Digital BW, The Print

No megapixel values are given. Do you know how many megapixels this
camera has?

Jerry





"sceptre12345 " wrote:

> 
> Canon D60 replacement:
> 
> http://www.pbase.com/geonahta10d/canon_10d
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

D10 or 10D has 6mp like the D60, but AF is supposed to be much improved. 

Might still be a 1.6x lens factor.

Possible 8mp EOS 3 like body soon.

Chris

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Jerry Olson" Subject: Re: [Digital BW] OT...New Canon 10D! !!


> 
> No megapixel values are given. Do you know how many megapixels this
> camera has?
> 
> Jerry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "sceptre12345 " wrote:
> > 
> > Canon D60 replacement:
> > 
> > http://www.pbase.com/geonahta10d/canon_10d

Thank you for the quick reply, Chris!

There would be no reason to upgrade if it were still a 6 megapixel
camera. I'll not switch unless its 12 megapixels or above. 

Jerry


Christopher Williams wrote:
> 
> D10 or 10D has 6mp like the D60, but AF is supposed to be much improved

Nothing wrong with the autofocus on the D60 that I can see.

> Might still be a 1.6x lens factor.
> 
> Possible 8mp EOS 3 like body soon. 

Not enough. Size must double or I'm not interested.

Jerry
>

Jerry,

From a Canon rep:

D10 -- 6mp, focus is much improved, as is software. Complaints on the D60
was focus with longer lenses was not the best.

Possible 8mp camera soon, only the 1Ds will have 11mp as of now.

Chris

----- Original Message -----

From: "Jerry Olson" Subject: Re: [Digital BW] OT...New Canon 10D! !!


> Thank you for the quick reply, Chris!
>
> There would be no reason to upgrade if it were still a 6 megapixel
> camera. I'll not switch unless its 12 megapixels or above.
>
> Jerry

Yeh, why not make it a D60A?  

Boy, not like Canon at all, outdating (re-numbering) their equipment so
quickly. Must be some "Nikon rumor" driving them. <BGGG>

=From: Jerry Olson
=
=There would be no reason to upgrade if it were still a 6 
=megapixel camera. I'll not switch unless its 12 megapixels or above.

Hi Chris-

I can't see anybody trading a D60 for another camera with no resolution
improvement.  Kodak already is out there
with their 14 MP chip at half the price of the canon's 11. Unless
Resolution is at least 12 MP, I see no reason to
change. Focus isn't a problem with me. The software is fine for my uses.
I don't shoot many telephoto shots either.
I wouldn't upgrade for just 8 megapixels either.  So it looks like Canon
is out for now. I'll just be satisfied with
what I have.

Jerry






Christopher Williams wrote:

> 
> Jerry,
> 
> >From a Canon rep:
> 
> D10 -- 6mp, focus is much improved, as is software. Complaints on the D60
> was focus with longer lenses was not the best.
> 
> Possible 8mp camera soon, only the 1Ds will have 11mp as of now.
> 
> Chris
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jerry Olson" Subject: Re: [Digital BW] OT...New Canon 10D! !!
> 
> > Thank you for the quick reply, Chris!
> >
> > There would be no reason to upgrade if it were still a 6 megapixel
> > camera. I'll not switch unless its 12 megapixels or above.
> >
> > Jerry
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

But isn't Canon doing the same thing to their G3 after even fewer 
months since its release? Of course, Nikon might be pressing them 
along both these fronts.

Sam

Sam McCandless samcc@...


At 8:57 AM -0500 2/24/03, Seth Rossman wrote:

>Yeh, why not make it a D60A?
>
>Boy, not like Canon at all, outdating (re-numbering) their equipment so
>quickly. Must be some "Nikon rumor" driving them. <BGGG>

I agree the digital age changes way to fast, but Canon would not stop
production on a very good camera to make a "just as good" camera.

About the Kodak 14n, has anyone actually seen one working? Kodak said Nov,
then Dec, then Jan, Feb, March......April?

And the Kodak is not the pro camera the Canon 1Ds is.

Chris

----- Original Message -----

From: "Jerry Olson" Subject: Re: [Digital BW] OT...New Canon 10D! !!


> Hi Chris-
>
> I can't see anybody trading a D60 for another camera with no resolution
> improvement.  Kodak already is out there
> with their 14 MP chip at half the price of the canon's 11. Unless
> Resolution is at least 12 MP, I see no reason to
> change. Focus isn't a problem with me. The software is fine for my uses.
> I don't shoot many telephoto shots either.
> I wouldn't upgrade for just 8 megapixels either.  So it looks like Canon
> is out for now. I'll just be satisfied with
> what I have.
>
> Jerry

The Nikon "rumor" is that they spend too much time on crap digi P&S's.

Chris

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Sam A. McCandless" Subject: RE: [Digital BW] OT...New Canon 10D! !!


> But isn't Canon doing the same thing to their G3 after even fewer 
> months since its release? Of course, Nikon might be pressing them 
> along both these fronts.
> 
> Sam

It wasnt supposed to happened like it did. Canon's production run for 
the D60 was sold three times as fast as they had planned. So the 10d 
is just a replacement for an empty slot.

Look for Canon to come out later this year with an 8mb camera among 
other things.
Cheers,
Andre


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher 
Williams" <leicachris@w...> wrote:
> I agree the digital age changes way to fast, but Canon would not 
stop
> production on a very good camera to make a "just as good" camera.
> 
> About the Kodak 14n, has anyone actually seen one working? Kodak 
said Nov,

> then Dec, then Jan, Feb, March......April?
> 
> And the Kodak is not the pro camera the Canon 1Ds is.
> 
> Chris
>

Chris, I'm only looking for the D60 replacement. I have no need for a
high end camera, only a camera that
has high RESOLUTION. If the new D10 doesn't have double the rez of the
D60, I simply have no interest in it.

Jerry






Christopher Williams wrote:

> 
> I agree the digital age changes way to fast, but Canon would not stop
> production on a very good camera to make a "just as good" camera.
> 
> About the Kodak 14n, has anyone actually seen one working? Kodak said Nov,
> then Dec, then Jan, Feb, March......April?
> 
> And the Kodak is not the pro camera the Canon 1Ds is.
> 
> Chris
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jerry Olson" Subject: Re: [Digital BW] OT...New Canon 10D! !!
> 
> > Hi Chris-
> >
> > I can't see anybody trading a D60 for another camera with no resolution
> > improvement.  Kodak already is out there
> > with their 14 MP chip at half the price of the canon's 11. Unless
> > Resolution is at least 12 MP, I see no reason to
> > change. Focus isn't a problem with me. The software is fine for my uses.
> > I don't shoot many telephoto shots either.
> > I wouldn't upgrade for just 8 megapixels either.  So it looks like Canon
> > is out for now. I'll just be satisfied with
> > what I have.
> >
> > Jerry
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

>It wasnt supposed to happened like it did. Canon's production run for
>the D60 was sold three times as fast as they had planned. So the 10d
>is just a replacement for an empty slot.
>
>Look for Canon to come out later this year with an 8mb camera among
>other things.
>Cheers,
>Andre

In the D30-D60-10D line of development?

Sam

Sam McCandless   samcc@...

Has anyone heard or read a price on the 10D?
Billie


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Now THAT is an objective  view????

=From: Christopher Williams 
=
=And the Kodak is not the pro camera the Canon 1Ds is.
=

Hi, Sam-

I was talking about the pro/semi-pro cameras.  Not the pocket toys.  Heck,
those change every few months.  Keeps the megapixel freaks dishing out the
bucks thinking they've done something!!  They ALL play that game. It keeps
them in the black.

Seth

=
=But isn't Canon doing the same thing to their G3 after even fewer 
=months since its release? Of course, Nikon might be pressing them 
=along both these fronts.
=

only if you think the F80 is a pro camera. The eosIV - which is the base for
the IDs has the best weather proofing of any camera. When Nikon brings out
something where the camera body is as good as the F5 it will compete as a
camera with the Eos 1Ds. I can't really understand why camera are being
judged on pixels alone and all the other criteria of judging a camera are
somehow ignored. It is quite possible - and samples from the Kodak bear
itout - to have a high pixel count and crap image quality. Don't forget that
the last lot of Kodak sample images had to be pulled from the website cos
they were so bad.

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Seth Rossman" <seth@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:20 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] OT...New Canon 10D! !!


> Now THAT is an objective  view????
>
> =From: Christopher Williams
> =
> =And the Kodak is not the pro camera the Canon 1Ds is.
> =
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

www.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos1ds_samples1

stunning resolution!

No noise detectable, except in some lighter shadows and flat grays --

http://img.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos1ds_samples1/originals/p4A1S02
38.JPG (4.7 MB)

> www.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos1ds_samples1
>
> stunning resolution!
>

I agree, they are pretty nice...BUT...I don't see any B&W images there...
Aw, it's probably better done converted from raw files anyway...

;-)

How bad would the quality control have to be to have a 4.2 megapixel
camera beat a 14 megapixel camera in sharpness and resolution?  Would
either Kodak or Nikon really allow that to happen? I have always
wondered, why do the amateur cameras have better resolution than the pro
cameras? at a fourth the price? The D60's 6 mp chip produces sharper
images than the canon 4.2 chip. All of us don't need the high end. Some
need the sharpness and resolution FIRST and the rest can come later. 

Jerry



Julian Thomas wrote:

> 
> only if you think the F80 is a pro camera. The eosIV - which is the base for
> the IDs has the best weather proofing of any camera. When Nikon brings out
> something where the camera body is as good as the F5 it will compete as a
> camera with the Eos 1Ds. I can't really understand why camera are being
> judged on pixels alone and all the other criteria of judging a camera are
> somehow ignored. It is quite possible - and samples from the Kodak bear
> itout - to have a high pixel count and crap image quality. Don't forget that
> the last lot of Kodak sample images had to be pulled from the website cos
> they were so bad.
> 
> Julian
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Seth Rossman" <seth@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:20 PM
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] OT...New Canon 10D! !!
> 
> > Now THAT is an objective  view????
> >
> > =From: Christopher Williams
> > =
> > =And the Kodak is not the pro camera the Canon 1Ds is.
> > =
> >
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> >
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - Include your full name with your message.
> > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

I just took a look at a few of these pictures, and they are certainly no
sharper than my D60. In fact even though it's only a monitor image, my
D60 images look sharper, even on the monitor. I think the canon samples
could have
been prepared better for monitor viewing. There is NO digital noise on
the D60 at ISO 100.


Jerry






"dsmithhfx " wrote:

> 
> www.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos1ds_samples1
> 
> stunning resolution!
> 
> No noise detectable, except in some lighter shadows and flat grays --
> 
> http://img.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos1ds_samples1/originals/p4A1S02
> 38.JPG (4.7 MB)
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

In fairness the Nikon D1H and D1x are the competition for the 1D and 1Ds, 
and they have decent pro-standard bodies.

In article <04c601c2dcdd$9fa578a0$034cfea9@...>, 
julianthomas@... (Julian Thomas) wrote:

> only if you think the F80 is a pro camera. The eosIV - which is the 
> base for
> the IDs has the best weather proofing of any camera. When Nikon brings 
> out
> something where the camera body is as good as the F5 it will compete as 
> a
> camera with the Eos 1Ds. I can't really understand why camera are being
> judged on pixels alone and all the other criteria of judging a camera 
> are
> somehow ignored. It is quite possible - and samples from the Kodak bear
> itout - to have a high pixel count and crap image quality. Don't forget 
> that
> the last lot of Kodak sample images had to be pulled from the website 
> cos
> they were so bad.
> 
> Julian

C'mon, Jerry-  

You know those P&S high MP don't have more "resolution" at 1/4 the price.
Are you juyst toying with him?

What we have is the camera companies sucking in amateurs with megapixel
counts. Six or eight MP stuffed onto a tiny CCD means to "anti" resolution
events happen:  A bunch of smaller pixels and a ton of interpolation!  So
what?!  People that buy into that are running around still saying, "Mah
kem-ruh teks gud pitchurs!!"  Then they print out on a $49 Lexmark.

Not even worth arguing with, buddy.

Seth

=
=How bad would the quality control have to be to have a 4.2 
=megapixel camera beat a 14 megapixel camera in sharpness and 
=resolution?  Would either Kodak or Nikon really allow that to 
=happen? I have always wondered, why do the amateur cameras 
=have better resolution than the pro cameras? at a fourth the 
=price? The D60's 6 mp chip produces sharper images than the 
=canon 4.2 chip. All of us don't need the high end. Some need 
=the sharpness and resolution FIRST and the rest can come later. 
=
=Jerry

> C'mon, Jerry-

> You know those P&S high MP don't have more "resolution" at 1/4 the price.
> Are you juyst toying with him?

Seth, a Canon D60 is hardly a point and shoot. Neither is the Sigma. I
know they aren't top of the line, either.

Until the Canon's recent $9000 with 11 megapixel camera, the D60 took
the best pictures of any of the competition under 6 megapixels. And yes,
I've seen plenty of Nikon D1x pictures. Canon D60 is still the best
under 6 megapixels.

Six Megapixels was until recently the best there was in the 35mm
interchangeable lens cameras.

> 
> What we have is the camera companies sucking in amateurs with megapixel
> counts. Six or eight MP stuffed onto a tiny CCD means to "anti" resolution
> events happen:  A bunch of smaller pixels and a ton of interpolation!  So
> what?!  People that buy into that are running around still saying, "Mah
> kem-ruh teks gud pitchurs!!"  Then they print out on a $49 Lexmark.

My D60 takes Excellent pictures, and I use  1280 printers with a
calibrated monitor, profiles, and CIS systems.

> Not even worth arguing with, buddy.

True!

>Jerry

You missed my point!!!  I wasn't talking about D60's or D100's.  I was
talking about your reference to small cameras @ 1/4 the price having higher
resolution.  THAT is why I went to point and shoot reference.

I am talking about those that go chasing every little jump in MP.  

D60 and D100 have the full-size CCDs  their more expensive brothers have. 

 I wouldn't buy a D100 because it's built on a cheap, amateur body with
amateur-type features I can't work with.  No other reason. Okay for those
that can get by that way.

Seth


=
=
=> C'mon, Jerry-
=
=> You know those P&S high MP don't have more "resolution" at 1/4 the 
=> price. Are you juyst toying with him?
=
=Seth, a Canon D60 is hardly a point and shoot. Neither is the 
=Sigma. I know they aren't top of the line, either.
=
=Until the Canon's recent $9000 with 11 megapixel camera, the 
=D60 took the best pictures of any of the competition under 6 
=megapixels. And yes, I've seen plenty of Nikon D1x pictures. 
=Canon D60 is still the best under 6 megapixels.
=
=Six Megapixels was until recently the best there was in the 
=35mm interchangeable lens cameras.
=
=> 
=> What we have is the camera companies sucking in amateurs with 
=> megapixel counts. Six or eight MP stuffed onto a tiny CCD means to 
=> "anti" resolution events happen:  A bunch of smaller pixels 
=and a ton 
=> of interpolation!  So what?!  People that buy into that are running 
=> around still saying, "Mah kem-ruh teks gud pitchurs!!"  Then they 
=> print out on a $49 Lexmark.
=
=My D60 takes Excellent pictures, and I use  1280 printers with 
=a calibrated monitor, profiles, and CIS systems.
=
=> Not even worth arguing with, buddy.
=
=True!
=
=>Jerry
=
=Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, 
=Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The 
=page is at:
=
=http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
=
=If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or 
=you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership 
=preferences by visiting this same page.
=
=Please follow these basic guidelines:
=- Include your full name with your message.
=- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
=- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier 
=messages to keep them short.
=- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the 
=subject header.
=- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks 
=or "flames."
=- Complete your Yahoo profile.
=- Before posting a question, search the message archives and 
=the various resources on the homepage. 
=
=
= 
=
=Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
=http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
=
=
=

I think you guys are all losing sight of something.

I took one of my best photographs of the past year using a 3MP Nikon 
885. I wish it had better resolution, so I could make big prints from 
it. But it doesn't, so I will make small ones. 

Before I got into digital I would occasionally spend time and care 
composing a photo with my 35mm SLR on a tripod, and on subjects, 
which arguably might have been better spent with a view camera. But I 
didn't have one, so I used the SLR. Some of those photos turned out 
really well. 

I have also taken photos that you could only take with a small, 
lightweight handheld camera with necessarily limited size film 
format. I have often wished they were in a larger format, e.g. 120. 
But they aren't. Those are the negatives I have to work with. I 
believe it is possible to extract good prints from the good photos, 
even from ones that are technically not so good (and I find many 
interesting qualities in some 'off' negatives, that contribute to 
a 'good' photograph).

I humbly suggest you look beyond this rather silly debate...

Anyone know the total profit Nikon make from millions of 'crap P&S's' versus
their profit made from high-end cameras? That might explain their actions.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Williams" <leicachris@...>


> The Nikon "rumor" is that they spend too much time on crap digi P&S's.

This is NOT  meant as a slur, so please do NOT be offended.  The debate is
over what is acceptable at a professional level. 

However, you support the point that, for some, good enough sometimes must
just be good enough.  Sometimes there is no more.

Seth

=From: dsmithhfx 

=I think you guys are all losing sight of something.
=
=I took one of my best photographs of the past year using a 3MP Nikon 
=885. I wish it had better resolution, so I could make big prints from 
=it. But it doesn't, so I will make small ones. 
=
=Before I got into digital I would occasionally spend time and care 
=composing a photo with my 35mm SLR on a tripod, and on subjects, 
=which arguably might have been better spent with a view camera. But I 
=didn't have one, so I used the SLR. Some of those photos turned out 
=really well. 
=

Bob-

I, for one, am glad they do it.  I have a theory (strictly personal
observation-based theory) that Nikon runs stuff through the amateur market
as a test source and makes money doing it.

When I had a Coolpix 990 shipped to me in Kosovo, I couldn't help but feel
that it was the D1 test platform.  I have the same theory about the 5700.
Chip and circuit testers!! The D2 may be higher rez when it hits, but  it's
being tested by thousands of amateurs IMHO.

I carried those (990, now 5700) in my car as back-up when I don't want to
drag the D1's.

Seth


=Anyone know the total profit Nikon make from millions of 'crap 
=P&S's' versus their profit made from high-end cameras? That 
=might explain their actions.
=
=Bob Frost.


=From: "Christopher Williams" <leicachris@...>
=

=> The Nikon "rumor" is that they spend too much time on crap 
=digi P&S's.
=

I think Nikon's earnings have been under pressure. Take a look here for produce sales breakdowns and financial details: http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/ir/2002/finance/03fhd_e.pdf

Peter Palmieri

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bob Frost 
  Anyone know the total profit Nikon make from millions of 'crap P&S's' versus
  their profit made from high-end cameras? That might explain their actions.

  Bob Frost.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

But some of us WANT maximum sharpness, and are not satisfied with a
"good" photo that isn't sharp. Especially in landscape photography. If
it isn't sharp, It fails. (99% of the time). For me.

J

Jerry,

> But some of us WANT maximum sharpness, and are not satisfied with a
> "good" photo that isn't sharp. Especially in landscape photography. If
> it isn't sharp, It fails. (99% of the time). For me.

Why not just make monochromatic images that are either pure black or white?
That will give you maximum sharpness.  As soon as you bring in tonality, you
lose sharpness.

Austin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Seth Rossman" 
<seth@m...> wrote:
> This is NOT  meant as a slur, so please do NOT be offended.  The 
debate is
> over what is acceptable at a professional level. 
> 
> However, you support the point that, for some, good enough 
sometimes must
> just be good enough.  Sometimes there is no more.
> 
> Seth

I find this discussion is not "good enough" -- it is unworthy of 
photographers who aspire to be anything more than industrial hacks 
masquerading as ansel adams wannabes.

Surely there is more.

> I find this discussion is not "good enough" -- it is unworthy of
> photographers who aspire to be anything more than industrial hacks
> masquerading as ansel adams wannabes.

An interesting discussion has been going on on the Leica list for a few
years.  People buy Leicas to use Leica glass, which is very high end
glass...and very expensive.  It gives superb images on film, and in fact,
pushes the limits of film.  Yet, I find so many who claim to notice a
difference in glass, who want to use digital (pre current crop, like D1s,
that is).  The point is, they spend all this time, money and energy on a
high end piece of glass, particular films and particular development to get
the highest resolution/quality out of the film they can...and they won't
settle for anything less, but when it comes to digital, somehow they forget
all this, and will settle for less.

I sometimes feel people are "rooting" for digital in the sense that they
really don't care how good it is, or whether it's "better" or "worse".  They
want a hero, and digital is that hero for them.  They defend it beyond
reason and logic, as some do for film as well.

Today, digital certainly has it's application and place, AND film does as
well.  One isn't better/worse than the other in an absolute sense, it
depends on what the "job" is.  I think that it's important to understand
what the upsides of both are, as well as the downsides, over a broad range
of applications, and to have enough knowledge to be able to differentiate
between reality and the exaggerations and hype.

I do believe for the most part, digital will supplant film.  At least for
P&S and most commercial/professional applications.  I believe in medium
format, that won't be as true though.  I also believe there will always be a
lot of people who still want to use film, at least for quite some time to
come.  At least I hope so.

Regards,

Austin

Seth,

I've got an F100, F80, and D100, and all three have almost identical
features and controls (slightly better autofocussing and autoexposure on the
F100). The F100 is not cheap, and I've never heard anyone call it
amateurish, but the D100 produces better pictures in my short experience of
it (compared with using a LS4000 and Provia 100F on the F100 or F80). OK it
has a plastic body like the F80, but I don't want it to last for ever; it
will be out-of-date in a few years. And it doesn't wear a groove in my neck
like the F100. When we tried out my friend's Canon 1Ds recently, we all
groaned; fine for studio work, but who would want to carry that around all
day? It's features seemed to be roughly the same as my Nikon's; just a few
more pixels, heavy body like the F100, more waterproofing, and an extra
\ufffd5000 or so!

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----

From: "Seth Rossman" <seth@...>
>
>  I wouldn't buy a D100 because it's built on a cheap, amateur body with
> amateur-type features I can't work with.  No other reason. Okay for those
> that can get by that way.

Bob-

Never called the F100 cheap or amateurish.  Too bad Nikon didn't use F100
bodies for the D100. I used my F100 more in Kosovo, than my F5.  Less
finicky in weird weather. Delta Airlines smashed the hinge off a Pelican
case, no less, cracking the F5 display.  The F100 was unscathed.

The N80/D100 is cheap, but suits many needs adequately.  Just lacks
professional features.  I was going to buy a D100 as a third body to the
D1's, but was warned off at the camera store. But, I don't shoot in a
studio.

Seth



=-----Original Message-----
=From: Bob Frost [mailto:bobfrost@...] 

=and autoexposure on the F100). The F100 is not cheap, and I've 
=never heard anyone call it amateurish, but the D100 produces 
=better pictures in my short experience of it (compared with 
=using a LS4000 and Provia 100F on the F100 or F80). OK it has 
=a plastic body like the F80, but I don't want it to last for 
=ever; it will be out-of-date in a few years. And it doesn't 
=wear a groove in my neck like the F100. When we tried out my 
=friend's Canon 1Ds recently, we all groaned; fine for studio 
=work, but who would want to carry that around all day? It's 
=features seemed to be roughly the same as my Nikon's; just a 
=few more pixels, heavy body like the F100, more waterproofing, 
=and an extra £5000 or so!
=
=Bob Frost.
=
=----- Original Message -----
=From: "Seth Rossman" <seth@...>
=>
=>  I wouldn't buy a D100 because it's built on a cheap, amateur body 
=> with amateur-type features I can't work with.  No other reason. Okay 
=> for those that can get by that way.
=
=
=------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
=---------------------~--> New Yahoo! Mail Plus. More 
=flexibility. More control. More power. Get POP access, more 
=storage, more filters, and more. 
=http://us.click.yahoo.com/Hcb0iA/P.iFAA/46VHAA/ucIolB/TM
=
=---------------------------------------------------------------
=------~->
=
=Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, 
=Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The 
=page is at:
=
=http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
=
=If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or 
=you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership 
=preferences by visiting this same page.
=
=Please follow these basic guidelines:
=- Include your full name with your message.
=- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
=- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier 
=messages to keep them short.
=- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the 
=subject header.
=- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks 
=or &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
=- Complete your Yahoo profile.
=- Before posting a question, search the message archives and 
=the various resources on the homepage. 
=
=
= 
=
=Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
=http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
=
=
=

Is it the features or the plastic body that you object to?

I ask because the Kodak 14n has a Kodak-designed F80 body redone in 
magnesium alloy :-)

In article <000301c2ddff$545d39f0$11980b45@Seth>, seth@... (Seth 
Rossman) wrote:

> Bob-
> 
> Never called the F100 cheap or amateurish.  Too bad Nikon didn't use 
> F100
> bodies for the D100. I used my F100 more in Kosovo, than my F5.  Less
> finicky in weird weather. Delta Airlines smashed the hinge off a Pelican
> case, no less, cracking the F5 display.  The F100 was unscathed.
> 
> The N80/D100 is cheap, but suits many needs adequately.  Just lacks
> professional features.  I was going to buy a D100 as a third body to the
> D1's, but was warned off at the camera store. But, I don't shoot in a
> studio.
> 
> Seth
> 
> 
> 
> =-----Original Message-----
> =From: Bob Frost [mailto:bobfrost@...] 
> 
> =and autoexposure on the F100). The F100 is not cheap, and I've 
> =never heard anyone call it amateurish, but the D100 produces 
> =better pictures in my short experience of it (compared with 
> =using a LS4000 and Provia 100F on the F100 or F80). OK it has 
> =a plastic body like the F80, but I don't want it to last for 
> =ever; it will be out-of-date in a few years. And it doesn't 
> =wear a groove in my neck like the F100. When we tried out my 
> =friend's Canon 1Ds recently, we all groaned; fine for studio 
> =work, but who would want to carry that around all day? It's 
> =features seemed to be roughly the same as my Nikon's; just a 
> =few more pixels, heavy body like the F100, more waterproofing, 
> =and an extra \ufffd5000 or so!
> =
> =Bob Frost.
> =
> =----- Original Message -----
> =From: "Seth Rossman" <seth@...>
> =>
> =>  I wouldn't buy a D100 because it's built on a cheap, amateur body 
> => with amateur-type features I can't work with.  No other reason. Okay 
> => for those that can get by that way.
> =

Kodak's body "redesign" is not really an N80. Not like you can take a
plastic injection mold and use a magnesium alloy, eh?

And, not the plastic.  Look, Nikon came out with the N90 which quickly
became a pro second or third body.  Initially, they classed it as amateur
and wouldn't fix it at NPS.  Once a BUNCH of newspapers and wire services
started using them, it was an NPS repairable item.  In fact, one wire
service photog used two N90s during the Gulf War, saying that the F5
wouldn't hold up against that weather.

It IS a feature issue. The 1/180-sec. flash sync was a large issue, since
you couldn't sync-sun at 200 or 400 ISO.  

The shutter is "tinny" compared to the bigger brothers. The shutter on the
D1-series "flies" incredibly faster than an F5, according to the repair
guys.  It HAS to be beefier to do that.

I don't think it would be fair to compare the Kodak "redesign" to an N80.  I
am sure they did more than just changed the body composition.  Let's face
it, Kodak has two choices in a pro body --if that's the market they are
after-- Nikon or Canon, because the lenses are there.

My guess is Kodak will never get their market share back, on the pro side,
now that Nikon  and Canon are major players. The beauty for us is they can
drive prices down. 

I would LOVE to see an F100 become digital!! I think it is the ideal mix in
ruggedness and price.

/r,

Seth


=
=Is it the features or the plastic body that you object to?
=
=I ask because the Kodak 14n has a Kodak-designed F80 body redone in 
=magnesium alloy :-)
=

Canon 10D preview at:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E10D/E10DA12.HTM

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/10d.html

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos10d/

MSRP: $1999  Street price $1499

Andre