«

http://dpreview.com/reviews/nikonp300/page10.asp

That list of "cons" is really terrible. $325.00 for that camera? Not
in this lifetime.

On Jun 1, 8:36*am, Bowser <yeeec...@bleah.ugh> wrote:
> On 6/1/2011 8:20 AM, RichA wrote:
>
> >http://dpreview.com/reviews/nikonp300/page10.asp
>
> > That list of "cons" is really terrible. *$325.00 for that camera? *Not
> > in this lifetime.
>
> Even more amazing is that they gave this POS a 70% rating.

The only reason they reviewed it is because it is a Nikon. Even Nikon
doesn't care about the P&S division.

In article
<7df71b77-0bb5-4388-b857->,
RichA <> wrote:

> http://dpreview.com/reviews/nikonp300/page10.asp
>
> That list of "cons" is really terrible. $325.00 for that camera? Not
> in this lifetime.

that list of cons is not that bad. wait until dpreview reviews the
sigma sd1, assuming they even bother wasting their time.

On Jun 1, 1:19*pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bowser <yeeec...@bleah.ugh> wrote:
> >On 6/1/2011 8:20 AM, RichA wrote:
> >>http://dpreview.com/reviews/nikonp300/page10.asp
>
> >> That list of "cons" is really terrible. *$325.00 for that camera? *Not
> >> in this lifetime.
>
> >Even more amazing is that they gave this POS a 70% rating.
>
> Nikon lost its way with P&S digicams several years ago, and there is
> no sign of getting back on track. *
>

Remember the Coolpix 990/5 and 8800 with tears in your eyes.

On 6/1/2011 10:24 PM, Rich wrote:
<snip>
> I'd suggest to Nikon, forget any more forays into the +$400 realm (not
> that particular camera) P&S's, then resurrect the 2/3" sensor, limit it
> to 10 megapixels and give it interchangeable lenses.

Exactly what qualifications do you have that Nikon, or any other
business entity would take anything you say seriously.


--
Peter

On Jun 2, 4:48*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >news: :
>
> >> RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>On Jun 1, 1:19*pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Bowser <yeeec...@bleah.ugh> wrote:
> >>>> >On 6/1/2011 8:20 AM, RichA wrote:
> >>>> >>http://dpreview.com/reviews/nikonp300/page10.asp
>
> >>>> >> That list of "cons" is really terrible. *$325.00 for that camera?
> >>>> >> *Not in this lifetime.
>
> >>>> >Even more amazing is that they gave this POS a 70% rating.
>
> >>>> Nikon lost its way with P&S digicams several years ago, and there is
> >>>> no sign of getting back on track. *
>
> >>>Remember the Coolpix 990/5 and 8800 with tears in your eyes.
>
> >> I'm not sure about the tears, but I agree that those two were probably
> >> the last good Nikon P&S digicams. *The 995 was introduced in 2001 and
> >> the 8800 in 2005. *Says it all, really.
>
> >I'd suggest to Nikon, forget any more forays into the +$400 realm (not
> >that particular camera) P&S's, then resurrect the 2/3" sensor, limit it
> >to 10 megapixels and give it interchangeable lenses.
>
> Your suggestion comes a bit late, Rich, given that Nikon has already
> decided on the basis of its mirrorless system. *But you will no doubt
> take pleasure in telling the newsgroups that Nikon got it wrong ...

No camera ever meets someone's requirements 100%, until the Japanese
embrace modularity. Until then, anyone is free to say anything they
want.

> ... along with Olympus, Canon, Pentax, Panasonic, Leica, Ricoh and all
> other manufacturers who wish they had you leading their design teams.

All you can do is look at performance. Nikon is up, Canon is way
down, Pentax has a terrible market share but it is apparently making
money, Olympus market share has halved in the last five years and
Sony...?

On Jun 2, 12:25*am, PeterN <peter....@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
> On 6/1/2011 10:24 PM, Rich wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > I'd suggest to Nikon, forget any more forays into the +$400 realm (not
> > that particular camera) P&S's, then resurrect the 2/3" sensor, limit it
> > to 10 megapixels and give it interchangeable lenses.
>
> Exactly what qualifications do you have that Nikon, or any other
> business entity would take anything you say seriously.
>
> --
> Peter

I buy and use a lot of cameras? Unlike professional reviewers who
seem to have cameras (or claim they do) for months and miss all the
problems the users find.

On Jun 1, 10:59*pm, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.net> wrote:
> RichA wrote:
> > On Jun 1, 1:19 pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Bowser <yeeec...@bleah.ugh> wrote:
> >>> On 6/1/2011 8:20 AM, RichA wrote:
> >>>>http://dpreview.com/reviews/nikonp300/page10.asp
>
> >>>> That list of "cons" is really terrible. $325.00 for that camera?
> >>>> Not in this lifetime.
>
> >>> Even more amazing is that they gave this POS a 70% rating.
>
> Some of the features (fast 24mm equiv. at the short end, built-in HDR, a few
> interesting trick "filters") I think give it a certain appeal for buyers
> interested in those things -- and anyway it won't be selling for $325 very
> long; like most recent Coolpixes it will quickly come down in price, I'll
> bet.
>
>
>
> >> Nikon lost its way with P&S digicams several years ago, and there is
> >> no sign of getting back on track.
>
> > Remember the Coolpix 990/5 and 8800 with tears in your eyes.
>
> And the 8400, and even the slightly earlier 8700.
>
> Happily, I don't have to remember 'em, I bought all three 8xxx models new
> and don't expect ever to sell them. While they have some shortcomings
> compared to newer hardware (chiefly, the almost comically small LCDs) they
> are still impressive cameras.
>
> But there just isn't a market for magnesium-bodied cameras of those types
> anymore. They'd be too expensive to build today, and could never compete
> with plastic-bodied DSLRs.

No, but a small body with small (within telephoto lens and speed
constraints) lenses could be a seller at $800 or so.
Sony's NEX seems to be doing pretty well. I think.

On 6/2/2011 8:26 AM, RichA wrote:

> No camera ever meets someone's requirements 100%, until the Japanese
> embrace modularity. Until then, anyone is free to say anything they
> want.
>


And you illustrate the point perfectly, that it is not necessary to have
any knowledge to spout.



--
Peter

On 6/2/2011 8:26 AM, RichA wrote:
> On Jun 2, 12:25 am, PeterN<peter....@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 6/1/2011 10:24 PM, Rich wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I'd suggest to Nikon, forget any more forays into the +$400 realm (not
>>> that particular camera) P&S's, then resurrect the 2/3" sensor, limit it
>>> to 10 megapixels and give it interchangeable lenses.
>>
>> Exactly what qualifications do you have that Nikon, or any other
>> business entity would take anything you say seriously.
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>
> I buy and use a lot of cameras? Unlike professional reviewers who
> seem to have cameras (or claim they do) for months and miss all the
> problems the users find.

Specifically?
Does your use of cameras give you any more qualifications to give
business advice?

Have you done cost analysis, on behalf of the business entity.
And what about market research.

--
Peter