f4 lens, I'll use it as for the following examples. At B&H Photo, a 500mm f4 IS lens costs US $5500. A 1Ds Mk II costs US $7400, for a total of US $12,900 before any potential discount might be applied. A Nikon 200-400 f4 VR lens costs US $5100. A D2X costs US $5000, for a total of US $10,100, before any discounts or price matching is applied. Price difference of US $2800 favours Nikon, but what about focal length reach? 500mm on a 1Ds Mk II is 500mm. With a 1.4x TC, it becomes a 700mm f5.6 lens 400mm on a D2X crops down to 600mm. With a 1.4x TC, it becomes an "equivalent" 840mm f5.6 lens, plus you still benefit from having a zoom lens that minimizes the need to switch lenses or teleconverters. If you switch out the Canon 500 lens for a 600mm f4 to equalize the field of view available, the cost differential now favours Nikon by US $4500, or the equivalent of another D2X camera, at it's street value. While the best course of action would be for Nikon to just introduce new super telephoto lenses from 400 to 600mm with AF-S and VR lens motors, as Nikon has already shown it can do so in the form of the 200 f2 lens, the 300mm f2.8 lens, and the aforementioned 200-400 zoom, the lack of those big lenses is not as serious an impediment as some might have us believe. And if you won't take my word for it, how about Moose Peterson, Michael Weber, Dave Black, and Ron St. Angelo (official photographer for the Dallas Cowboys), as a few pros that make their bread and butter with the 200-400 lens as a mainstay. October 6, 2005 - Finally received my last set of accessories to round out my medium format gear and noticed the actual US Postal Service shipping costs were about US $18, but I paid US $43 for the S&H charged by the dealer. Only $3 went towards insurance. Do small cardboard boxes and packing peanuts really cost that much? Another dealer based out of NY state (Woodmere Camera) sent a lens weighing and worth about the same amount as the order described above, but it arrived much sooner, with better insurance coverage, and less overall S&H costs charged. (Stepping on soapbox) Makes you wonder now doesn’t it? However, despite such minor nickel and diming issues, sometimes I have no choice but to order from out of country, or the overall deal itself is still better than if I had to buy the same product in Canada. This despite the currency exchange rate and the insidious pound of flesh in taxes that have to be paid to the provincial and federal governments for every product, or service purchased in this country. All of which amounts to funneling large sums of money to the capital cities and in turn receiving mediocrity in government and services back. The societal contract with the Leviathan tilts ever more in favor of the monster than the people. (Stepping off soapbox) The Epson CX4600 printer/scanner/copier is dead. After going through Epson’s technical support, I was finally authorized to send the unit back on Epson’s dime and a replacement is being sent out. It appears the print head died a slow death and no amount of cleaning cycles helped. If it wasn’t under warranty, I’d have tossed it and even with the new one, if and when the ink usage coincides so that I have to replace all four cartridges at once, I’m tossing it. A full set of four ink cartridges costs as much as a new CX 4600 and new printers come with a full set of ink cartridges, so there’s no point buying any more new ink. Okay, maybe I won’t “toss” it, but merely give it away to someone who could use it more than I do. But then why would someone else spend $100 on new ink cartridges for an old unit, when they could just go out and buy a new unit with a warranty instead? Rather circular isn’t it? Sometimes I make recommendations and sometimes those recommendations are qualified as "highly," or just "recommended." Here's a very general guide to my subjective recommendations:
September 10, 2005 - An email from a reader about the Sony R1 and my response below: Edwin, I would also add that there are pros who like what these bridge cameras offer, especially for silence. Dave Black, a very highly regarded US pro, has used a Coolpix 8700 to take photos of golfers at the US Open at the height of their swing, something forbidden to those using regular SLR cameras because of the noise disturbance. Even though it's just a lowly Coolpix image, it was good enough to publish in the prestigious Golf Digest magazine. I would love the silence of these bridge cameras for wedding ceremonies, when the noise of a SLR and film rewinding are embarassing disturbances. What's stopped a lot of people from doing so is that the cameras that used the small digicam sized sensors were useless in low-light, no-flash shooting environments. The R1 heralds some very promising capabilities for wedding photographers. August 24, 2005 - Full-frame versus APS sized sensors. Is 24x36 mm chiseled in stone for all eternity, or can there be a new format size that can do the job and replace it? With the 5D official, the debate renews once more and now more than a few Nikon users are probably wondering if it’s worthwhile to continue hoping and pining that Nikon will produce a similar camera for their long-suffering users. And oh, be sure to price it well below the 5D, put in a F6 class viewfinder, with AI/AIS compatibility, and throw in the kitchen sink too. And while you’re at it, give me a digital FM3A too, so I can once again have the classic Nikon auto/manual focus camera kit. I’d like to have the ability to choose to buy a full-frame digital SLR that doesn’t break the bank as much as the next Nikon user (note I said “choose” not “need”), but I don’t think some people have given much thought to the concept of full-frame digital and what it implies. The desire for full-frame comes down to two primary arguments:
I don’t mean this as a knock against Canon as a lens maker because I suspect that there could be similar problems with Nikon lenses with any future full-frame Nikon camera. I would expect that Nikon will have to revamp some of their lenses and improve the quality whenever the full-frame Nikon D-SLR shows up, because as most know, digital capture places a heavier burden of quality on wide-angle lenses. So, even if Nikon did produce a competitive full-frame camera, it’s quite possible that the quality offered by your existing Nikkors won’t be satisfactory except for grab shots and that you’ll still have to buy new lenses anyway for critical usage. Hell, at this point, I don’t need full-frame or a super megapixel camera to see that my sample of the 17-35mm lens is not particularly stellar at 17mm with my ancient and lowly D100 and this is a lens designed with digital capture in mind. At this stage of the game, full-frame versus APS sized sensors isn’t of much interest because the D2X has shown that it can compete very effectively against the 1Ds Mk II. Where things will get really interesting is when Canon produces a 24 MP 1Ds Mk III that will likely be beyond the competitive reach of any APS sized sensor, but by that point, I fully expect the Nikon D3 to be a full, or near full-frame camera and we will move onto other gripes, such as why are the 1Ds and D3 cameras priced at more than $500 and where the hell is my cold-fusion powered, full-frame digital FM3A with the kitchen sink tossed in for free. August 22, 2005 - The Canon EOS 5D is reality and so is the EOS 1D Mk II N along with a new lens, flash, and probably a few printers. Pretty good start for Canon heading into the important Christmas buying season, since the new products are expected to be shipping in October. Some Canon oriented reviewers are already calling the EOS 5D the most significant camera in a long time, but then they tend to say that about every Canon camera that comes out. In the case of the 5D though, I'd say that yes, it is a milestone camera in the same way that the original Nikon D1 and Canon D30 set trends for their respective classes of camera at unheard of price points. I'm sure the 5D will be an instant bestseller for Canon as it caters to many professionals and the advanced amateur market that takes its cues from the pro market. The gnashing of teeth by Nikon users, already started when the rumors of the 5D started to float around the 'net last week. But Nikon has its own rumor floating around of a speculative D200, but Nikon expert Thom Hogan has cautioned against believing that one will receive some 90-percent or more of the D2X for half the price in the hoped-for D200. The spec sheet that briefly appeared and then disappeared may have been nothing more than a D2X template used to create the D200 brochures with changes yet to be made on things such as 12 MP of resolution and 5 fps, etc. I have to agree that it would be unlikely that Nikon would introduce such a well-spec'ed D200, but then Nikon does surprise very pleasantly at times (F6, FM3A, 200-400, and 200 f2 lenses), so until the real announcement is made, everything is just this side short of BS. New content may be a bit slower in coming than I like because my left pinkie finger is now a mallet finger. Meaning a tendon got torn from catching a football the wrong way and it has to be in a splint for about a month for the tendon to heal and re-attach. I can type, but it feels a bit awkward, so you'll forgive any extra spelling mistakes I might make :-) July 28, 2005 - I noticed that my update about Nikon registering the D200 trademark recently got posted on the Photo.net Nikon forum. There was the usual “I hope it has this and will be priced like this” kind of postings, but some had to toss in the duck about Nikon’s lack of support for older manual focus lens designs in current consumer-grade D-SLRs (D50, D70/s, D100). In a perfect world every SLR, film or digital, produced by Nikon would allow for perfect integration and compatibility with lenses from 1959 to current. We don’t live in a perfect world. Digital is a different means of producing photographs than film, however similar the basic process and mechanics of using the cameras and lenses. Lenses designed in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, and even the 90s will not necessarily produce the best results with the current crop of digital SLRs. There will always be exceptions, but Nikon has, since 1999, indicated that for the best quality with digital SLRs, only the most recent lens designs will be appropriate (think AF-S onwards). While interesting as a novelty to able to mount a 40 year old lens onto a 2005 camera, for best results, I would not do so given the availability of some mighty fine current lenses produced by Nikon. The argument about cost-savings is another duck because if a person can afford what is expected to be a US $1500 to $2000 camera, then a new lens or two shouldn’t be that much more of a hit to an already large purchase. Instead of looking at the positives of Nikon still producing manual focus lenses and cameras (how many of the other main auto focus brands can make that claim?) for those who still desire it, some have to be whiners about Nikon not producing a camera exactly to their liking. Oftentimes these are the same folks who complain that the D2X is US $5000 instead of US $500, meanwhile ignoring that the main competition prices its product much higher. The same folks that complain about Nikon not having full-frame D-SLRs that “cripple” their wide-angle lenses while again ignoring that the full-frame capabilities of the competition are revealing the limitations of that brand’s wide-angle lens designs. Read this article at Rob Gailbraith’s website for some comments along this line by a Canon-using pro (second half of page 2 of the article). Do I sound like a Nikon fanboy? Probably J I know, I know, for those that have a collection of old MF lenses, it sure would be nice to be able to utilize all of them with whichever D-SLR you choose to buy even if the results won’t be as good as possible with more recent lenses. However, given the trend of Nikon to provide for exactly that kind of compatibility and Matrix metering with the state of the art D2 and F6 cameras, there could be a sliver of hope that Nikon will have listened to some of the masses and provide metering with manual focus lenses. I have no inside information, it’s just my speculation based on what Nikon has done with its most recent pro cameras and given that the D200 will appeal to high-end consumers and professionals wanting a smaller and lighter mainstay, or backup camera. It would be a nice goodwill gesture and a way to atone for the White Balance encryption sin of the D2 cameras. June 11, 2005 - Idle thoughts: what if Nikon were to produce a 24 MP full frame (or near full frame, as some rumours have it) D-SLR and called it the F7, meaning the F6 is the last of the famous and legendary F series film cameras. What if Nikon could do that for US $5000 or less? What if after doing so, Nikon sells the D2X for under US $3000? And after that, Nikon produces a consumer version of the 12 MP DX camera for US $1500 (okay, maybe 10 MP only)? And after that a 6 MP DX camera for under US $500? What if the imaginary F7 came with a 1.5x and 2x crop feature similar to the D2X with it's 2x crop function. Push the function button and turn the command dial one way to get the 1.5x crop and the other way to get the 2x crop, and choosing a crop mode also increases the frame rate, e.g. 24 MP at 5 fps, 16 MP at 7.5 fps, and 12 MP at 10 fps. To make the crop function more usable, the viewfinder automatically darkens the sections not in use. Not completely black, but opague so that you could still see outside of the usable viewfinder. While we're at it, how about a 800mm f5.6 lens with VR and AF-S, or a 400-800 f5.6 VR AF-S zoom to cover the range after the excellent 200-400 lens? Revamp the entire line-up to take advantage of the new features that have been developed with the D2 series and F6. The 6 series of camera wouldn't be long-term offerings given how dominant digital has become, but for legacy and prestige reasons, it would be nice for Nikon to continue to offer film cameras while developing the big bread winners, digital SLRs that will eventually takeover the Nikon lineup. By the F8, the 6 series are no longer produced and are only available as new old stock. By then few people will even know how to load a roll of film into a camera. By the end of the decade, the only film cameras Nikon produces are the F6 and FM3A.
June 4, 2005 - I attended my cousin's convocation ceremonies at Simon Fraser University yesterday morning. Just as I was the first in my family to attend and graduate from university, so was my cousin. It was a proud and happy moment for my aunt and uncle, immigrants from the old country, working long and hard to give their kids a better life in Canada (same as my parents). In the old world of their generation, it was quite common for kids to end their schooling at our equivalent of grade 6 and be forced to help the family eke out a living under Mao's Communist rule. Anyway, this is not a history lesson of post WW II China, but about photography. I decided to use my F100 and gasp, film, to record the graduation ceremony. The difference from working with the D100 to the F100 could not be more different in terms of responsiveness. A few times my trigger finger applied too much pressure and I ended doing a motor driven sequence of shots when I only wanted a single shot. Wow, what a feeling going from a sub 3 fps D-SLR with a tiny buffer to a 5 fps film camera with a 36 frame buffer and near-instant response (I would have said instant, but remembered that the F100 is still inferior to the F5/F6 and D2 series of cameras). It brought to mind that as much as I enjoy using my D100, it's still a camera built on the chassis and from the parts list of a consumer film camera that's worth about $400 these days, never mind the mind-numbing $3300 cost I paid for it back in 2002. A cost that surpassed the mighty F5 when the D100 was new on the market. These days, the D100 is worth all of $1500 and is an unwanted child in the Nikon line-up, as users clamour for word of when the D100 replacement will surface. Rumour has it that the D100 has already been discontinued by Nikon. While the responsiveness and build quality of the F100 was like a narcotic beckoning the addict, there is no instant feedback and thus no chimping. It will be a couple of days before I'll be able to drop off the rolls and a couple of days after that to get the prints back, but then I've saved myself hours of editing on the computer. But, don't forget I still have to pay for the film, processing, and printing. Pluses ad minuses for both approaches to photography, however, sometimes I think progress isn't all that it's cracked up to be ;-) May 6, 2005 - By now most people will know that Nikon expert and author, Thom Hogan, has posted his D2X review at his website. I've mentioned several times in the past that Thom Hogan is one of the big three reviewers I hold in high regard and of the three, Hogan is the most forthright in calling a spade a spade and providing detailed explanations as to why he does. Hogan has basically damned Nikon in a big way for the D2X white balance encryption, so much so that Hogan even contemplated giving the D2X a "Not Recommended" rating. However, he admits that it would be hypocritical of him to do, as he is now using the D2X as his primary camera. However, if Hogan says the D2X white balance data is encrypted then it's encrypted and it's a bummer to see such a great tool fall victim to short-sighted corporate bean counting. Nikon has always been a bit off beat with some of their choices, but this one is just too idiotic and as much as Adobe is just as much a greedy corporate machine, the fallout from this public spat has made Nikon look really bad. Hogan says a potential D2X user will have three choices about the white balance encryption issue:
Personally, if I had the scratch for a D2X and knowing how I use my cameras, I fall into 3, but I know that there are plenty of photographers, pro and amateur, who cannot put up with the known problems with Nikon Capture, even if they admit that it produces the best looking converted image out of all the Raw converters available. There are also plenty who will damn Nikon and won't purchase a Nikon camera out of principal, because of the boneheaded move made by Nikon Corp. It seems the best that can come of this is that Nikon reverts back to the way they use to store the white balance data in older cameras and to next time, let sleeping dogs lie. Unfortunately, they've got some ugly black eyes over this and it could take some time for those bruises to heal. I think the best way to get the healing process going is to announce or release the D100 replacement and to NOT encrypt its white balance data. Nikon has to do something to get the public's mind off of the D2X white balance debabcle and generate some goodwill and positive buzz quickly. April 24, 2005 - OpenRAW.org - a new website to lobby Nikon and other companies to open up their proprietary RAW formats has come to life (I know one of the persons that helped to design the site; he was a great sounding board for when I was redesigning NikonLinks.com). Following the debate between Nikon and Adobe at the D1scussion List, OpenRAW.org came to life because many photographers felt it was time that the camera brands heard from their users about how restrictive a closed and proprietary RAW format is, not only from Nikon, but from all camera companies that make cameras capable of shooting in RAW mode. Nikon continues to get hammered by both Nikon users and non-Nikon users flying around like vultures ready to pick at the carcass that everyone and their dog has been laying the boots to. Some seem to believe that Nikon must capitulate and immediately apologize for their "arrogance" in encrypting or encoding the D2X and D2Hs white balance data in those respective cameras' RAW files, and fully release the data about the Nikon NEF RAW files. Threats of selling out and switching to Canon are now being heard because of the white balance issue; cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war! From the photographers' perspective, we want choice in how we wish to convert our RAW files. It is generally accepted that shooting in RAW mode provides the photographer with the best quality and flexibility for editing the image files. We do not want a company to tell us that we have no choice, thus explains a large part of the fury towards Nikon for making the WB data more difficult to access and more difficult for third-party developers to come up with updates, even if the encryption was as strong as a wet paper bag. Nikon did themselves no favour by releasing a dog of a version of their preferred software, Nikon Capture with the D2X. If Nikon Capture had worked as hoped for, I think most photographers would have shrugged at the lamentations of the critics, because Nikon Capture would have (should have) been stable, fast, and robust without tying up an incredible amount of the computer's resources. Unfortunately, unless you run the fastest 64-bit AMD PC computer with a massive amount of RAM, Nikon Capture is none of those things, even for those running top-of-the-line 64-bit Macs. Put the two together, encrypted or encoded WB, and a dog of a RAW converter from Nikon, and now hell have no fury like a photographer scorned. As many are saying, love the camera (D2X), hate the company. I have to admit that whatever Nikon has done with the white balance data, they have handled this matter in an unsatisfactory fashion. The recent advisory that Nikon USA issued to try and respond to the criticism, that gained tremendous steam once DPReview and others picked up on the story posted at PhotoshopNews.com, just didn't go far enough to explain what exactly it was that Nikon did with the white balance data. My reading of the advisory would lead me to believe that indeed, Nikon developers did encrypt the data and frankly, that's something that even the most diehard Nikon user should object to. The offer to let developers use a free SDK from Nikon is also weak once it becomes known that the SDK is rather brutal for RAW conversion and has a tendency to make other converters as slow and unstable as Nikon Capture. The dismal performance of Nikon Capture has forced many users to seek alternatives and what has frustrated them is that Nikon has thrown up an obstacle that Thomas Knoll (and possibly Adobe - Knoll is apparently a freelance developer now, so may not be speaking on behalf of Adobe officially) have made great hay with. While it didn't take long for Bibble and David Coffin to reverse engineer the D2X RAW file, Adobe is potentially refusing to offer full support for the D2X in the Adobe Camera Raw (Knoll's creation) because of concerns that Nikon would take legal action against them. However, Bibble is still operating and there has been nary an indication that Nikon is going to take legal action against Eric Hyman, Bibble's principle. As a cynical bastard, I'm not certain about Adobe's (or Knoll's) tactics and desired outcome, but in the end, I don't really care about Adobe Camera Raw, Bibble, or other RAW converters, because even in the day when Nikon RAW files were not encoded, I never liked the intrepretation as much as I liked what I was getting from the free NikonView, the freebie, but very basic RAW converter that use to come with every Nikon digital camera. However, I do CARE about seeing Nikon Capture being all that it should be as an efficient means of obtaining the best RAW files from my current and future Nikon digital SLRs. This story still has legs and will wobble on for a bit longer. April 17, 2005 - I’ve recently gone a bit mad and bought a whack of hard drives for my desktop. What was originally an order for two 300 GB drives turned into four 300 GB drives, all Maxtors. This was in addition to two notebook hard drives I bought around the same time, one to upgrade the original for the Toshiba P20, and another to replace the one I cannibalized from my Vosonic digital wallet for use in another, much older Toshiba notebook. The original P20 drive went into a bus-powered 2.5 inch external case for general use. It turned out I ordered the wrong series of drives from Maxtor and I received two DiamondMax drives, which are from Maxtor’s entry-level series. I had actually wanted two from the mid-level MaxLine series (delivery pending). My source didn’t really want to go through the hassle of returning the first two, so he offered me a deal I couldn’t refuse (as he stroked his chin and petted his cat), and thus I will soon have four large capacity drives. An embarrassment of riches because it gives me far more storage than I really needed, but then it also easily allows me to store and backup my soon to be large collection of lossless music files on two separate drives. I try to find a silver lining in every costly expenditure J Anyway, since I had ordered a combination of SATA and IDE drives, I figured I’ll install the two SATA drives inside the CPU and install the two IDE drives in external cases as a more secure backup process. A few hiccups developed along the way.
Thus, it appeared that I had two 300 GB drives that were of no use with my existing MOBO, because I didn’t desire to setup a RAID. If I really wanted a RAID, I’d go the dedicated external case route. However, I dug a bit deeper into the BIOS and thought I’d found the answer when I set the built-in Promise controller on the MOBO from RAID mode to IDE mode. Unfortunately, I still had no access to the new hard drive. Thankfully, PCI SATA controller cards are available and I bought one that provided me with two SATA slots to connect the new hard drives. However, in my search for a solution, I found some intriguing external SATA cases. I figured that someday I’d probably go the way of a network based RAID box, but these still cost a fair bit of coin at over US $1000. However, there are non-network cases that allow you to mount several SATA drives for much cheaper. You still need to buy the hard drives to install in these cases, but I could build a full box for a reasonable amount of money. Beyond the external case though, you need to have an external SATA controller card and shielded SATA cables. Costs range from just over $200 for a basic two-drive case to many hundreds of dollars for up to twelve hard drives. A four-drive case would probably set a person back about $400 once the controller card and cables are included. Cases come with beefy power supplies and fan units to keep the drives cool. It’s a convenient way to backup files, or to expand the current system for more storage if you’re already maxed out for expansion capabilities. And one does not have to setup a RAID, as the cases allow you to just access the drives as regular storage units. One last comment about what "regular" retailers charge for parts versus dedicated parts shops. One of my external hard drive cases is intermittent in reliability when using the USB 2 port into my computers. I decided to switch to a Firewire cable to see if this would alleviate the problem (the trouble seems not so much with the case itself, because it's worked perfectly with two different brand of drives, but seems less than reliable with the Western Digital drive I'm using currently). The external case offers dual 6-pin Firewire ports, but the P20 notebook, which is the primary computer for this particular external case, only has a 4-pin Firewire port. I went to London Drugs, which is actually a very well stocked computer supplier, for a 6-pin to 4-pin cable. They had them them in six-foot lengths for...$30 before taxes. I went to A-Power and bought the same cable for less than $8 taxes included. April 14, 2005 - Late last year, I reported on the Epson CX4600, a budget priced printer, scanner, and copier unit that we got for “free” thanks to a rebate offer that was being held at FutureShop with the Sony DSC-W1 digital camera. Over three months after sending away the paperwork that was signed with our blood, the UPC codes, rebate form, copies of receipts, and promising to give away our next born, we finally got all the rebate checks sent to us. The rebate process required us to send away for three separate rebates to different parts of the US. For one rebate, I needed proof of purchase of a digital camera and for another I apparently sent in the wrong UPC code for the printer and had to send away another rebate request. Interestingly, one of the other rebates also required a printer UPC and they accepted the original I sent while the other did not. Then there was another product that I purchased late last year, a videotape to digital transfer device, that also offered a big rebate and was the only reason why I even bought the thing, because it was otherwise more than I cared to pay for such an accessory. Now almost four months later, I’m still waiting for the slime balls to pay up. The experience has made my wife and I tired of the rebate game and we’ll be avoiding rebate offers as much as possible. Not only are the manufacturers offering the rebates slime, so too are the retailers who bait you in with low advertised prices, but you find out that the price is only effective once you receive a rebate. The store still charges you full price and profits from the money paid, while the manufacturer takes its sweet time to process the rebate and Lord help you if you haven’t dotted all the “i’s” and crossed all the “t’s” because it seems like that they’ll reject an application if it’s not perfect. What makes the rebate game really foul is when you look closely at what the end rebate price will be and then compare it to a specialty parts store. Now my example really only applies to computer parts, so take if for what it is, but the moral is it pays to shop around and look at sources you might never have considered before. I’m going to use my favorite whipping boy, FutureShop, one of Canada’s largest consumer electronics chain now owned by Best Buy, one of the largest such chains in the US. FutureShop advertises in the local community papers every week. When you review the flyer and check out the prices, you will always see equipment such as DVD burners, or hard drives for what most would consider pretty low prices. But look a bit closer at the fine print and you will almost always see that the low price is only after a manufacturer’s rebate is applied. Sometimes you get an instant in-store discount plus the rebate, but generally, you don’t walk out of FutureShop with a DVD burner that lists for $150 for only a $100. You pay $150 and get a rebate form to fill out and mail away for the $50. Now take one of local computer parts shops in Vancouver. The one I go to because it’s the closest to where I live is A-Power. Check out their website and you’ll see cash prices of less than $100 for the same DVD burner that FutureShop was selling for $150 (if you pay with credit card, they’ll charge an extra 3%, such is the cut throat pricing in the computer parts business). Same burner, same software, the difference being that with A-Power, they throw away the cardboard box and give you the DVD burner wrapped in plastic. For me, I can live without the cardboard box to save more than 50% of the cost versus the big-box stores. It’s a strange dichotomy that a huge chain such as FutureShop with scale of economy purchasing power over a tiny little two-store outlet such as A-Power, charges so much more. Obviously, A-Power has to make money on anything they sell, so it tells you that DVD burners are really cheap to manufacture, but also likely that A-Power is on pretty tight margins for profit, but here they are still in business and these little parts shops do very brisk business from what I’ve seen of them. Shortly after we got the Sony DSC-W1, my wife bought a Memory Stick from Staples, the large office supply chain. We saw that A-Power was selling the same Memory Stick for quite a bit lower than Staples, which was already lower in cost than FutureShop, but Staples refused to price match because A-Power “doesn’t do business in the same way as Staples” and other big box stores. Indeed! Not many know about the shops like A-Power and thus will continue to pay a premium at FutureShop and Best Buy. I’m not going to pull the wool over your eyes and claim that A-Power et al., are perfect, because they’re not. Sometimes what’s advertised at the store’s website has no correlation to what’s actually sold at the store and often times what you want to purchase now has to be ordered in, because the little shops can’t afford stocking pricey items like notebook computers or specialty controller cards. But, given the price discrepancy, most times I can take waiting for A-Power to bring something in. March 23, 2005 - Continuing the topic of hard drives and backups, a little while ago, I was telling a person some ideas I had about my ideal digital wallet and thought I’d share them here. I want an iPod-sized device with a similar level of elegance and usability, but with some important differences or additions:
So far, no device matches all the features, but one device comes close, the CompactDrive PD7X. It uses four AA cells to meet my desire for user replaceable batteries. It has a metal cover and a top flap to protect card slot. You can fit any 2.5-inch hard drive you want inside of it. It’s fast for transfer rates and it’s available for US $100 without the hard drive. It’s bigger than I’d prefer, but this is what I’d be looking to buy for a digital wallet device over the Vosonic X-Drive that I purchased last year. Assuming a Canadian cost of $120 for the PD7X, add in a $100 40 GB hard drive and you’re set for less than half the cost of a Coolwalker or Epson 2000 device. It’s even less than my Vosonic X-drive with a 40 GB hard drive. March 18, 2005 – Most people tuned into the comings and goings of digital will have heard that Pentax has finally announced a long expected (and probably long desired) digital medium format camera. It will feature an 18 MP chip made by Kodak and accept the current 645 lenses, and likely, with an adapter, the 67 series lenses too, just as the current 645 film cameras can. It’s good news for Pentax users who seemed to have suffered through a drought in the digital desert while digital oases have sprung up from Hasselblad and Mamiya. Even the discontinued Bronica system could be digitized thanks to its use of removable film backs, whereas the Pentax 645 had an internal film chamber with removable inserts, which was not conducive to adapting to digital backs. The announcement is timely because both Mamiya and Hasselblad are preparing to release all-in-one digital cameras, so the Pentax approach is not unusual at all compared to the traditional separate digital back approach. However, tongues are already wagging about the rather lowish 18 MP resolution, which is barely larger than the 16.7 MP offered by the 35mm format size Canon 1Ds Mk II. However, the Kodak chip will be larger than the Canon 35mm sized chip, but the flip side is a chip smaller than 645 format, so there will be a 1.3x crop factor involved with the 645 lenses. Thus, the critical factor will be the pricing. The Pentax 645 system is already one of the better values in medium format when compared to Mamiya and Hasselblad. The only serious downside that I can think of is the slow 1/60 flash sync speed. The Mamiya offers 1/125 and the Hasselblad can sync to 1/800 thanks to the use of leaf shutters in the lenses. But, if Pentax can price the 645 digital aggressively, I don’t see why it cannot be another serious option to consider. I can already see pros like Tim Fitzharris and Daryl Benson, both 645 users, salivating at the prospects of what this new camera could offer them. One nice advantage about the Pentax system is in having the widest-angle zoom lens available for a 645 medium format system with their 35-55mm lens. With film, this lens is about 22-34mm in 35 format equivalency for field of view. When the 1.3x crop factor is applied with the Kodak chip, the lens becomes a 28-44mm in 35 equivalent field of view, which is still decently wide for a medium format system. While the Pentax might not be the best option for studio applications, I think the Pentax medium format cameras have always been seen as field cameras. Cameras that are solid and tough and work reliably for landscape work. And Pentax offers a more complete range of AF lenses than the Hasselblad H1 and is generally priced better than the Mamiya 645 AF system. As long
as the 18 MP Pentax is priced sensibly compared to the 22 MP Mamiya
and Hasselblad offerings, it will be a very welcome addition to what
appeared to be a very uncompetitive environment with Bronica gone
and
For Nikon users, Moose Peterson seems to have garnered a status of read it, but take it with a caseload of salt. It’s because Moose seems to like just about everything Nikon makes and rarely has a negative, or even a mildly negative comment to make about Nikon gear. Moose also gets review samples from Nikon and that in turn causes some readers to believe that Moose also gets his equipment free from Nikon. He
must get asked this often, because he’s posted an FAQ at his website
wherein he clearly states that, no, he does not receive free equipment
from Nikon and in fact, he has to purchase his gear just like
any other Nikon user despite his professional status. While Nikon
may be a client of his for some of his images that does not translate
into discounts on equipment. If you’ve followed Moose Peterson
over the years, as I have, you would discover that he makes the
bulk of his Nikon purchases from a shop in
While I do find Moose to be pretty generous with his Nikon reviews, there was an e-mail newsletter he sent out some years back which made me scratch my head. It was right around the time that the F100 was introduced and Moose’s e-mail stated that he never cared for the F90x/N90s and that he was glad that it would be gone and replaced by the F100. But…but, didn’t Moose literally write the book on the F90x in the form of a Magic Lantern Guide? Yes he did, and since then, his reviews have sometimes churned up a question mark for me, but I still read them and I do still hold them to some value because every users’ experience is important to a certain degree to gain an understanding of a product that you’re not likely going to be able to test out before purchase. But one also has to search out reviews from photographers that share the same interest or style of photography as one’s self. I suppose that merely writing a technical guide for a camera does not have to mean that the writer has to actually like the camera. Thom Hogan writes guides for a whole slew of Nikon cameras and I’m sure he favors some more than others. But then Thom Hogan purchases the cameras out of pocket and does not receive review samples from Nikon. If anyone is pure about posting objective reviews, Thom Hogan has to be it from the Nikon side of things, but then again, I’m sure someone is going to suggest that even Hogan has ulterior motives because he makes a living by selling his technical guides. A reviewer is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t with integrity being an issue. Does he or she have a relationship with the manufacturer? Does the reviewer get samples? Are those samples giveaways, or just temporary loaners? If the reviewer posts a negative review, will the relationship, if there is one, be jeopardized? If the reviewer purchases the review sample, is it at regular price or at a discount? Magazine reviews are almost universally criticized for all of the above. Post a negative review and watch the ad money shrink and even disappear. Magazines are funded primarily by ad revenue and not from subscriptions or news stand sales, so shrinking ad revenue means less editorial text and eventually no magazine at all once the corporate parent decides to cut the expenses of an underperforming magazine. When Stereophile magazine was sold off by the owner who turned it into the powerhouse that it is in the audiophile community, I felt that the quality had declined in terms of the amount of reviews published. I later discovered from articles written by the editor that Stereophile has a business plan in which for every page of advertising sold, there would be one page of editorial. The sale of the magazine was around the time that the US economy was in a bit of a decline and thus at the moment that I thought that the magazine had gone downhill, it was true because less ads placed meant less editorial content published per issue. As ad revenue increased, editorial content will also increase as well. Stereophile is but one magazine that has seen threats of ads being pulled and review samples denied because of negative comments published. However, Stereophile actually has the temerity to publish negative reviews when warranted, whereas another magazine, Popular Photography does not. Pop Photo has publicly stated in various issues that when it comes across a product that does not perform as expected, they will not publish a negative review, preferring to allow the manufacturer to supply a new or revised sample. Once Pop Photo is satisfied that the sample performs as expected then the review is published. As much as Stereophile has a different publishing policy than Pop Photo, one still does not find negative reviews too often. This is because the magazine’s reviewers often suggest what the magazine should review based on initial listening sessions at audio shows. Once the editor agrees then the product is obtained and sent to the writer for review. Reviews originate on a good impression and/or assumption by a writer and is usually corroborated in the published review. The rationale for this approach of “happy reviews” is that it would be a waste of the reviewers’ and magazine’s resources to review products that don’t satisfy or sound good. Bad sounding products are basically ignored as much as possible. Then there’s the thing about reviewers being able to purchase the product under review at consideration prices, or in other words, the manufacturer sells the product to the reviewer at far below retail price. The higher profile the reviewer is and the higher profile the magazine is and I’m sure the sweeter the deal. Some reviewers may even receive products for “long-term” loan. Rightly or wrongly, it means a lot to have a reviewer regularly list your product as being part of their reference system. So, who’s pure and who’s not and why the heck am I writing about this? As is often the case, my interest is piqued by postings and comments I read in news groups or discussion forums, of which I only subscribe to a handful in digest format, because I would never get any work done if I were on instant e-mail feed mode J It seems that everyone is suspect and only the non-professional consumer who posts reviews is considered above all the fray of integrity. Bjorn Rorslett posted one of the first D2X reviews and he is widely regarded as being a pretty objective Nikon reviewer. When he doesn’t like something Nikon has done, he’s not shy in letting everyone know about it, e.g. Nikon tripod mounts for certain new lenses, which incidentally, Moose Peterson did not agree with. However,
even Bjorn is not immune to being accused of being in Nikon’s
back pocket. Perhaps not in terms in payment, but in terms of
special access to Nikon gear by Nikon in
I guess when it comes right down to it, every known reviewer is suspect, and no one can trust anyone else. Even little old me can’t be trusted because I have biases and assumptions about products in my mind and my reviews are extensions of those biases and assumptions. I’m a Nikon user, pretty much anything I discuss photographically is from the perspective of a Nikon user, one that is generally happy with the company’s products, but do at times questions what the heck they’re doing. The thing about reviewers is that one review isn’t enough to gauge the quality and how meaningful the review is. You have to read multiple reviews from the reviewer to understand where the person is coming from, what biases or perceptions the person may have and how that may affect the review. On that basis, I can offer an opinion that Thom Hogan is the best Nikon reviewer on the Internet and I can’t wait for his review on the D2X. There are others who I also hold in high regard because they talk openly about how the equipment works for their particular livelihood. Michael
Weber is a working pro in
In that regard, though I sometimes question, I don’t disparage Moose Peterson, because his use of equipment is also very different than mine and his needs are obviously quite different. He writes from the perspective of a wildlife photographer and similarly, if his gear doesn’t come through with the results, he doesn’t earn a living. If I don’t place his reviews as high as others it’s because I don’t do the same kind of photography as Moose Peterson. One must find reviewers that share a similar style of photography and see how a piece of gear works for them and how that might correspond to one’s own style. There isn’t much point basing purchasing decisions on a person specializing in bird and wildlife photography and needing a few monster-sized telephoto lenses, when one really wants to capture urban street scenes. One must also discover what kinds of equipment one needs to do one’s own style of photography. To criticize Moose for being generous of a lens you’ll never own or use is just idle banter that adds nothing to the discussion. However, to be fair, if his opinion led you to buy a certain lens and it turns out that that lens is a dog, then you have something to beef about. For me, I feel a bit of trepidation at times when I notice my 70-200 VR review being one the of the most popular pages I have at this site and wondering, good God, is my opinion right? Did I make a misstep along the way and screw up my tests to invalidate the results? Did I not disclose some key piece of information that might mislead people? Thoughts apros pos Michael Reichman’s experience with the D2X J In short, no. I believe I’ve disclosed and laid my testing out as clearly as possible for readers to determine if my results are accurate or not and based on what others have said about the lens, I believe my results are very much accurate for my sample of this lens. As a low-level and relatively unknown reviewer, I can only state that I do the best that I can, based on what I know at that time. March 7, 2005 - Spending too much time at discussion forum sites isn’t always healthy for one’s photography, as the bitching and whining often overwhelm any good discussion about a particular topic J A regular complaint that comes up is the high price of consumables for inkjet printers. The widely quoted giveaway line being that the printer makers sell the printers at a loss and then make it up by gouging consumers for ink and paper. While I have no idea of the veracity of printer makers selling their goods at a loss, in the past, there certainly was a compelling argument that printer makers, especially Epson, were indeed gouging their users for consumables. Take my Epson 1270 printer for example. This printer is now ancient history having been replaced by the 1280 after the debacle of the orange prints caused by ozone, but the 1280 itself is also pretty old and definitely due for replacement…if…Epson has any intentions of continuing to produce a wide-format dye-based printer. All of Epson’s key innovations have been for their pigment-based printers such as the 2200, 4000, and now the new 1800, which is a wide-format version of the R800. Epson appears to be happy to keep the 1280 in the lineup as a cheap dye printer offering. Not that there’s anything particularly wrong with the quality of the 1280, but certain features irk certain users. The biggest issue is with the ink cartridges, one big five-color and one small black cartridge are required. The black cartridge is fine because you only replace one when it runs out, but the color is a gouger’s delight because as soon as one color runs out, the whole five-color cartridge is dead and requires replacing, even if you have plenty of ink left in the other color sections. Each five-color cartridge runs about CAN $50. Add in the black and we’re talking about $75-80 to replace both cartridges at once. Add in paper costs and it would seem that Epson makes a tidy profit depending on your paper flavor. Use the matte papers and you can reduce costs a bit because you can buy 50 sheets for about $20. If your tastes run glossy, then you’re talking about $20 for 20 sheets, and that’s only if you buy it on sale. I’ve generally run about five color cartridges for every one black ink cartridge. After taxes, ink costs for the 5+1 is about $300 retail. I also average about 50 letter sized sheets per color cartridge when printing glossy, which uses more ink than when printing with matte papers. That’s another $100 in paper for a total cost of about $400 (give or take a few bucks) for 250 (give or take a few) sheets of glossy paper, which runs about $1.60 per sheet. If you print 8x10 then of course it’s $1.60, but if you print 4 images per sheet, then the cost becomes $0.40 per image. $0.40 per print is a bit high when you can get prints for half the cost at Costco, but then you have to trust the Costco people to print your images whereas printing at home gives you total control. However, $1.60 per 8x10 is pretty darn good when compared to the $10 costs of custom prints at a pro lab. You save even more by printing on matte papers, which also provide an additional benefit of lasting longer than glossy prints. My point after all of this, not necessarily accurate math? Some photographers lose sight of the significant cost savings that printing at home provides and one wonders what they would say if they were forced to print everything at pro lab costs. The fact that Epson and other printer manufacturers now offer even better cost savings by providing for individual color ink cartridges just benefits us more. It matters little whether Epson was forced to provide this feature due to pressure from Canon’s offerings, it only matters that I can now enjoy the benefit when the time comes to replace my 1270. And really, considering that I |
Edwin's
Vignettes -
Selected Musings from 2005