Prev: Backlash against pro camera prices? Finally??
Next: Need w/a attachment for Canon A710IS
From: RichA on 16 Feb 2010 22:14
On Feb 16, 5:45 pm, John A. <j...(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:41:19 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Looks like DPreview shaved some points off the D3s review owing to the
> >cost of the camera.  The Brit magazines have been doing that for
> >years.  I've used the pro Nikons and I love the bodies, the control
> >you have, the responsiveness, but honestly, would owning the D700 at
> >about $2500 really be worth less than half the cost of a D3s?  With
> >the D3x, you could make a case solely based on resolution, but at
> >100-400 ISO, there is almost nothing to distinguish a D3s from a D700
> >or a D300s, for that matter.
> >Also, lets be realistic about ISO.  The D3s is the best so far when it
> >comes to noise control, no doubt, but 100,000 ISO?  The RAW images
> >look like a P&S produced them at 3200 ISO which means the images are
> >basically useless.  My benchmark is that if noise and image
> >degradation are clearly visible in an 8x10 print, the ISO is set too
> >high. 12,000 ISO is usable.
>
> >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3s/
>
> I don't like that approach. If you're going to factor in price, you
> should do it as a separate bang-for-the-buck rating. If the worst
> performing camera they ever reviewed was available for a penny in a
> vending machine, that should give it a good b-f-t-b rating, but not
> affect it's quality rating.
>
> Realistically, though, for someone who specifically needs extra
> performance only available at a premium, it may be well worth paying;
> and I figure those people will be looking at the specifics in reviews,
> not overall value or general performance ratings.

I guess I'm not aiming the conclusions at pros. If a pro makes $3000
on a job that could only be done with the D3s, then it probably gets
itself paid for in short order. If there actually are such jobs,
which begs the question, how did they get done before the D3s? But,
some amateurs who immediately buy the latest and greatest might not
find that their extra $2000+ wasn't really worth it. It's all kind of
interesting, for example, if you take 3 cameras, the D3s, the D700 and
an old Olympus E-500, you could rightly say, the Olympus simply could
not do specific jobs (at all) that the D3s or D700 could do. But,
could you really say it about the D700 versus the D3s? Is there
actually any job it could not do (not just do it less well) that the
D3s could?
From: bugbear on 17 Feb 2010 04:43
RichA wrote:

>
> I guess I'm not aiming the conclusions at pros. If a pro makes $3000
> on a job that could only be done with the D3s, then it probably gets
> itself paid for in short order. If there actually are such jobs,
> which begs the question, how did they get done before the D3s?

For once you've asked an interesting question.

Looking back over the (brief) history of digital
cameras, it appears that pros were (at one time)
making money with shots taken on 2 mega pixel DSLRs.

Isn't that *interesting* ?

BugBear
From: Joe Makowiec on 17 Feb 2010 05:48
On 17 Feb 2010 in rec.photo.digital, bugbear wrote:

> Looking back over the (brief) history of digital
> cameras, it appears that pros were (at one time)
> making money with shots taken on 2 mega pixel DSLRs.

Try 1991, 1.3 megapixels (1280 x 1024) and US$30,000:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_DCS-100
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Kodak/

Given the price, these were strictly pro units; mostly, I'd guess, used
by photojournalists whose publications bought them.

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
From: John McWilliams on 17 Feb 2010 14:03
C. Werner wrote:

> So then it's confirmed. The only thing that defines a "pro" camera is not
> the image it can provide but the price.

Mantra of the uneducated.

--
lsmft
From: RichA on 17 Feb 2010 16:40
On Feb 17, 1:50 pm, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> RichA  <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >Looks like DPreview shaved some points off the D3s review owing to the
>
> One wonders why you continue to follow the web site so closely given
> your regular complaining and your contempt for their work.

I have contempt for some of what they do, their blatant pandering to
mfgs, but the core of their reviews, the data, is useful.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Backlash against pro camera prices? Finally??
Next: Need w/a attachment for Canon A710IS