 |
 | 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 / December 2006The "consumerization" of the low end....
The most glaring example of this is without doubt the Nikon D40. A truly dismal step down from the D50, engineered by Nikon for one purpose, to artificially maintain a price point by degrading the feature set of the D50. Was it REALLY needed that they shave a few mm's off each side of an already diminutive DSLR? Are they aiming it a race of adult of child size? Does a few dozen grams really make any difference when carrying a camera?? There have been other examples of this consumerization, Olympus's complete gutting of their fine C-line of P&S cameras turning them into nothing but Kodak-clone plastic JUNK with marginal performance. Hilariously, Olympus concentrated so much effort in this dismal endevour, they failed to see the future: They are now stuck with only ONE DSLR for the North American market, the innovative and until recently overpriced E-330!!! Pretty soon, the lines will be drawn hard. The "enthusiasts" cameras keep improving (Canon's 20D, 30D and soon the 40D) being good examples of this, the Nikon D200 being close to a pro model. But the consumer end is marketed with two dictates from TPTB: Useless extra megapixels and cost-control. To look at a Canon 30D and a Nikon D40 is to see a chasm in quality difference. But, with the cult-drones and the paid reviewers fawning over it, along with a neurotic need for "tiny" everything by clueless consumers, the D40 will sell very well indeed. Meanwhile, anyone with even a modicum of sense looking for a bulletproof entry-level camera will snag one of the leftover D50s for about $400 off Ebay. > Meanwhile, anyone with > even a modicum of sense looking for a bulletproof entry-level camera > will snag one of the leftover D50s for about $400 off Ebay. Does this mean you are buying a D50? Scott > > Meanwhile, anyone with > > even a modicum of sense looking for a bulletproof entry-level camera > > will snag one of the leftover D50s for about $400 off Ebay. > > Does this mean you are buying a D50? While I didn't see the original post (because he's killfiled), I can tell you that he doesn't meet the minimum qualifications of his own post, even if he was ever going to actually own a camera in his life instead of just knocking them all. All right, everyone now, to the tune of Monty Python's "Spam" song: Plastic plastic plastic plastic, plastic plastic plastic plastic, wonderful plastic, lovely plaaaastiiic... ___ / -/ 0/ 0/.  SignatureYou need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. -- Charles A. Beard > The most glaring example of this is without doubt the Nikon D40. A > truly dismal step down from the D50, engineered by Nikon for one > purpose, to artificially maintain a price point by degrading the > feature set of the D50. I, for one, am delighted that DSLRs are coming down in size and weight. I expect the quality of pictures to be undiminished. Hoorah for Nikon! David > The most glaring example of this is without doubt the Nikon D40. A > truly dismal step down from the D50, engineered by Nikon for one > purpose, to artificially maintain a price point by degrading the > feature set of the D50. Due to improvements in its image processing engine, it can provide better images than the D50. > Was it REALLY needed that they shave a few > mm's off each side of an already diminutive DSLR? Do you have giant hands? see the Canon D400. > Are they aiming it a > race of adult of child size? Don't be so pathetic and people might take you more seriously. > Does a few dozen grams really make any > difference when carrying a camera?? There have been other examples of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > end is marketed with two dictates from TPTB: Useless extra megapixels > and cost-control. Now your just ranting again. Stop it with the info overload and just take some pictures. > To look at a Canon 30D and a Nikon D40 is to see a chasm in quality > difference. But, with the cult-drones and the paid reviewers fawning > over it, along with a neurotic need for "tiny" everything by clueless > consumers, the D40 will sell very well indeed. Meanwhile, anyone with > even a modicum of sense looking for a bulletproof entry-level camera > will snag one of the leftover D50s for about $400 off Ebay. Leftover? There's still plenty for sale in stores near me. Had the D40 been around when I was looking at an entry level choice I would have certainly considered it. Doc <snip> > with marginal performance. Hilariously, Olympus concentrated so much > effort in this dismal endevour, they failed to see the future: They > are now stuck with only ONE DSLR for the North American market, the > innovative and until recently overpriced E-330!!! Forgot about the E500? > <snip> > > with marginal performance. Hilariously, Olympus concentrated so much [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Forgot about the E500? It's been discontinued. > The most glaring example of this is without doubt the Nikon D40. A > truly dismal step down from the D50, engineered by Nikon for one > purpose, to artificially maintain a price point by degrading the > feature set of the D50. Was it REALLY needed that they shave a few > mm's off each side of an already diminutive DSLR? I think so, yes. I'm seriously considering buying one for the occasions when I want to take a camera, but not a big DSLR. It's an attractive alternative to, say, something like the Coolpix 8800. Indeed, maybe DSLRs like the D40 will kill Coolpix 8800-class cameras stone dead. That's where it's aimed, not the current DSLR market. Andrew. > > The most glaring example of this is without doubt the Nikon D40. A > > truly dismal step down from the D50, engineered by Nikon for one [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Andrew. I can hardly wait for the 1.5 sensored, pressed phenolic and cardboard DSLRs to hit the market. > I can hardly wait for the 1.5 sensored, pressed phenolic and cardboard > DSLRs to hit > the market. So put your money where you mouth is. You keep telling us how the cost saving using plastic are not worth the loss in quality, so stop all this bellyaching and go out and buy a metal camera. Scott >> > The most glaring example of this is without doubt the Nikon D40. >> > A truly dismal step down from the D50, engineered by Nikon for [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> cameras stone dead. That's where it's aimed, not the current DSLR >> market. > I can hardly wait for the 1.5 sensored, pressed phenolic and > cardboard DSLRs to hit the market. It won't make any difference to you, will it? You're not going to buy a DSLR in any case. For those of us who want a second "carry around" camera, small light & cheap is great. Andrew. > >> > The most glaring example of this is without doubt the Nikon D40. > >> > A truly dismal step down from the D50, engineered by Nikon for [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > It won't make any difference to you, will it? You're not going to buy > a DSLR in any case. Still beating that old drum are you? > For those of us who want a second "carry around" camera, small light & > cheap is great. > > Andrew. You know what that statement reminds me of? "Popcorn" movie. It's what critics say when they are too ashamed to admit they enjoyed a lowbrow movie, they call it a "popcorn" movie. As if that excuses their terrible taste in films. So, camera owners saying "second carry around camera, cheap, light, etc" what they are REALLY saying is "I'm too ashamed to admit that I think a plastic camera is a good first-string instrument so I pretend to relegate it to "cheapo backup" as if to say "my real camera is all metal!" >> >> > The most glaring example of this is without doubt the Nikon D40. >> >> > A truly dismal step down from the D50, engineered by Nikon for [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> It won't make any difference to you, will it? You're not going to buy >> a DSLR in any case. > Still beating that old drum are you? What's your answer? It seems to me like a reasonable enough question. >> For those of us who want a second "carry around" camera, small >> light & cheap is great. > You know what that statement reminds me of? "Popcorn" movie. It's > what critics say when they are too ashamed to admit they enjoyed a > lowbrow movie, they call it a "popcorn" movie. As if that excuses > their terrible taste in films. What's wrong with enjoying a lowbrow movie? You're not a snob, are you? > So, camera owners saying "second carry around camera, cheap, light, > etc" what they are REALLY saying is "I'm too ashamed to admit that I > think a plastic camera is a good first-string instrument so I > pretend to relegate it to "cheapo backup" as if to say "my real > camera is all metal!" I'm serious about this, Rich. The small size and light weight, not to mention low cost, of this camera makes it highly desirable for plenty of us who carry around big DSLRs. If it functions basically OK, that'll do. It doesn't have to be great. I was wondering whether I could get a "My other camera is a D2x" sticker". Hey, perhaps one comes in the box with the D40. If it doesn't, maybe we should suggest it. Andrew. > >> >> > The most glaring example of this is without doubt the Nikon D40. > >> >> > A truly dismal step down from the D50, engineered by Nikon for [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > What's wrong with enjoying a lowbrow movie? You're not a snob, are you? Not at all. In fact, I'd admit I liked it, I wouldn't try to rationalize it to preserve an appearance of having better taste. > > So, camera owners saying "second carry around camera, cheap, light, > > etc" what they are REALLY saying is "I'm too ashamed to admit that I [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Andrew. Not a bad idea. The prism in the D200 probably costs Nikon as much as the entire D40 anyway so including it would be like including a remote control or any other small accessory. >> >> It won't make any difference to you, will it? You're not going >> >> to buy a DSLR in any case. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> > lowbrow movie, they call it a "popcorn" movie. As if that excuses >> > their terrible taste in films. >> What's wrong with enjoying a lowbrow movie? You're not a snob, are >> you? > Not at all. In fact, I'd admit I liked it, I wouldn't try to > rationalize it to preserve an appearance of having better taste. OK, so we are on the same page. The D40 is a low-cost fun camera to have. It's not for snob appeal and it's not to preserve an appearance of having better taste than anyone else. It's for going out and taking pictures with. There's nothing wrong with value engineering. It's not wicked or sinful to cost-reduce a product, even if you think it's a lowbrow thing to do. >> I was wondering whether I could get a "My other camera is a D2x" >> sticker". Hey, perhaps one comes in the box with the D40. If it >> doesn't, maybe we should suggest it. > Not a bad idea. The prism in the D200 probably costs Nikon as much > as the entire D40 anyway so including it would be like including a > remote control or any other small accessory. So, come on, tell us. For those of us who really do want a light cheap carry-around camera, why is any of this a bad thing? Andrew. > >> >> It won't make any difference to you, will it? You're not going > >> >> to buy a DSLR in any case. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Andrew. The camera as a camera is ok, but why replace a BETTER camera with it? 1. It costs as much as the D50 or more. 2. It isn't much smaller or lighter. 3. It has far less friendly control features. I know that most people who are entering the DSLR realm want something that behaves like a P&S, but eventually, when they learn to refine their techniques, they'll want those control features close at hand, not buried in a menu. Having said that, I used the D40 and though I would not buy one myself, it seemed to have very good auto WB and the images were good, much like the D50's. Here's a full-sized jpeg from it, 800 ISO. As you can see, white balance is bang on. http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/72264564/large >> >> >> It won't make any difference to you, will it? You're not going >> >> >> to buy a DSLR in any case. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >> >> Andrew. > The camera as a camera is ok, but why replace a BETTER camera with it? > 1. It costs as much as the D50 or more. > 2. It isn't much smaller or lighter. Yes it is: it's a full 25% smaller, and 20% lighter. > 3. It has far less friendly control features. Hmm. I'm not so sure about that one, as I haven't used it. Some people I've read like the controls a lot; each to their own, I guess. From what I've seen on the net the controls look pretty good. If I get one I'll report back. > I know that most people who are entering the DSLR realm want > something that behaves like a P&S, but eventually, when they learn > to refine their techniques, they'll want those control features > close at hand, not buried in a menu. So get a different camera. Besides, like I said, the controls don't look so bad to me. Andrew. > >> >> >> It won't make any difference to you, will it? You're not going > >> >> >> to buy a DSLR in any case. [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Yes it is: it's a full 25% smaller, and 20% lighter. What were really taking about here is at most a centimeter in thickness and height of the body and 100 grams of weight, about 3.4 ounces. > > 3. It has far less friendly control features. > > Hmm. I'm not so sure about that one, as I haven't used it. Some > people I've read like the controls a lot; each to their own, I guess. > From what I've seen on the net the controls look pretty good. If I > get one I'll report back. Part of the reason to use a DSLR is the speed of the shutter response and focus relative to a P&S. If you suddenly find the other controls are slower than a larger DSLR because they are buried in menus, you've defeated some of the utility. > So get a different camera. Besides, like I said, the controls don't > look so bad to me. As long as the do what you want, they should be fine. >> > 1. It costs as much as the D50 or more. >> > 2. It isn't much smaller or lighter. >> >> Yes it is: it's a full 25% smaller, and 20% lighter. > What were really taking about here is at most a centimeter in thickness > and height of the body and 100 grams of weight, about 3.4 ounces. Yep. Like I said, 25% smaller, and 20% lighter. >> > 3. It has far less friendly control features. >> >> Hmm. I'm not so sure about that one, as I haven't used it. Some >> people I've read like the controls a lot; each to their own, I >> guess. From what I've seen on the net the controls look pretty >> good. If I get one I'll report back. > Part of the reason to use a DSLR is the speed of the shutter > response and focus relative to a P&S. If you suddenly find the > other controls are slower than a larger DSLR because they are buried > in menus, you've defeated some of the utility. Sure. It's a trade-off. There's nothing wrong with that. The thing you have to think about is when you're going for a long hike, which camera will you take? And there is no simple answer; it depends. Choice is good. Nikon do not deserve a kicking for providing that choice. Andrew. > >> > 1. It costs as much as the D50 or more. > >> > 2. It isn't much smaller or lighter. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Andrew. That choice ends when the D50 and D70 are discontinued. Which should be anytime now. > That choice ends when the D50 and D70 are discontinued. Which should > be anytime now. So quick while you still have a choice buy the D50. Scott > > That choice ends when the D50 and D70 are discontinued. Which should > > be anytime now. > > So quick while you still have a choice buy the D50. > > Scott I can't (I own Olympus right now) but a friend just did. I've decided to what Olympus (and the rest) will release in Feb. > The most glaring example of this is without doubt the Nikon D40. A > truly dismal step down from the D50, engineered by Nikon for one [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > even a modicum of sense looking for a bulletproof entry-level camera > will snag one of the leftover D50s for about $400 off Ebay. I have to say, that for all the bashing of this guy (RichA) that everyone seems to enjoy, I agree with him on many points. I don't like plastic (don't get me wrong, it's nice to have a choice for weight, size, features and price)... It is CHEAP to manufacture, CHEAP to produce and just plain cheap. I don't doubt that today's plastics are tough, but I remember having Nikon, Pentax and Olympus SLRs in the 70's and 80's that were made like little jewels. Small, light and tough as nails. Plus, they had that "precision" feel to them. Like you were handling a serious photographic instrument. They were something that you were proud to own and could, with due care, last a lifetime. Just my 2 pennies. Carry on... > I have to say, that for all the bashing of this guy (RichA) that > everyone seems to enjoy, I agree with him on many points. He's a cut and paste person giving people the advantage of what they probably already read. A url to the original information would be enough. I've got him killfiled and would appreciate it if people would stop responding to him, especially if they're just bashing him for cutting and pasting. > I don't like plastic (don't get me wrong, it's nice to have a choice > for weight, size, features and price)... It is CHEAP to manufacture, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > instrument. They were something that you were proud to own and could, > with due care, last a lifetime. My cameras are (1) a Nikon D50 with three lenses (105 VR micro, 18-70 zoom, and a 50mm f/1.8 zoom); (2) a 1951 IIIF Leica with a 50 mm f/2 Summitar; and (3) a Minolta Autocord from 1955. The last two cameras are all metal, still working with some age related crankiness (the Summitar and the Autocord have been worked on recently). They're probably going to see me out as functional cameras, but the D50 is easier to shoot with, and the camera I didn't count is what I grab for quick shot to show the progress of work being done on my house (Coolpix 3200). But, yeah, the Leica and Autocord have great fondle-ability. I don't expect the D50 to see me out, but I hope the lenses will last for 20 or 30 years (not sure how well VR is going to last, though). The thing is that I will save on chemistry over the life of the Nikon D50, and it's paid for itself after the equivalent of say, 20 to 30 rolls of color film. > Just my 2 pennies. Carry on... > > The most glaring example of this is without doubt the Nikon D40. A > > truly dismal step down from the D50, engineered by Nikon for one [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Just my 2 pennies. Carry on... In the mid 1980s, you could buy a precision MACHINED Pentax K1000, Nikon FM2 or Olympus OM-1n for about $300.00. A cheap plastic SLR, the Canon Rebel T70 cost about $130.00. Now, you pay $700 for a PLASTIC-bodied DSLR AND the labour costs $10/day from China or Taiwan versus Japan's Western wage levels of the 1980s. Pentax stopped making a metal DSLR. Yet, dpreview (doing it's best sales pitch) touted the K10D body as the "toughest yet." Plastic and rubber seals does not = tough. It might = water resistent. But a consumer DSLR likely isn't even made of the same kind of plastic as a Pelikan camera case which can boast being waterproof. The only company wth the light in the tunnel is Canon, whose every DSLR is metal, except for the Rebel XTi. But plastic does have "its place." If it wasn't for cheap polymer resins, Olympus would be bankrupt or would have closed their camera divisions. >In the mid 1980s, you could buy a precision MACHINED Pentax K1000, >Nikon FM2 or Olympus OM-1n for about $300.00. So, when you take inflation into account, and the fact that digital cameras contain a lot more stuff than analog cameras, and you end up with a D200. Who cares about all the budget basement cameras, just get a D2X or a 1Ds mk II. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > In the mid 1980s, you could buy a precision MACHINED Pentax K1000, > Nikon FM2 or Olympus OM-1n for about $300.00. A cheap plastic SLR, the > Canon Rebel T70 cost about $130.00. Now, you pay $700 for a > PLASTIC-bodied DSLR I bought a Nikon FM2 in 1982, iirc. I bought a Nikon D70S in 2005. According to an inflation calculator, $300 in 1982 was worth about $608 in 2005. My FM2 was nice; I seem to recall buying it with a 50mm F1.8 lens. The D70S is nice; I seem to recall it came with an 18-55 or 18-70mm (something like that; I've since given the lens to my daughter to use with her D50) autofocus zoom lens. My D70S certainly has a lot more plastic than my FM2 had. That didn't stop me from selling the FM2 on eBay. I think there's a LOT more value in the D70S than there was in my FM2. At least for me. But then, I'm kind of low brow and drive a pickup truck when I'm not riding one of my motorcycles. > > In the mid 1980s, you could buy a precision MACHINED Pentax K1000, > > Nikon FM2 or Olympus OM-1n for about $300.00. A cheap plastic SLR, the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > But then, I'm kind of low brow and drive a pickup truck when I'm not > riding one of my motorcycles. Are any of them made of plastic? > > > In the mid 1980s, you could buy a precision MACHINED Pentax K1000, > > > Nikon FM2 or Olympus OM-1n for about $300.00. A cheap plastic SLR, the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Are any of them made of plastic? They're pretty much as different from the motorcycles I owned back in the early to mid-80's as the D70S is from the FM2, if that's what you're trying to figure out. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.