Is Nikon Greedy?

[sizifo]

No sizifo, not exactly. I just wish that our human nature wasn't constantly exploited, and that photographers would stop siding with their "oppressors."

Yes, but what would you want to see Nikon do instead?

That photo may have been relevent referring to 1998, not now.

I agree. It was meant as a joke.

 

[Bob]

No sizifo, not exactly. I just wish that our human nature wasn't constantly exploited, and that photographers would stop siding with their "oppressors."

That photo may have been relevent referring to 1998, not now.

It is entirely up to you.
No need to feel exploited, nobody is forcing you.
I remember the story about Karl Marx, writing Das Capital describing the exploitation of the working class, as he sat sipping lattes at Le Cygne at the Groteplatz in Brussels. I suppose that perspective gave him the qualifications to force an ideology on an unwitting and naive peasantry.
No, There is no exploitation going on here, but there has been immense benefits.
Back in the old film days when cameras were "made to last" we were constantly looking for the best processes, the best enlarging paper, the best film. Remember the introduction of internal metering? How about autofocus? What about the auto-return mirror? How far back do you go? On the other hand, photographers along with their equipment artifacts will continue at one or more levels perhaps concurrently, because that is where their personal development ended. Nothing is wrong with that, but please don't declare that the rest of us are exploited.
Still, we individually and collectively try to get the best results we can.
Too bad I sold my Asahi Pentax a few years ago.
On the other hand, one shot per second is all I can deal with, or usually less.
-thanks
bob

 

[Player]

Yes, but what would you want to see Nikon do instead?




I agree. It was meant as a joke.

You guys are wearing me out.

I pretty much already stated it on the last page, about Nikon concentrating on lenses for further IQ improvement, as well as building their ultimate digital cameras meant to uphold the Nikon name into the forseeable future, like their F cameras. Believe me, I know this will never happen becuse there is too much money to made from overeager thoughtless consumers who love their toys.

I'm done reiterating, and I'm worn out responding to everyone who I'm very grateful for taking the time to reply. I'm shutting down until tomorrow. Sweet dreams! :sleep006:

 

[Player]

It is entirely up to you.
No need to feel exploited, nobody is forcing you.
-thanks
bob

I meant my fellow photographers, not so much me.

Good night. I need to count some sheep. :sleep006:

 

[woodyspedden]

sizifo, no doubt, these cameras are amazing and relatively affordable, but how amazing are they, practically, if the cameras are never good enough for the companies to stand pat? If the cameras are so good, why are they constantly upgraded? I think up until recently, we've been paying for research and development by buying products that haven't been good enough, despite the electronic wizardry. It's kind of like the consumers have been paying beta testers.

It seems it's getting pretty close, or it's at the point where the cameras are better than the required usage, and now might be an ideal time for the camera companies to let us off the hook and to create their ultimate camera bodies (sensor/ chip upgradable in case a lens development requires it) in the two sensor sizes (cropped and FF) and then get to work on their lenses to further improve photographic quality.

What happened in the computer world? The intentional bloating of software, in which Microsoft played a huge role, to require the users to purchase faster and faster computers, ram, hard disks, and everything else. It was all planned. In the early days the software was lean and functional and operated fine on less horsepowered computers.

Do we really need even faster auto-focus, more or "better" exposure modes, even higher resolution sensors? The companies will continue to do their damndest to convince us that we do, but the requirements for image quality (the intended usage) hasn't really changed all that much since the film days, and manual focus, and hand-held light meters, and aperture rings. And the irony of all ironies is that that era produced the greatest photographs ever created. And film can't hold a candle to todays digital IQ, but it certainly was good enough. Why isn't digital good enough? Because the cash flow stops once it is, or it's preceived to be by the majority, and acted upon accordingly. Then the jig is up. But the reality is that the majority of photographers love technology more than they love pictures, and so it will go.

Player

i am sorry to say that I think you are just "playing with us" on virtually all of these issues.

Facts are that we, the players, decide on what we want and need based on what we are willing to buy......no more, no less. If the camera producers give us these things then we are willing to plunk down the hard earned cash to get them. If not, we rail against these things we perceive as unnecessary! So what is wrong with this approach. You seem to want some form of collective sense of what is right and wrong and then proclaim you are not communist.

I have no idea of what your are, and are not. What i can proclaim is that you are not for the proclaimed good of the photographer. In fact if I can say it without it being singled out as some kind of person who just deals with the reactions, you seem to be some kind of idiot who just wants press time in this, (and probably other) forums.

Why don't you work toward some common good, as you see it, instead of just inflaming a thread that is usually projected toward a common goal of better photography forever.

We are so much better off without this kind of trolling so I for one will state my position that we are better off without you. If Guy and Jack think my position to be unreasonable then I will happily get off this and all forums forever.

Woody

 

[Player]

Player

i am sorry to say that I think you are just "playing with us" on virtually all of these issues.

Facts are that we, the players, decide on what we want and need based on what we are willing to buy......no more, no less. If the camera producers give us these things then we are willing to plunk down the hard earned cash to get them. If not, we rail against these things we perceive as unnecessary! So what is wrong with this approach. You seem to want some form of collective sense of what is right and wrong and then proclaim you are not communist.

I have no idea of what your are, and are not. What i can proclaim is that you are not for the proclaimed good of the photographer. In fact if I can say it without it being singled out as some kind of person who just deals with the reactions, you seem to be some kind of idiot who just wants press time in this, (and probably other) forums.

Why don't you work toward some common good, as you see it, instead of just inflaming a thread that is usually projected toward a common goal of better photography forever.

We are so much better off without this kind of trolling so I for one will state my position that we are better off without you. If Guy and Jack think my position to be unreasonable then I will happily get off this and all forums forever.

Woody

Woody, you are way out of line with these comments, especially resorting to personal slurs which I don't deserve because I have not personally attacked anyone. All this just because you don't agree with a position I've taken.

It's funny how if someone doesn't agree with someone's position they become a "troll." And if someone dares to think outside the box and not blindly accept prevailing lines-of-thinking, they are "idiots."

You are obviously angry, way more than is reasonable or rational. And I would be concerned about that if I was you.

Get well.