 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / October 2006CF cards on the way out?
Pentax K10D, arguably not an entry-level camera uses faster SD cards for storage. Does this mean that the more expensive CF cards are going to slowly disappear? > Pentax K10D, arguably not an entry-level camera uses faster SD cards > for storage. Does this mean that the more expensive CF cards are > going to slowly disappear? 1DsMkII also uses SD cards, so what! > > Pentax K10D, arguably not an entry-level camera uses faster SD cards > > for storage. Does this mean that the more expensive CF cards are > > going to slowly disappear? > > 1DsMkII also uses SD cards, so what! I think anything that offers a cost advantage (I see no name SD 2 gigs going for under $50 now) is generally adopted unless it has some disadvantage. The last test I saw of cards put the SD as being slightly faster than the fastest CF card. Also, there is no chance of "clogging up" the tiny holes in a CF card (SD has none) and the bent pin issue (which some retailers have said does happen with CF cards being rudely shoved into cameras) can't with an SD card. All of this would seem to argue for the SD. >> > Pentax K10D, arguably not an entry-level camera uses faster SD cards >> > for storage. Does this mean that the more expensive CF cards are [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > with an SD card. > All of this would seem to argue for the SD. The cost difference is trivial, CF or SD will be used for some other reason. > Pentax K10D, arguably not an entry-level camera uses faster SD cards > for storage. Does this mean that the more expensive CF cards are > going to slowly disappear? No: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06092603_sandiskextremelll.asp  SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> Pentax K10D, arguably not an entry-level camera uses faster SD cards >> for storage. Does this mean that the more expensive CF cards are >> going to slowly disappear? > > No: > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06092603_sandiskextremelll.asp Yes: Anything with a respectable speed won't be available. Due to Sandisk's poor quality and sluggish interface this card will take a day and a half to transfer files from it. Of course, the equivalent Lexar will be much better and faster, but any CF or SD above 4GB is totally obsolete and almost unusable due to poor transfer speeds. Instead of encouraging development of larger cards on the dead CF and SD platform camera manufacturer's need to incorporate the new FD format. Rita >>> Pentax K10D, arguably not an entry-level camera uses faster SD cards >>> for storage. Does this mean that the more expensive CF cards are [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > larger cards on the dead CF and SD platform camera manufacturer's need to > incorporate the new FD format. What about the SDHC, how do they compare? >> Anything with a respectable speed won't be available. Due to >> Sandisk's poor [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What about the SDHC, how do they compare? It's just a stopgap remedy or band-aid solution. A class-6 SDHC card will yield 6MB/s, which is still categorized as lame. It's simply not worth the effort for manufacturers to use a whole new interface in your camera and reader for these paltry speeds. This means unless the industry is willing to take a large leap in technology it's not worth screwing with CF or SD cards above 4GB Rita >>> Anything with a respectable speed won't be available. Due to >>> Sandisk's poor [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > to take a large leap in technology it's not worth screwing with CF or SD > cards above 4GB I think at the moment for many users the 1 and 2 Gig cards are really plenty even with the 10MP cameras, usually better not to put all your eggs in the one basket anyway. >>>> Anything with a respectable speed won't be available. Due to >>>> Sandisk's poor [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > plenty even with the 10MP cameras, usually better not to put all your eggs > in the one basket anyway. I am moving to 4GB cards. I am happy with SanDisk. A full card downloads in minutes not a day and a half. I do have a good computer and a USB2 card reader. > It's just a stopgap remedy or band-aid solution. A class-6 SDHC card will > yield 6MB/s, which is still categorized as lame. It's simply not worth the > effort for manufacturers to use a whole new interface in your camera and > reader for these paltry speeds. This means unless the industry is willing > to take a large leap in technology it's not worth screwing with CF or SD > cards above 4GB Size, price, etc., maybe, but speed? I use an 8 gig CF card, and it offloads onto the computer in a few minutes using Firewire. I've never timed it, but I've also never sat there waiting for it wishing it would go faster -- even when sitting in my car at a rest area dumping onto my 2002-vintage laptop. It actually takes longer to convert the NEFs to DNGs than it takes to get them off the camera. I really wish for in-camera DNG, but I'm perfectly happy with CF cards. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > It actually takes longer to convert the NEFs to DNGs than it takes to get > them off the camera. I really wish for in-camera DNG, but I'm perfectly > happy with CF cards. Exactly, why change to yet ANOTHER card format. So when I upgrade to a newer camera I get to replace all my CF cards with something "better"? SignatureStacey > Size, price, etc., maybe, but speed? I use an 8 gig CF card, and it > offloads onto the computer in a few minutes using Firewire. I've > never timed it, but I've also never sat there waiting for it wishing > it would go faster -- even when sitting in my car at a rest area > dumping onto my 2002-vintage laptop. A few minutes here and a few minutes there, it's all adds to the workflow. CF/SD cards are today's equivalent of the 1.44MB floppy disk. We all enjoyed our minute(s) long sessions feeding floppy discs into a drive and loading/offloading information, but it quickly got annoying. Some bright slob introduced the 2.88MB floppy and it was dead before it could gain popularity. Why? Because people seen that it was a dead-end technology at 720K. The jump to CDRW was the only major improvement in that arena at that time. 4GB is the plateau for CF/SD cards. > It actually takes longer to convert the NEFs to DNGs than it takes to > get them off the camera. I really wish for in-camera DNG, but I'm > perfectly happy with CF cards. I'm very happy with the pocket full of CFs I got too, but that doesn't mean that I want to go to a new format for the sake of going to a new format. I want to change only when the new format yields performance I can't live without and that probably isn't going to be happening in my lifetime. Why the added trauma to your workflow converting to DNG? I tried Adobe's DNG converter and I must say that the added time, even on a high performance machine, really isn't worth it to me. For me, Nikon RAW is the only viable format for long-term storage and easy workflow. Even if DNG were added as an option in-camera I don't know if I would see any benefits of using it. I'm sure there's no drawbacks, but what does it offer over Nikon RAW besides being the supposed "universal long term format" that people claim? Rita > 4GB is the plateau for CF/SD cards. Then how do you explain the 16 GByte CF cards just announced? At read/write of 20 MBytes/sec, you can dump at 50 seconds/GByte, or a full card in 13.3 minutes. Roger >> 4GB is the plateau for CF/SD cards. > > Then how do you explain the 16 GByte CF cards just > announced? At read/write of 20 MBytes/sec, > you can dump at 50 seconds/GByte, or a full card in > 13.3 minutes. Yep, you've just proved what we were discussing. Sure, I've read about the 16GB cards that were just announced and they *LOOK* fine on paper to deliver mind numbingly slow transfer speeds. In the real world your speed will, of course, be less. This reminds me of the good old days of doing a system backup with thirty 1.44MB floppy discs. At this point, you'd be better off buying a $5K pro camera and send it in to be modified to use 1.44MB floppy discs like the old Sony Mavica's did. As it stands, the 4GB Lexar has set the standard for speed, performance, and reliability. Going above this is a fool's game. Rita >>> 4GB is the plateau for CF/SD cards. >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > is a > fool's game. That's just absurd. A 1.44 MB floppy takes, what, about 1 minute per megabyte? That's over 2 million times slower than fast CF: The latest CF cards and readers seem to have real measured performance up to 38.6 MBytes/second. http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-7896-8475 Roger >> backup with thirty 1.44MB floppy discs. At this point, you'd be >> better off [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > up to 38.6 MBytes/second. > http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-7896-8475 I agree...I don't know what "Rita" has been smoking. Sometimes her comments are very well thought out and accurate, and sometimes she likes to evoke discussion by poking at people which I understand. But other times she goes off on a weird tangent and produces gibberish like the above which makes me wonder if it's the same person. Maybe she's bi-polar? > I agree...I don't know what "Rita" has been smoking. Sometimes her > comments are very well thought out and accurate, and sometimes she [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > like the above which makes me wonder if it's the same person. Maybe > she's bi-polar? Possible. But it may help to know that "she", "Rita", is male. Signaturejohn mcwilliams >> Yep, you've just proved what we were discussing. Sure, I've read >> about the 16GB cards that were just announced and they *LOOK* fine [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > up to 38.6 MBytes/second. > http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-7896-8475 The analogy here is making denser CF cards is about as useful as making and using denser 3.5" floppy disks. We've reached the point of diminishing returns with anything larger than 4GB. Rita > >> Yep, you've just proved what we were discussing. Sure, I've read > >> about the 16GB cards that were just announced and they *LOOK* fine [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > using denser 3.5" floppy disks. We've reached the point of diminishing > returns with anything larger than 4GB. How so? The floppy was killed by the CD, not because it could not be better, they did come out with 120Mb floppies but compared to CDs it was too little too late. AFAIK there is no flash cards yet bigger than the 16Gb SanDisk announced. Does it take more time to offload a single16Gb card or four 4Gb cards? (not to mention all the other combinations amounting to 16Gb like sixty four 256Mb cards) Jean > How so? The floppy was killed by the CD, not because it could not be > better, they did come out with 120Mb floppies but compared to CDs it was too > little too late. Precisely. And for the same reason the dual layer DVDs won't really catch on. Not with blue lasers around the corner. Hate the format war, though. Tony V >> How so? The floppy was killed by the CD, not because it could not >> be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > catch on. Not with blue lasers around the corner. Hate the format > war, though. Ok, this is really off-topic, but dual layer "caught-on" AT LEAST last year, if not sooner. The cost of a DVD-9 dual layer disc is at $1.00-1.50 CDN per disc, which is more than equitable for burning your own copies at home. Not that I advocate the procedure...personally, I would only be interesting in burning a disc if there is no Canadian version available (some markets have extended or altered versions that are not available here). So far I have been able to find everything I need at the local store, or at least order it in at a reasonable cost. Blu-ray or anything else is really just a gimmick. Except for more "features" on a disc, the current technology is more than sufficient to provide us with high quality video. Heck, I can't remember that last time I was interested enough to look at the crappy features on a disc. Sure I like the idea of more quality/better video, but even with high definition displays, the quality is already beyond the level of typical human acuity. Having more lines in a display doesn't help if you can't see the current peak of lines across a display. HINT - most people sit too far away from a hi-def set to fully enjoy it's benefits. For those in doubt, I offer this for your viewing pleasure: http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html > How so? The floppy was killed by the CD, not because it could not be > better, they did come out with 120Mb floppies but compared to CDs it > was too little too late. AFAIK there is no flash cards yet bigger > than the 16Gb SanDisk announced. Does it take more time to offload a > single16Gb card or four 4Gb cards? (not to mention all the other > combinations amounting to 16Gb like sixty four 256Mb cards) Yeah, what were those damn things called? Iomega something? Another piece of sh.t that never left the crapper. It just proves how people won't let a dead horse die with dignity. Rita > > How so? The floppy was killed by the CD, not because it could not be > > better, they did come out with 120Mb floppies but compared to CDs it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Yeah, what were those damn things called? Iomega something? Another piece > of sh.t that never left the crapper. Never left the crapper? sh.t, they're still for sale: http://www.iomega.com/direct/products/family.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=26891285& ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=63191&bmUID=1159840909183 Greg >> Yeah, what were those damn things called? Iomega something? Another > piece [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.iomega.com/direct/products/family.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=26891285& ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=63191&bmUID=1159840909183 All be damned! Who would have thought in 2006? And to think that I've thrown away hundreds of these damn Zip drives over the years because nobody wanted them. Rita > > How so? The floppy was killed by the CD, not because it could not be > > better, they did come out with 120Mb floppies but compared to CDs it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of sh.t that never left the crapper. It just proves how people won't let a > dead horse die with dignity. So what it the next storage medium for cameras that holds as many floppies as a CD did (or 450 times as much as a CF card now holds)? At least in floppy vs CD there WAS an alternative.. It's very nice to dream but reality "sometimes" takes over. Jean > Rita SNIP > Does it take more time to offload a single16Gb card or four 4Gb > cards? (not to mention all the other combinations amounting to > 16Gb like sixty four 256Mb cards) There is some evidence that the higher capacity cards get slower when they fill up when writing to them, especially when they reach full capacity. I have no idea if capacity also impacts the average readout speed. Of course, swapping cards also takes time ... SignatureBart > There is some evidence that the higher capacity cards get slower when > they fill up when writing to them, especially when they reach full > capacity. I have no idea if capacity also impacts the average readout > speed. http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/compact_flash_card_speed I need to run new tests with the 133x cards and newer firmware. I'll do that in the next few months (before my Africa trip). Roger SNIP > http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/compact_flash_card_speed > > I need to run new tests with the 133x cards and newer > firmware. I'll do that in the next few months > (before my Africa trip). I could think of a reason why the writes take a bit longer as the card fills. Apparently there is a strategy of equalizing the number of writes to specific memory locations, because the cards have a limited number they can be written to. That might take the controller a bit longer to figure out on larger numbers of positions, with many already occupied. I'm not sure if that really is the reason, but it seems possible. Have you also tested if read speed is somehow correlated with (used) capacity? I would expect less of an effect. I only have cards with 2Gb maximum capacity, so that would not be a very relevant/representative test for anything larger. SignatureBart > SNIP > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > maximum capacity, so that would not be a very relevant/representative > test for anything larger. Bart, No I did not test read speed. I will the next time I test. Roger >> The latest CF cards and readers seem to have real measured performance >> up to 38.6 MBytes/second. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > using denser 3.5" floppy disks. We've reached the point of diminishing > returns with anything larger than 4GB. I disagree. Floppies increased in capacity only a small amount, and barely changed in speed. With CF, we are seeing large changes in capacity AND speed. A few years ago we had 32 mbyte and smaller CF that was very slow. Now we have 16 GB (>100x capacity) and >40x faster speeds. Roger >> The analogy here is making denser CF cards is about as useful as >> making and using denser 3.5" floppy disks. We've reached the point [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that was very slow. Now we have 16 GB (>100x capacity) and >40x > faster speeds. And the format is quickly being abandoned. Hey, CF and SD manufacturers will milk it till the end. And you'll never pass the theoretical speed of the interface and reader, which is the major bottleneck. It's kinda like (S)ATA vs SCSI. You want speed and reliability you go SCSI. Rita > It's kinda > like (S)ATA vs SCSI. You want speed and reliability you go SCSI. I agree that SCSI is a superior technology from speed and reliability, but unfortunately, it is the dead technology. Superior technology does not win. Cheap does. At work I have multiple systems with tens of terabytes of imaging data. I used to have all SCSI disks, but I have switched to SATA 2 disks in raid 5 arrays (2 terabytes per array of five 400 GB drives each, and many arrays). Performance is great. You can't get, for any decent price, 400 GByte SCSI disks, and on a camera, those large (even the mini) connectors would add too much weight and be too bulky. On a P&S camera, the SCSI connector would double the size and weight! ;-) Roger >> It's kinda >> like (S)ATA vs SCSI. You want speed and reliability you go SCSI. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > camera, the SCSI connector would double the size and weight! ;-) > Roger Yes, sadly SATA is becoming mainstream because it's throwaway technology. Reliable data retention and performance be damned for the sake of saving a few pennies. An array with the good old Seagate ST3300655LC 300GB U320 SCSI drives will make you wish you could throw away what you are using now. As for the cameras, give me one with 40GB of built-in RAMBUS and a 10/100/1000 Ethernet port and I'll be happy. Rita : >> It's kinda : >> like (S)ATA vs SCSI. You want speed and reliability you go SCSI. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] : Reliable data retention and performance be damned for the sake of saving a : few pennies. A few pennies? the price premium for scsi is substantial An array with the good old Seagate ST3300655LC 300GB U320 : SCSI drives will make you wish you could throw away what you are using now. : : As for the cameras, give me one with 40GB of built-in RAMBUS and a : 10/100/1000 Ethernet port and I'll be happy. : : Rita In article <451FC46E.9090105@qwest.net>, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote: > > 4GB is the plateau for CF/SD cards. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Roger Ya I don't agree with that statement of hers' either, there are certainly 8 GB CF's being sold. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >> Size, price, etc., maybe, but speed? I use an 8 gig CF card, and it >> offloads onto the computer in a few minutes using Firewire. I've [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > A few minutes here and a few minutes there, it's all adds to the workflow. > CF/SD cards are today's equivalent of the 1.44MB floppy disk. Copy files from a card to a PC is but a minor bit of time compared to the capturing of them in the first place and the hours of editing that follows. At the end of the day I dump the card to the hard disk and get to work at a later time ... while traveling this summer I dumped to a laptop while taking the pre-dinner shower or in a couple cases while driving to the hotel ... it's really a non issue and takes about 5 minutes / GB in my case. > time. 4GB is the plateau for CF/SD cards. Rubbish, 8 GB are available and higher is coming. > Why the added trauma to your workflow converting to DNG? I tried Adobe's > DNG converter and I must say that the added time, even on a high > performance > machine, really isn't worth it to me. At less than 2 seconds per file ( 9 MB in, 6 - 7 MB out) on a dual core athlon ... it is no big deal ... a hundred images batch processes in ~ 4 minutes. While that is batching, I just start on the first image in Photoshop, or check e-mail or whatever. For me, Nikon RAW is the only viable > format for long-term storage and easy workflow. Even if DNG were added as > an option in-camera I don't know if I would see any benefits of using > it. I'm > sure there's no drawbacks, but what does it offer over Nikon RAW besides > being the supposed "universal long term format" that people claim? That it is likely to be a viable long term format is sufficent for most people. I haven't made that leap of faith yet, but it is likely in the near future. As you know, at least one manufacturer supports in camera DNG, others will follow and Adobe are the folks who have brought us the de facto standard pdf. I don't know if Nikon will follow, all indications are that they want to keep to their proprietary formats in order to sell more software tools. (eg: the white balance metadata fiasco). Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> A few minutes here and a few minutes there, it's all adds to the >> workflow. CF/SD cards are today's equivalent of the 1.44MB floppy [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > while driving to the hotel ... it's really a non issue and takes > about 5 minutes / GB in my case. Sure, we all multitask, but that's not the issue here. I do the same thing, but this doesn't mean that I'm content being one of the sheep being corralled into using obsolete technology. I accept that I have to use CFs on the D2x and D200, but that doesn't mean that I have to support a dead ended technology by buying 8Gb and 16GB cards that are much slower and less reliable than my Lexar 4GB cards. >> time. 4GB is the plateau for CF/SD cards. > > Rubbish, 8 GB are available and higher is coming. Yes they are, and with a penalty of speed and reliability. >> Why the added trauma to your workflow converting to DNG? I tried >> Adobe's DNG converter and I must say that the added time, even on a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > processes in ~ 4 minutes. While that is batching, I just start on > the first image in Photoshop, or check e-mail or whatever. Yep, and it's blazingly fast, relatively speaking, on a dual Xeon with U320 SCSI RAID, but the added processing time and overhead doesn't make for an efficient workflow. Again, we follow the multitasking sheep to the slaughter. > For me, Nikon RAW is the only viable >> format for long-term storage and easy workflow. Even if DNG were [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > proprietary formats in order to sell more software tools. (eg: the > white balance metadata fiasco). And then we are now being locked under Adobe's thumb instead of Nikon's. DNG might be the best thing for the digital world, but I'm not seeing it in any of my present and future workflow needs. The only present advantage I see to using DNG is by people that don't want to spend the bucks to upgrade to CS2. My opinion, if you're serious enough to be worrying about RAW and DNG you should be spending the couple extra bucks to buy CS2, which renders DNG useless again. Rita >> Copy files from a card to a PC is but a minor bit of time compared to >> the capturing of them in the first place and the hours of editing that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > ended technology by buying 8Gb and 16GB cards that are much slower and less > reliable than my Lexar 4GB cards. Slower? They are mostly faster / MB at each iteration. But they also hold a lot more info so xfer time goes up. You save time by not swapping from one card to the next and getting confused over which card is empty and which card is full which causes even more loss of time. CF is okay. Will better memory technology emerge? Certainly. Will it make a huge difference to your workflow? No, becasue most of the workflow effort is in photoshop editing not in transferring files. A good camera should last 15 - 20 years, so you may be happy that CF cards get ever denser regardless of upload speed. I would love to have a memory device in my bag that slowly gets a wireless offload from the camera as I shoot. At my rate of shooting, 1 GB in camera would be overkill. >> At less than 2 seconds per file ( 9 MB in, 6 - 7 MB out) on a dual >> core athlon ... it is no big deal ... a hundred images batch [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > efficient workflow. Again, we follow the multitasking sheep to the > slaughter. No sense in what you write there. While editing in photoshop and DNG conversion happening in the background there is no effect on workflow. If the CPU is working at 10% I'm not getting any work out of it for the $ or time that it sits there. By the time I've done only minor changes to the first image, 100 images have been converted. Again, no effect on workflow. >> That it is likely to be a viable long term format is sufficent for >> most people. I haven't made that leap of faith yet, but it is likely [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And then we are now being locked under Adobe's thumb instead of Nikon's. Locked under? Not at all, the DNG format is non-proprietary. PDF has served many people and companies very well and at low cost, often no cost. Face it, Adobe are in the information business, something that Nikon are children at. As has been discussed before: Why does Nikon encrypt MY data? It is for the simple purpose of making more money selling tools required to unlock my data. That is morally reprehensible. > DNG might be the best thing for the digital world, but I'm not seeing it in > any of my present and future workflow needs. The only present advantage I > see to using DNG is by people that don't want to spend the bucks to upgrade > to CS2. My opinion, if you're serious enough to be worrying about RAW and > DNG you should be spending the couple extra bucks to buy CS2, which renders > DNG useless again. CS2 does nothing to render DNG any more useful or useless. I don't have CS2 and Elements 3 reads RAW with the right (freely provided) plugins from Adobe. It's just a storage format that transcends the highly variable RAW formats of the various camera makers. It is in a sense like limiting films to silver based b&W, C-41 and E-6 as the main standards available in many places for the same processing process. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> Sure, we all multitask, but that's not the issue here. I do the same >> thing, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Slower? They are mostly faster / MB at each iteration. But they also > hold a lot more info so xfer time goes up. Yes, they are faster on paper at each iteration, but slower at in real world applications. > You save time by not swapping from one card to the next and getting > confused over which card is empty and which card is full which causes > even more loss of time. Not a problem since my CFs are indexed and stored in a quick access case. If it were a problem I would get a speedloader made with Tandy leather. > CF is okay. Will better memory technology emerge? Certainly. Will > it make a huge difference to your workflow? No, becasue most of the > workflow effort is in photoshop editing not in transferring files. True, I can agree with that to a point. > A good camera should last 15 - 20 years, so you may be happy that CF > cards get ever denser regardless of upload speed. Film yes, digital no. The projected maximum life for any Pro dSLR is 18-months. > I would love to have a memory device in my bag that slowly gets a > wireless offload from the camera as I shoot. At my rate of shooting, > 1 GB in camera would be overkill. Pick up one of the WiFi grips. >> Yep, and it's blazingly fast, relatively speaking, on a dual Xeon >> with U320 SCSI RAID, but the added processing time and overhead [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If the CPU is working at 10% I'm not getting any work out of it for > the $ or time that it sits there. Sure there is. Adding any extra steps, even in the background, causes an interuption to ones workflow and reduces productivity. > By the time I've done only minor changes to the first image, 100 > images have been converted. Again, no effect on workflow. But, can this time be better applied elsewhere? >>> That it is likely to be a viable long term format is sufficent for >>> most people. I haven't made that leap of faith yet, but it is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Locked under? Not at all, the DNG format is non-proprietary. OK, I didn't realize this. I thought this was another Adobe creation. This makes all the difference in the world. > PDF has served many people and companies very well and at low cost, > often no cost. Face it, Adobe are in the information business, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for the simple purpose of making more money selling tools required to > unlock my data. That is morally reprehensible. You don't have to buy Nikon's software or pay for the ACR plug-in. How is this costing you money? How is this forcing you to buy Nikon Software? >> DNG might be the best thing for the digital world, but I'm not >> seeing it in any of my present and future workflow needs. The only [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > sense like limiting films to silver based b&W, C-41 and E-6 as the > main standards available in many places for the same processing I've got the Adobe DNG converter loaded on this machine. I do realize it's independent of CS2. I tried it and the extra step to go to DNG wasn't appealing to me. Rita >> A good camera should last 15 - 20 years, so you may be happy that CF >> cards get ever denser regardless of upload speed. > > Film yes, digital no. The projected maximum life for any Pro dSLR is > 18-months. My Pro DSLR Canon 1D Mark II is 26 months old and working as well as the day I bought it. Roger In article <4521B0B9.3030907@qwest.net>, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote: > My Pro DSLR Canon 1D Mark II is 26 months old and working as > well as the day I bought it. > > Roger So 26 months now equates to 10-15 years? interesting. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >> My Pro DSLR Canon 1D Mark II is 26 months old and working as >> well as the day I bought it. >> >> Roger > > So 26 months now equates to 10-15 years? interesting. LOL! Rita > In article <4521B0B9.3030907@qwest.net>, > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > So 26 months now equates to 10-15 years? interesting. Quoting out of context is usually indicative of a lost argument ... SignatureBart >> Film yes, digital no. The projected maximum life for any Pro dSLR is >> 18-months. > > My Pro DSLR Canon 1D Mark II is 26 months old and working as > well as the day I bought it. Definitely way past its "Use By" date and should be discarded. Use at your own risk at this point. Rita : >> Film yes, digital no. The projected maximum life for any Pro dSLR is : >> 18-months. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : Definitely way past its "Use By" date and should be discarded. Use at your : own risk at this point. you're not married to rich A are you? > : >> Film yes, digital no. The projected maximum life for any Pro dSLR is > : >> 18-months. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > you're not married to rich A are you? I don't believe either gentleman is gay; not that there's anything wrong with that. Signaturejohn mcwilliams > I don't believe either gentleman is gay; not that there's anything wrong > with that. Rita is a man? Not that there is anything wrong with that. Scott >> I don't believe either gentleman is gay; not that there's anything >> wrong with that. > Rita is a man? Not that there is anything wrong with that. LOL! John's just got a fixation on me, that's all. He feels rejected ever since I told him that he can't wear my undies. This explains it all. http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/kisses.htm Rita >>> I don't believe either gentleman is gay; not that there's anything >>> wrong with that. >> Rita is a man? Not that there is anything wrong with that. > > LOL! John's just got a fixation on me, that's all. He feels rejected ever > since I told him that he can't wear my undies. This explains it all. I've never understood why someone who takes himself so seriously posts so anonymously and as a person of the opposite sex. Guess I won't be getting any clarification from "Rita". SignatureJohn McWilliams "Nobody in football should be called a genius. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein." - Football commentator and former player Joe Theismann 1996 : >> I don't believe either gentleman is gay; not that there's anything : >> wrong with that. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : : http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/kisses.htm i'm still none the wiser >>> A good camera should last 15 - 20 years, so you may be happy that CF >>> cards get ever denser regardless of upload speed. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Roger Canon designed/made the camera to last a long time and to take a moderate amount of abuse. The 1D MKII is a damn good camera. The rebel series, P&S cameras, and the Nikon 50, 70, etc. type cameras may not last as long as the high end Nikon or Canon cameras. But they may have not been designed for long term life-cycle use. >>> use CFs on the D2x and D200, but that doesn't mean that I have to >>> support a dead ended technology by buying 8Gb and 16GB cards that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > world > applications. While it is (relatively) easy to double memory in a given format, it is very hard to double speed. OTOH, as the convenience of having a large card eliminates error prone and frequent swapping, it saves a lot of time and error. >> You save time by not swapping from one card to the next and getting >> confused over which card is empty and which card is full which causes [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Film yes, digital no. The projected maximum life for any Pro dSLR is > 18-months. Are you a pro? >> No sense in what you write there. While editing in photoshop and DNG >> conversion happening in the background there is no effect on workflow. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > But, can this time be better applied elsewhere? Not likely. When editing an image the processor is mostly idle (eg: examining the image between minor changes. >> As has been discussed before: Why does Nikon encrypt MY data? It is >> for the simple purpose of making more money selling tools required to >> unlock my data. That is morally reprehensible. > > You don't have to buy Nikon's software or pay for the ACR plug-in. How is > this costing you money? How is this forcing you to buy Nikon Software? Me? Not all. Not a Nikon user. But please DO say why Nikon need to encrypt data (that belongs to the photographer) at all? This is what is irking people. Several people have published ways around the white balance encryption, so maybe Nikon will cool it... The motive remains a scary precedent. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> Yes, they are faster on paper at each iteration, but slower at in >> real world >> applications. > > While it is (relatively) easy to double memory in a given format, it > is very hard to double speed. Exactly. >>> A good camera should last 15 - 20 years, so you may be happy that CF >>> cards get ever denser regardless of upload speed. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Are you a pro? Me? Hell no, I just like taking pretty pictures. >> You don't have to buy Nikon's software or pay for the ACR plug-in. How is >> this costing you money? How is this forcing you to buy Nikon [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > balance encryption, so maybe Nikon will cool it... The motive > remains a scary precedent. Geez! Nikon offered one camera with the encrypted WB and some people had a fit. Wasn't it the D200? I forgot since it was a non-issue after two weeks. It's time to let go of obsolete arguments. Personally, I see no problem with Nikon wanting control over their software. Sure, the image the photographer produces is theirs, but the tool (software) is still Nikon's. Welcome to the digital age. And don't forget about that conversation you have on your cell phone, it's not yours since you've signed your right of ownership and privacy away every time you power up the phone. Rita > Geez! Nikon offered one camera with the encrypted WB and some people had a > fit. Wasn't it the D200? Offers, present tense, and it's the D200, D2x, D70s, and (presumably) anything else newer. They didn't stop doing it, they just finally allowed Adobe to decrypt it without worrying about the DMCA. > Personally, I see no problem with Nikon wanting control over their software. > Sure, the image the photographer produces is theirs, but the tool (software) > is still Nikon's. Encrypting my image information has *nothing* to do with protecting their software -- except an attempt to "protect" their ability to make me use it and pay for it. That the attempt was lame and failed isn't the point. If they were willing to do it once -- and haven't stopped doing it -- they may be willing to try again, and they may do a better job of it next time, unless their customers tell them "no way". I think the white balance thing was just them testing the waters to see what would happen if they did it, in a way that wouldn't hurt too badly if it backfired. What would you say if they encrypted the entire image in a way that you could only, ever, use Nikon's own software to access it? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Geez! Nikon offered one camera with the encrypted WB and some people >> had a fit. Wasn't it the D200? > > Offers, present tense, and it's the D200, D2x, D70s, and (presumably) > anything else newer. They didn't stop doing it, they just finally > allowed Adobe to decrypt it without worrying about the DMCA. See, it's not an issue. >> Personally, I see no problem with Nikon wanting control over their >> software. Sure, the image the photographer produces is theirs, but [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > waters to see what would happen if they did it, in a way that > wouldn't hurt too badly if it backfired. Technically, you can shoot JPG and avoid this altogether. I don't shoot JPG ever and I still don't see what the big stink is over. Nikon is giving me an additional tool at a one-time nominal fee to process NEFs for the useful life of my camera and computer, which can be decades. If paying a few bucks to Nikon gets us firmware updates why bitch about it? You don't expect Nikon to support a particular piece of hardware forever, do you? The D2h is now "end of life" and no more firmware upgrade will be offered. > What would you say if they encrypted the entire image in a way that > you could only, ever, use Nikon's own software to access it? It will never happen, so there's no need to worry about it. Rita > Geez! Nikon offered one camera with the encrypted WB and some people had a > fit. Wasn't it the D200? I forgot since it was a non-issue after two > weeks. It's time to let go of obsolete arguments. Not in the abstract. We have to fight these attempts to make encrypted formats. Personally, I see no > problem with Nikon wanting control over their software. Sure, the image > the > photographer produces is theirs, but the tool (software) is still Nikon's. Wrong. The white balance info is the phtographers. He took the image. Protecting the software is fair (it is IP), protecting the product of the software that you paid for (in the camera is not). > Welcome to the digital age. And don't forget about that conversation you > have on your cell phone, it's not yours since you've signed your right of > ownership and privacy away every time you power up the phone. Eh? Please show me the clause in your agreement that says that. Actually, there is a cell phone clause that irks me... my provider has a clause that I signed up to with the phone: that I won't litigate against the provider in a court of law for any reason. So I checked two other providers ... same clause. Do US cell phone providers have the same or similar clause. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> Geez! Nikon offered one camera with the encrypted WB and some people >> had a fit. Wasn't it the D200? I forgot since it was a non-issue >> after two weeks. It's time to let go of obsolete arguments. > > Not in the abstract. We have to fight these attempts to make > encrypted formats. Your point has merit. I'm still not convinced that Nikon crossed any ethical lines with this encryption action. > Personally, I see no >> problem with Nikon wanting control over their software. Sure, the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > image. Protecting the software is fair (it is IP), protecting the > product of the software that you paid for (in the camera is not). Not so fast. The intellectual property is the photographers for every image he or she takes. The fine line here is the camera is a tool that you are using. You expect Nikon and Canon to provide us with the best tools with the latest up to date firmware and software. This firmware and software is still the property on Nikon and Canon. If you can wipe the innards of your camera clean and roll your own system then you are 100% correct. Till then we got to live with what the manufacturers throw down our throats. >> Welcome to the digital age. And don't forget about that >> conversation you have on your cell phone, it's not yours since >> you've signed your right of ownership and privacy away every time >> you power up the phone. > > Eh? Please show me the clause in your agreement that says that. First, get a semi-technical understanding of how a cell system works and you will be amazed at what you voluntarily thrown away. That little phone in your pocket holds more power for abuse than most people could dream of. A simple mouse click and the cell phone can monitor a conversation in a room without you knowing it. Read up on it. > Actually, there is a cell phone clause that irks me... my provider > has a clause that I signed up to with the phone: that I won't > litigate against the provider in a court of law for any reason. So I > checked two other providers ... same clause. Do US cell phone > providers have the same or similar clause. Because you can be "accidentally" monitored or your location tracked. Don't forget your calling habits make great marketing data. Rita >>> Geez! Nikon offered one camera with the encrypted WB and some people >>> had a fit. Wasn't it the D200? I forgot since it was a non-issue [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > camera clean and roll your own system then you are 100% correct. Till then > we got to live with what the manufacturers throw down our throats. Absolutely not. The product of a software system (the files) are the photographers. For Nikon to encrypt a part of them is a weak attempt to prevent third party s/w manipulation of the information that belongs to the photographer. Fortunately a hacker broke the encryption and soon after Nikon gave Adobe the nod to use the "workaround" (that's how I recall events). But the intention of Nikon to prevent you from using the data as you see fit is clearly a blatent money take. Nikon have been very good to their loyal customers over the years with strong backward lens compatibility and it was a great strategy as you bought more Nikon lenses you became more beholden to the brand. But these days with high performance zooms (the "f/2.8 class") and bodies that get renewed every few years (pixel race), past Nikon fans are at their most likely to jump to Canon (and quite a number have given Nikons slow digital pace). So Nikon are dabbling with new lockins to help sell more than just the camera. Fight it! Don't buy their s/w, buy the Adobe s/w or use the inevitable hacker bypasses... >>> Welcome to the digital age. And don't forget about that >>> conversation you have on your cell phone, it's not yours since [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > you > will be amazed at what you voluntarily thrown away. Ahem. I have a more than semi-technical understanding of cell phones. That little phone in > your pocket holds more power for abuse than most people could dream of. A > simple mouse click and the cell phone can monitor a conversation in a room > without you knowing it. Read up on it. Hang on. There's a difference between what you contractually "sign over" and what "exploits" a system (including landline) offers to others to use to overhear a conversation. You stated: "... since you've signed your right of ownership..." so I want to know what clause you're invoking. >> Actually, there is a cell phone clause that irks me... my provider >> has a clause that I signed up to with the phone: that I won't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Don't > forget your calling habits make great marketing data. Accidently? Hell no. There have been experiments here in Montreal where as the phone user walks by a major downtown department store, the phone would ring and message to the user what was on sale right now for that specific customer... Bell and the store have backed off on it for a bit (they never deployed it wide and its not on now) but it's one of the myriad things... Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>> Wrong. The white balance info is the phtographers. He took the >>> image. Protecting the software is fair (it is IP), protecting the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > encryption and soon after Nikon gave Adobe the nod to use the > "workaround" (that's how I recall events). If you voluntarily elect to use the NEF format than it is not the photographer's property. The intellectual data of the image is the property of the photographer, but not the file or file system needed to reproduce this image. If you shoot JPG than you are right. Of course, as Jeremy said if Nikon offered DNG this wouldn't be a concern for some purists. > But the intention of Nikon to prevent you from using the data as you > see fit is clearly a blatent money take. Nikon have been very good > to their loyal customers over the years with strong backward lens > compatibility and it was a great strategy as you bought more Nikon > lenses you became more beholden to the brand. I guess if one pays $5K for a pro body and extra $99 isn't going to kill them. I think Nikon's move for encryption was to get money directly from Adobe not so much the end user. Of course, Adobe is making a killing from what they charge new users for CS2. Nikon should get a cut. Sure I would have loved to get a free copy of capture with my body, but it wasn't meant to be. > But these days with high performance zooms (the "f/2.8 class") and > bodies that get renewed every few years (pixel race), past Nikon fans > are at their most likely to jump to Canon (and quite a number have > given Nikons slow digital pace). There you go! That 18-moth cycle rears its ugly head again. > So Nikon are dabbling with new lockins to help sell more than just the > camera. Fight it! Don't buy their s/w, buy the Adobe s/w or use the > inevitable hacker bypasses... I wonder if Nikon gave Adobe this information free of charge? Somehow I doubt it. If they didn't, I'm sure this cost is being passed on to the consumer. >>> Eh? Please show me the clause in your agreement that says that. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ahem. I have a more than semi-technical understanding of cell phones. I wasn't saying you directly didn't have knowledge of the system. Most people don't. > That little phone in >> your pocket holds more power for abuse than most people could dream [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > over" and what "exploits" a system (including landline) offers to > others to use to overhear a conversation. Is there really a difference? > You stated: "... since you've signed your right of ownership..." so I > want to know what clause you're invoking. The Patriot Act or any incarnation of such. >> Because you can be "accidentally" monitored or your location tracked. >> Don't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > on it for a bit (they never deployed it wide and its not on now) but > it's one of the myriad things... You got it! This is the point. What you describe is just another form of abuse. Rita : > A good camera should last 15 - 20 years, so you may be happy that CF : > cards get ever denser regardless of upload speed. : : Film yes, digital no. The projected maximum life for any Pro dSLR is : 18-months. my 300D is still going fine after 2 years. > : > A good camera should last 15 - 20 years, so you may be happy that CF > : > cards get ever denser regardless of upload speed. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > my 300D is still going fine after 2 years. This is typical over the top Rita, note that she does not say the average life or the typical life but rather the maximum life. And not just the maximum life of a typical pro dSLR but of any Pro dSLR. And odd how it is the projected life when there are so many Pro DSLRs that have been around longer then 18 months. And who I wonder is doing these rather bad projections and based on what drug of choice. Scott >>>> A good camera should last 15 - 20 years, so you may be happy that >>>> CF cards get ever denser regardless of upload speed. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > And odd how it is the projected life when there are so many Pro DSLRs > that have been around longer then 18 months. LOL! Did you ever happen to think that this is the maximum life as determined by the manufacturers between model introductions and their expectations of you throwing it away and replacing it the latest and greatest model? Sure, we all know a pro dSLR can last a lifetime, but do you really want it to? The magic number is 18-months. Rita > greatest model? Sure, we all know a pro dSLR can last a lifetime, but > do you really want it to? The magic number is 18-months. I called a press photog that I met a few years ago. He is still shooting his Nikon D2H's (3 of them) ... (2003) for the paper. No plans to "improve". Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> greatest model? Sure, we all know a pro dSLR can last a lifetime, >> but do you really want it to? The magic number is 18-months. > > I called a press photog that I met a few years ago. He is still > shooting his Nikon D2H's (3 of them) ... (2003) for the paper. No > plans to "improve". Nope! And no need for him to upgrade since these cameras fit his needs perfectly. That doesn't mean that Nikon isn't salivating with the thought of him purchasing three new D2xs bodies. Again the magic number is 18-months. Rita >>> greatest model? Sure, we all know a pro dSLR can last a lifetime, >>> but do you really want it to? The magic number is 18-months. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > thought of him purchasing three new D2xs bodies. Again the magic number > is 18-months. Well, actually he's trying to get the newspaper to switch to Canon. But with their major collection of Nikon glass, he'll have to wait sometime yet. The point is that newspaper story sized photos are somewhat small, only occasionally blown up large for features. 4 Mpix is often much more than enough even when the photo editor gets done cropping. He complains that Nikon support is very slow (3 weeks typical, 3 months too often) for lens or body repairs. Further, for his personal equipment, Nikon won't give him a courtesy price whereas Canon will... Canon are winning the hearts and minds of pro photogs with equipment and savvy marketing... Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> Nope! And no need for him to upgrade since these cameras fit his >> needs perfectly. That doesn't mean that Nikon isn't salivating with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with their major collection of Nikon glass, he'll have to wait > sometime yet. That's no excuse! If he really has a burning desire to go Canon he can command a high premium for all his Nikon glass on eBay regardless of condition. He might take a slight hit on he bodies, though. With all his depreciation for tax purposes and what he'd get on eBay for the lot he would be so far ahead of the game when all is averaged out. > The point is that newspaper story sized photos are somewhat small, > only occasionally blown up large for features. 4 Mpix is often much > more than enough even when the photo editor gets done cropping. True, than using any type or brand of camera really isn't at the core issue than. > He complains that Nikon support is very slow (3 weeks typical, 3 > months too often) for lens or body repairs. Further, for his personal > equipment, Nikon won't give him a courtesy price whereas Canon will... It's not a problem if you have a few backups. Canon has the same service issues as well. The bottom line, poor service is going to be an issue with any brand of buy today. > Canon are winning the hearts and minds of pro photogs with equipment > and savvy marketing... Yes they are. Nikon would be too if they infinitely loaned their equipment to pros free of charge, quality be damned. This tells me that if a pro is willing to pay for the equipment (Nikon) it must have more positive attributes than Canon offers. Rita >>> Nope! And no need for him to upgrade since these cameras fit his >>> needs perfectly. That doesn't mean that Nikon isn't salivating with [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > would > be so far ahead of the game when all is averaged out. The gear is owned by the paper who probably would frown on him selling it. >> The point is that newspaper story sized photos are somewhat small, >> only occasionally blown up large for features. 4 Mpix is often much >> more than enough even when the photo editor gets done cropping. > > True, than using any type or brand of camera really isn't at the core issue > than. It is if the paper supplies the gear to the photogs, which is the case for major newspaper staff photographers. >> He complains that Nikon support is very slow (3 weeks typical, 3 >> months too often) for lens or body repairs. Further, for his personal [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > willing to pay for the equipment (Nikon) it must have more positive > attributes than Canon offers. Nice twist, but it's simply Canon's campaign to draw Nikon photogs over to Canon. Nikon seem happy to keep the status quo ... and that is not working: photojournalists are moving to Canon. Newspapers that supply gear to the photogs may stick to Nikon longer, but they too are migrating. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> That's no excuse! If he really has a burning desire to go Canon he >> can command a high premium for all his Nikon glass on eBay [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The gear is owned by the paper who probably would frown on him > selling it. I'm sure! I'm also sure that the employer knows what's best for their bottom line and their employees. >>> The point is that newspaper story sized photos are somewhat small, >>> only occasionally blown up large for features. 4 Mpix is often much [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It is if the paper supplies the gear to the photogs, which is the case > for major newspaper staff photographers. Then he shouldn't complain. If he doesn't like Nikon let him buy and bring his own tools to work. >>> Canon are winning the hearts and minds of pro photogs with equipment >>> and savvy marketing... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that supply gear to the photogs may stick to Nikon longer, but they > too are migrating. If it's working for Nikon why change to satisfy a few idiots on Usenet? Not that I'm calling you an idiot. The newspapers know what's best and I'm sure they will be with Nikon for a very long time. Rita >>> That's no excuse! If he really has a burning desire to go Canon he >>> can command a high premium for all his Nikon glass on eBay [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I'm sure! I'm also sure that the employer knows what's best for their > bottom line and their employees. Newspapers are legendary tightwads when it comes to equipment for their photojournalists. Jumping to Canon would not be a body decision, but a lens decision, so the photogs are stuck with the Nikon gear. The photog in question would prefer Canon, and it is usually the craftsman who knows what tools are best, not the financial people. The financial people simply see more capital outlay that they would rather not make v. the maintenance costs of what they already have. >>>> The point is that newspaper story sized photos are somewhat small, >>>> only occasionally blown up large for features. 4 Mpix is often much [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Then he shouldn't complain. If he doesn't like Nikon let him buy and bring > his own tools to work. That would be like me haveing to pay for my laptop, work computer or for that matter paying my staff from my own pocket. >> Nice twist, but it's simply Canon's campaign to draw Nikon photogs >> over to Canon. Nikon seem happy to keep the status quo ... and that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > sure > they will be with Nikon for a very long time. It has absolutely nothing to do with usenet. It has to do with the needs of professional photogs. In the case of the photog above, Canon meet the need better than Nikon do, but the newspaper is tightfisted. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> I'm sure! I'm also sure that the employer knows what's best for >> their bottom line and their employees. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > outlay that they would rather not make v. the maintenance costs of > what they already have. My guess is the newspaper doesn't see any earth shattering and breathtaking benefits in switching to another system. Maybe Canon would be best for all their employees, but it's not happening unless someone comes up with justifiable benefits for the paper. >>> It is if the paper supplies the gear to the photogs, which is the >>> case for major newspaper staff photographers. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That would be like me haveing to pay for my laptop, work computer or > for that matter paying my staff from my own pocket. Lets see? An employer is gracious enough to supply for free *ALL* the required tools to get the required job done. One or maybe a small percentage of employees don't like these tools. What are the logical and reasonable options? Well, the employee buys out of their own pocket whatever tools make them happy just as long as they get the job done. Or they can find an employer that uses the tools they like. Seems really simple. >> If it's working for Nikon why change to satisfy a few idiots on >> Usenet? Not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > needs of professional photogs. In the case of the photog above, Canon > meet the need better than Nikon do, but the newspaper is tightfisted. See above: It seems like using Nikon really isn't a problem for your friend or he'd be working elsewhere shooting with his Canon. Rita >>> I'm sure! I'm also sure that the employer knows what's best for >>> their bottom line and their employees. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > they can find an employer that uses the tools they like. Seems really > simple. That you simplify it to your satisfaction does not make it right. And again, the reason for stayting Nikon is due to keeping invested in all the old Nikon glass in the cupboard. This is not to the pj's liking. >>> If it's working for Nikon why change to satisfy a few idiots on >>> Usenet? Not [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > It seems like using Nikon really isn't a problem for your friend or he'd be > working elsewhere shooting with his Canon. Yeah right. For every pj there are 20 waiting to take his place. As the paper in question is the largest french daily in Montreal (in North America for that matter ;-) ), it's not the job he's about to jump from... so forced to use the shop tools whether he likes it or not. In my business, within reason, the tools used are those that the engineers and technicians need to do the job and that they choose. Over time, as preferences change, they get replaced. But this papers steadfast allegiance to Nikon seems to be permanent. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> Lets see? An employer is gracious enough to supply for free *ALL* >> the required tools to get the required job done. One or maybe a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > That you simplify it to your satisfaction does not make it right. I don't see how it can be any other way? > And again, the reason for stayting Nikon is due to keeping invested in > all the old Nikon glass in the cupboard. This is not to the pj's > liking. I don't see it as a sound business decision to change for the sake changing. The old Nikon glass is more than capable of getting the job done, even on an FF Canon. I see a golden opportunity here for him to get a few Canon pro bodies and a $15 adapter to use all that great Nikon glass. >> It seems like using Nikon really isn't a problem for your friend or >> he'd be working elsewhere shooting with his Canon. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > jump from... so forced to use the shop tools whether he likes it or > not. I'm sure there aren't too many people out here, even Canon zealots, that would turn down the unlimited free use of a D2h or D2x and a bag full of pro lenses. > In my business, within reason, the tools used are those that the > engineers and technicians need to do the job and that they choose. Over > time, as preferences change, they get replaced. But this papers |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message