Re: Nikon D700 and D300s now officially discontinued

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bruce, Jan 27, 2012.

  1. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    It's official, the Nikon D700 and D300s are discontinued.

    An announcement for the D800 is due on February 7, 2011 but there is
    no word yet on the D400 (D300 replacement).

    The D800 will use a Sony 36 MP full frame sensor that is expected to
    appear in the Sony A9* SLT, which hasn't appeared and may yet be
    cancelled. The D400 will use the Sony 24 MP APS-C sensor used in the
    Sony Alpha 77 and NEX-7 cameras.

    Both cameras will have advanced video shooting features.

    The $64,000 question is whether the D700 will be replaced by the D800,
    whose low light performance won't be anywhere near as good, or by a
    D700s or D700X with a lower pixel count and the same or better high
    ISO performance.


    (cross posted to rec.photo.digital)
     
    Bruce, Jan 27, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bruce

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:30:23 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
    : It's official, the Nikon D700 and D300s are discontinued.
    :
    : An announcement for the D800 is due on February 7, 2011 but there is
    : no word yet on the D400 (D300 replacement).
    :
    : The D800 will use a Sony 36 MP full frame sensor that is expected
    : to appear in the Sony A9* SLT, which hasn't appeared and may yet
    : be cancelled. The D400 will use the Sony 24 MP APS-C sensor used
    : in the Sony Alpha 77 and NEX-7 cameras.
    :
    : Both cameras will have advanced video shooting features.
    :
    : The $64,000 question is whether the D700 will be replaced by the D800,
    : whose low light performance won't be anywhere near as good, or by a
    : D700s or D700X with a lower pixel count and the same or better high
    : ISO performance.

    Still nothing new from the Canon world, other than the out-of-my-reach 1DX?
    Will I even get to consider a 5D3 this year? That's not quite the idle
    question it once was, as my employer has just bought me a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
    II. Not that it won't go nicely with my 7D and my 50D, of course. I'll be
    testing and calibrating it this weekend and using it for the first time at the
    opening of an art exhibit next week. :^)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 27, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:30:23 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
    >: It's official, the Nikon D700 and D300s are discontinued.
    >:
    >: An announcement for the D800 is due on February 7, 2011 but there is
    >: no word yet on the D400 (D300 replacement).
    >:
    >: The D800 will use a Sony 36 MP full frame sensor that is expected
    >: to appear in the Sony A9* SLT, which hasn't appeared and may yet
    >: be cancelled. The D400 will use the Sony 24 MP APS-C sensor used
    >: in the Sony Alpha 77 and NEX-7 cameras.
    >:
    >: Both cameras will have advanced video shooting features.
    >:
    >: The $64,000 question is whether the D700 will be replaced by the D800,
    >: whose low light performance won't be anywhere near as good, or by a
    >: D700s or D700X with a lower pixel count and the same or better high
    >: ISO performance.
    >
    >Still nothing new from the Canon world, other than the out-of-my-reach 1DX?
    >Will I even get to consider a 5D3 this year? That's not quite the idle
    >question it once was, as my employer has just bought me a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
    >II. Not that it won't go nicely with my 7D and my 50D, of course. I'll be
    >testing and calibrating it this weekend and using it for the first time at the
    >opening of an art exhibit next week. :^)



    Lucky man! Well done, Bob.

    Your patience has been rewarded ... the good news for Canon users is
    that the 5D Mark III is not far away. It might even be announced in
    the next couple of weeks. My guess would be around February 7-10, but
    that is purely a guess based on when other Japanese manufacturers are
    making product announcements.

    In the last year, Canon has had some pros testing a DSLR with a sensor
    of around 34.5 MP, but I don't know for sure whether the 5D III will
    have this. It would not be the first time Canon has had sensors out
    on trial that were later rejected. It just shows that Canon are
    pretty thorough when it comes to development.

    Latest sales figures from Japan show Canon leading Nikon in the DSLR
    segment of the market with about 47% of sales, with Nikon on 39%. In
    third place is ... Pentax with 7%.

    Sony, whose target for Alpha was 20-25% of DSLRs sold, is nowhere.
     
    Bruce, Jan 27, 2012
    #3
  4. Bruce

    nick c Guest

    Bruce wrote:
    > It's official, the Nikon D700 and D300s are discontinued.
    >
    > An announcement for the D800 is due on February 7, 2011 but there is
    > no word yet on the D400 (D300 replacement).
    >
    > The D800 will use a Sony 36 MP full frame sensor that is expected to
    > appear in the Sony A9* SLT, which hasn't appeared and may yet be
    > cancelled. The D400 will use the Sony 24 MP APS-C sensor used in the
    > Sony Alpha 77 and NEX-7 cameras.
    >
    > Both cameras will have advanced video shooting features.
    >
    > The $64,000 question is whether the D700 will be replaced by the D800,
    > whose low light performance won't be anywhere near as good, or by a
    > D700s or D700X with a lower pixel count and the same or better high
    > ISO performance.
    >
    >
    > (cross posted to rec.photo.digital)



    Thanks a bunch for the information.

    When musing upon the subject of equipment improvements I tend to pause
    and think about the artful work that has been accomplished with cameras
    that have passed into obsolescence. Upon that thought, I think I shall
    continue to value my D700 and D300 as they are merely quality tools
    whose limits are governed mainly by my subject knowledge and physical
    dexterity.

    When the outcome of my composing results in the taking of a bad picture
    using the equipment that I readily have, I surely do know it wasn't
    Bush's fault. :)
     
    nick c, Jan 27, 2012
    #4
  5. Bruce

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/27/2012 6:11 PM, nick c wrote:
    > Bruce wrote:
    >> It's official, the Nikon D700 and D300s are discontinued.
    >> An announcement for the D800 is due on February 7, 2011 but there is
    >> no word yet on the D400 (D300 replacement).
    >>
    >> The D800 will use a Sony 36 MP full frame sensor that is expected to
    >> appear in the Sony A9* SLT, which hasn't appeared and may yet be
    >> cancelled. The D400 will use the Sony 24 MP APS-C sensor used in the
    >> Sony Alpha 77 and NEX-7 cameras.
    >> Both cameras will have advanced video shooting features.
    >>
    >> The $64,000 question is whether the D700 will be replaced by the D800,
    >> whose low light performance won't be anywhere near as good, or by a
    >> D700s or D700X with a lower pixel count and the same or better high
    >> ISO performance.
    >>
    >>
    >> (cross posted to rec.photo.digital)

    >
    >
    > Thanks a bunch for the information.
    >
    > When musing upon the subject of equipment improvements I tend to pause
    > and think about the artful work that has been accomplished with cameras
    > that have passed into obsolescence. Upon that thought, I think I shall
    > continue to value my D700 and D300 as they are merely quality tools
    > whose limits are governed mainly by my subject knowledge and physical
    > dexterity.
    >
    > When the outcome of my composing results in the taking of a bad picture
    > using the equipment that I readily have, I surely do know it wasn't
    > Bush's fault. :)
    >


    I agree with you. Also, I would not plan anything significant based on
    the statements of either Rich or Bruce, without further independent
    investigation..


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jan 28, 2012
    #5
  6. Bruce

    nick c Guest

    Rich wrote:
    > PeterN <> wrote in news:4f235ec7$0$18689
    > $-secrets.com:
    >
    >
    >>> When the outcome of my composing results in the taking of a bad picture
    >>> using the equipment that I readily have, I surely do know it wasn't
    >>> Bush's fault. :)
    >>>

    >> I agree with you. Also, I would not plan anything significant based on
    >> the statements of either Rich or Bruce, without further independent
    >> investigation..
    >>
    >>

    > And yet some pros, who haven't seen the D4 (as was pointed out before) have
    > already placed orders...


    I can accept the fact that Pro's have placed orders for the unseen and
    unpublished testing of the D4 camera. I suppose their actions mean
    something to those who may be impressionable.

    Pro's have the privilege of being able to progressively deduct much of
    the cost of their equipment on their income tax forms. Others, like
    myself, do not have the government subsidizing (via tax relief) hobby
    type purchases. Other than being technically proficient (which indeed
    Pro's are), customer impressions are improved when Pro's display their
    use of the latest equipment.
     
    nick c, Jan 28, 2012
    #6
  7. Bruce

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:55:35 -0800, nick c <> wrote:
    : Rich wrote:
    : > PeterN <> wrote in news:4f235ec7$0$18689
    : > $-secrets.com:
    : >
    : >
    : >>> When the outcome of my composing results in the taking of a bad picture
    : >>> using the equipment that I readily have, I surely do know it wasn't
    : >>> Bush's fault. :)
    : >>>
    : >> I agree with you. Also, I would not plan anything significant based on
    : >> the statements of either Rich or Bruce, without further independent
    : >> investigation..
    : >>
    : >>
    : > And yet some pros, who haven't seen the D4 (as was pointed out before) have
    : > already placed orders...
    :
    : I can accept the fact that Pro's have placed orders for the unseen and
    : unpublished testing of the D4 camera. I suppose their actions mean
    : something to those who may be impressionable.
    :
    : Pro's have the privilege of being able to progressively deduct much of
    : the cost of their equipment on their income tax forms. Others, like
    : myself, do not have the government subsidizing (via tax relief) hobby
    : type purchases. Other than being technically proficient (which indeed
    : Pro's are), customer impressions are improved when Pro's display their
    : use of the latest equipment.

    You're assuming that customers can tell the difference. My guess is that the
    number of those who actually can is statistically insignificant.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 28, 2012
    #7
  8. Bruce

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/27/2012 9:49 PM, Rich wrote:
    > PeterN<> wrote in news:4f235ec7$0$18689
    > $-secrets.com:
    >
    >
    >>> When the outcome of my composing results in the taking of a bad picture
    >>> using the equipment that I readily have, I surely do know it wasn't
    >>> Bush's fault. :)
    >>>

    >>
    >> I agree with you. Also, I would not plan anything significant based on
    >> the statements of either Rich or Bruce, without further independent
    >> investigation..
    >>
    >>

    > And yet some pros, who haven't seen the D4 (as was pointed out before) have
    > already placed orders...


    Not in reliance of your advice.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jan 28, 2012
    #8
  9. Bruce

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/28/2012 8:09 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:55:35 -0800, nick c<> wrote:
    > : Rich wrote:
    > :> PeterN<> wrote in news:4f235ec7$0$18689
    > :> $-secrets.com:
    > :>
    > :>
    > :>>> When the outcome of my composing results in the taking of a bad picture
    > :>>> using the equipment that I readily have, I surely do know it wasn't
    > :>>> Bush's fault. :)
    > :>>>
    > :>> I agree with you. Also, I would not plan anything significant based on
    > :>> the statements of either Rich or Bruce, without further independent
    > :>> investigation..
    > :>>
    > :>>
    > :> And yet some pros, who haven't seen the D4 (as was pointed out before) have
    > :> already placed orders...
    > :
    > : I can accept the fact that Pro's have placed orders for the unseen and
    > : unpublished testing of the D4 camera. I suppose their actions mean
    > : something to those who may be impressionable.
    > :
    > : Pro's have the privilege of being able to progressively deduct much of
    > : the cost of their equipment on their income tax forms. Others, like
    > : myself, do not have the government subsidizing (via tax relief) hobby
    > : type purchases. Other than being technically proficient (which indeed
    > : Pro's are), customer impressions are improved when Pro's display their
    > : use of the latest equipment.
    >
    > You're assuming that customers can tell the difference. My guess is that the
    > number of those who actually can is statistically insignificant.
    >


    True, but new equipment can make life a lot easier.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jan 28, 2012
    #9
  10. Bruce

    nick c Guest

    Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:55:35 -0800, nick c <> wrote:
    > : Rich wrote:
    > : > PeterN <> wrote in news:4f235ec7$0$18689
    > : > $-secrets.com:
    > : >
    > : >
    > : >>> When the outcome of my composing results in the taking of a bad picture
    > : >>> using the equipment that I readily have, I surely do know it wasn't
    > : >>> Bush's fault. :)
    > : >>>
    > : >> I agree with you. Also, I would not plan anything significant based on
    > : >> the statements of either Rich or Bruce, without further independent
    > : >> investigation..
    > : >>
    > : >>
    > : > And yet some pros, who haven't seen the D4 (as was pointed out before) have
    > : > already placed orders...
    > :
    > : I can accept the fact that Pro's have placed orders for the unseen and
    > : unpublished testing of the D4 camera. I suppose their actions mean
    > : something to those who may be impressionable.
    > :
    > : Pro's have the privilege of being able to progressively deduct much of
    > : the cost of their equipment on their income tax forms. Others, like
    > : myself, do not have the government subsidizing (via tax relief) hobby
    > : type purchases. Other than being technically proficient (which indeed
    > : Pro's are), customer impressions are improved when Pro's display their
    > : use of the latest equipment.
    >
    > You're assuming that customers can tell the difference. My guess is that the
    > number of those who actually can is statistically insignificant.
    >
    > Bob


    Yes, quite right. I was assuming.
     
    nick c, Jan 28, 2012
    #10
  11. Bruce

    nick c Guest

    PeterN wrote:
    > On 1/28/2012 8:09 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:55:35 -0800, nick c<>
    >> wrote:
    >> : Rich wrote:
    >> :> PeterN<> wrote in news:4f235ec7$0$18689
    >> :> $-secrets.com:
    >> :>
    >> :>
    >> :>>> When the outcome of my composing results in the taking of a bad
    >> picture
    >> :>>> using the equipment that I readily have, I surely do know it wasn't
    >> :>>> Bush's fault. :)
    >> :>>>
    >> :>> I agree with you. Also, I would not plan anything significant
    >> based on
    >> :>> the statements of either Rich or Bruce, without further independent
    >> :>> investigation..
    >> :>>
    >> :>>
    >> :> And yet some pros, who haven't seen the D4 (as was pointed out
    >> before) have
    >> :> already placed orders...
    >> :
    >> : I can accept the fact that Pro's have placed orders for the unseen and
    >> : unpublished testing of the D4 camera. I suppose their actions mean
    >> : something to those who may be impressionable.
    >> :
    >> : Pro's have the privilege of being able to progressively deduct much of
    >> : the cost of their equipment on their income tax forms. Others, like
    >> : myself, do not have the government subsidizing (via tax relief) hobby
    >> : type purchases. Other than being technically proficient (which indeed
    >> : Pro's are), customer impressions are improved when Pro's display their
    >> : use of the latest equipment.
    >>
    >> You're assuming that customers can tell the difference. My guess is
    >> that the
    >> number of those who actually can is statistically insignificant.
    >>

    >
    > True, but new equipment can make life a lot easier.
    >
    >


    That would be a 'maybe'. New equipment requires a learning curve. That
    bodes a symbolic question to be asked. Which is more comfortable, an old
    slipper or a new slipper. :)
     
    nick c, Jan 28, 2012
    #11
  12. Bruce

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:40:48 -0500, PeterN <>
    wrote:
    : On 1/28/2012 8:09 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
    : > On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:55:35 -0800, nick c<> wrote:
    : > : Rich wrote:
    : > :> PeterN<> wrote in news:4f235ec7$0$18689
    : > :> $-secrets.com:
    : > :>
    : > :>
    : > :>>> When the outcome of my composing results in the taking of a bad picture
    : > :>>> using the equipment that I readily have, I surely do know it wasn't
    : > :>>> Bush's fault. :)
    : > :>>>
    : > :>> I agree with you. Also, I would not plan anything significant based on
    : > :>> the statements of either Rich or Bruce, without further independent
    : > :>> investigation..
    : > :>>
    : > :>>
    : > :> And yet some pros, who haven't seen the D4 (as was pointed out before)
    : > :> have already placed orders...
    : > :
    : > : I can accept the fact that Pro's have placed orders for the unseen and
    : > : unpublished testing of the D4 camera. I suppose their actions mean
    : > : something to those who may be impressionable.
    : > :
    : > : Pro's have the privilege of being able to progressively deduct much of
    : > : the cost of their equipment on their income tax forms. Others, like
    : > : myself, do not have the government subsidizing (via tax relief) hobby
    : > : type purchases. Other than being technically proficient (which indeed
    : > : Pro's are), customer impressions are improved when Pro's display their
    : > : use of the latest equipment.
    : >
    : > You're assuming that customers can tell the difference. My guess is that
    : > the number of those who actually can is statistically insignificant.
    :
    : True, but new equipment can make life a lot easier.

    Sure. My comment was aimed only at the notion that trying to impress the
    customer is a justification for buying new equipment.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 28, 2012
    #12
  13. Bruce

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/28/2012 5:04 PM, nick c wrote:
    > PeterN wrote:
    >> On 1/28/2012 8:09 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:55:35 -0800, nick c<>
    >>> wrote:
    >>> : Rich wrote:
    >>> :> PeterN<> wrote in news:4f235ec7$0$18689
    >>> :> $-secrets.com:
    >>> :>
    >>> :>
    >>> :>>> When the outcome of my composing results in the taking of a bad
    >>> picture
    >>> :>>> using the equipment that I readily have, I surely do know it wasn't
    >>> :>>> Bush's fault. :)
    >>> :>>>
    >>> :>> I agree with you. Also, I would not plan anything significant
    >>> based on
    >>> :>> the statements of either Rich or Bruce, without further independent
    >>> :>> investigation..
    >>> :>>
    >>> :>>
    >>> :> And yet some pros, who haven't seen the D4 (as was pointed out
    >>> before) have
    >>> :> already placed orders...
    >>> :
    >>> : I can accept the fact that Pro's have placed orders for the unseen and
    >>> : unpublished testing of the D4 camera. I suppose their actions mean
    >>> : something to those who may be impressionable.
    >>> :
    >>> : Pro's have the privilege of being able to progressively deduct much of
    >>> : the cost of their equipment on their income tax forms. Others, like
    >>> : myself, do not have the government subsidizing (via tax relief) hobby
    >>> : type purchases. Other than being technically proficient (which indeed
    >>> : Pro's are), customer impressions are improved when Pro's display their
    >>> : use of the latest equipment.
    >>>
    >>> You're assuming that customers can tell the difference. My guess is
    >>> that the
    >>> number of those who actually can is statistically insignificant.
    >>>

    >>
    >> True, but new equipment can make life a lot easier.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > That would be a 'maybe'. New equipment requires a learning curve. That
    > bodes a symbolic question to be asked. Which is more comfortable, an old
    > slipper or a new slipper. :)
    >
    >


    I used the word "can," which has a specific meaning.;-)


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jan 29, 2012
    #13
  14. Bruce

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/28/2012 5:25 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:40:48 -0500, PeterN<>
    > wrote:
    > : On 1/28/2012 8:09 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > :> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:55:35 -0800, nick c<> wrote:
    > :> : Rich wrote:
    > :> :> PeterN<> wrote in news:4f235ec7$0$18689
    > :> :> $-secrets.com:
    > :> :>
    > :> :>
    > :> :>>> When the outcome of my composing results in the taking of a bad picture
    > :> :>>> using the equipment that I readily have, I surely do know it wasn't
    > :> :>>> Bush's fault. :)
    > :> :>>>
    > :> :>> I agree with you. Also, I would not plan anything significant based on
    > :> :>> the statements of either Rich or Bruce, without further independent
    > :> :>> investigation..
    > :> :>>
    > :> :>>
    > :> :> And yet some pros, who haven't seen the D4 (as was pointed out before)
    > :> :> have already placed orders...
    > :> :
    > :> : I can accept the fact that Pro's have placed orders for the unseen and
    > :> : unpublished testing of the D4 camera. I suppose their actions mean
    > :> : something to those who may be impressionable.
    > :> :
    > :> : Pro's have the privilege of being able to progressively deduct much of
    > :> : the cost of their equipment on their income tax forms. Others, like
    > :> : myself, do not have the government subsidizing (via tax relief) hobby
    > :> : type purchases. Other than being technically proficient (which indeed
    > :> : Pro's are), customer impressions are improved when Pro's display their
    > :> : use of the latest equipment.
    > :>
    > :> You're assuming that customers can tell the difference. My guess is that
    > :> the number of those who actually can is statistically insignificant.
    > :
    > : True, but new equipment can make life a lot easier.
    >
    > Sure. My comment was aimed only at the notion that trying to impress the
    > customer is a justification for buying new equipment.
    >
    > Bob



    The same reason men where ties to work.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jan 29, 2012
    #14
  15. Bruce

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 13:35:57 -0500, PeterN <>
    wrote:
    : On 1/28/2012 5:25 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    : > On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:40:48 -0500, PeterN<>
    : > wrote:
    : > : On 1/28/2012 8:09 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
    : > :> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:55:35 -0800, nick c<> wrote:
    : > :> : Rich wrote:
    : > :> :> PeterN<> wrote in news:4f235ec7$0$18689
    : > :> :> $-secrets.com:
    : > :> :>
    : > :> :>
    : > :> :>>> When the outcome of my composing results in the taking of a bad picture
    : > :> :>>> using the equipment that I readily have, I surely do know it wasn't
    : > :> :>>> Bush's fault. :)
    : > :> :>>>
    : > :> :>> I agree with you. Also, I would not plan anything significant based on
    : > :> :>> the statements of either Rich or Bruce, without further independent
    : > :> :>> investigation..
    : > :> :>>
    : > :> :>>
    : > :> :> And yet some pros, who haven't seen the D4 (as was pointed out before)
    : > :> :> have already placed orders...
    : > :> :
    : > :> : I can accept the fact that Pro's have placed orders for the unseen and
    : > :> : unpublished testing of the D4 camera. I suppose their actions mean
    : > :> : something to those who may be impressionable.
    : > :> :
    : > :> : Pro's have the privilege of being able to progressively deduct much of
    : > :> : the cost of their equipment on their income tax forms. Others, like
    : > :> : myself, do not have the government subsidizing (via tax relief) hobby
    : > :> : type purchases. Other than being technically proficient (which indeed
    : > :> : Pro's are), customer impressions are improved when Pro's display their
    : > :> : use of the latest equipment.
    : > :>
    : > :> You're assuming that customers can tell the difference. My guess is that
    : > :> the number of those who actually can is statistically insignificant.
    : > :
    : > : True, but new equipment can make life a lot easier.
    : >
    : > Sure. My comment was aimed only at the notion that trying to impress the
    : > customer is a justification for buying new equipment.
    : >
    : > Bob
    :
    :
    : The same reason men where ties to work.
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 29, 2012
    #15
  16. Bruce

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 13:35:57 -0500, PeterN <>
    wrote:
    : On 1/28/2012 5:25 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    : > On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:40:48 -0500, PeterN<>
    : > wrote:
    : > : On 1/28/2012 8:09 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
    : > :> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:55:35 -0800, nick c<> wrote:
    : > :> : Rich wrote:
    : > :> :> PeterN<> wrote in news:4f235ec7$0$18689
    : > :> :> $-secrets.com:
    : > :> :>
    : > :> :>
    : > :> :>>> When the outcome of my composing results in the taking of a bad picture
    : > :> :>>> using the equipment that I readily have, I surely do know it wasn't
    : > :> :>>> Bush's fault. :)
    : > :> :>>>
    : > :> :>> I agree with you. Also, I would not plan anything significant based on
    : > :> :>> the statements of either Rich or Bruce, without further independent
    : > :> :>> investigation..
    : > :> :>>
    : > :> :>>
    : > :> :> And yet some pros, who haven't seen the D4 (as was pointed out before)
    : > :> :> have already placed orders...
    : > :> :
    : > :> : I can accept the fact that Pro's have placed orders for the unseen and
    : > :> : unpublished testing of the D4 camera. I suppose their actions mean
    : > :> : something to those who may be impressionable.
    : > :> :
    : > :> : Pro's have the privilege of being able to progressively deduct much of
    : > :> : the cost of their equipment on their income tax forms. Others, like
    : > :> : myself, do not have the government subsidizing (via tax relief) hobby
    : > :> : type purchases. Other than being technically proficient (which indeed
    : > :> : Pro's are), customer impressions are improved when Pro's display their
    : > :> : use of the latest equipment.
    : > :>
    : > :> You're assuming that customers can tell the difference. My guess is that
    : > :> the number of those who actually can is statistically insignificant.
    : > :
    : > : True, but new equipment can make life a lot easier.
    : >
    : > Sure. My comment was aimed only at the notion that trying to impress the
    : > customer is a justification for buying new equipment.
    : >
    : > Bob
    :
    : The same reason men wear ties to work.

    Good example. Silk ties are best. They're more expensive, but they tie better,
    and they look better to anyone who looks closely enough and knows how to tell
    the difference. But if you're speaking to a room full of people who can't tell
    the difference, and you're not going to be photographed at close range by
    skillful, well equipped photographers like you and me, you can wear a
    polyester tie and it won't make a particle of difference.

    Bob

    P.S.: I rarely wear a tie to work, especially if I'm doing a photo shoot.
    After all, I'm not likely to be in any of the pictures! ;^)
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 29, 2012
    #16
  17. Bruce

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/29/2012 3:03 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-01-29 10:35:57 -0800, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >> On 1/28/2012 5:25 PM, Robert Coe wrote:

    >
    > <<< Le Snip >>>
    >
    >>>
    >>> Sure. My comment was aimed only at the notion that trying to impress the
    >>> customer is a justification for buying new equipment.
    >>>
    >>> Bob

    >>
    >>
    >> The same reason men where ties to work.

    >
    > Who wore what where, when wearing was wrong?
    >


    Damn spel chekker


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jan 29, 2012
    #17
  18. Bruce

    nick c Guest

    PeterN wrote:
    > On 1/29/2012 3:03 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >> On 2012-01-29 10:35:57 -0800, PeterN <> said:
    >>
    >>> On 1/28/2012 5:25 PM, Robert Coe wrote:

    >>
    >> <<< Le Snip >>>
    >>
    >>>>
    >>>> Sure. My comment was aimed only at the notion that trying to impress
    >>>> the
    >>>> customer is a justification for buying new equipment.
    >>>>
    >>>> Bob
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> The same reason men where ties to work.

    >>
    >> Who wore what where, when wearing was wrong?
    >>

    >
    > Damn spel chekker
    >
    >


    Gee, and I thought it was Bush's fault. ;)
     
    nick c, Jan 29, 2012
    #18
  19. Bruce

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/29/2012 5:30 PM, nick c wrote:
    > PeterN wrote:
    >> On 1/29/2012 3:03 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2012-01-29 10:35:57 -0800, PeterN <>
    >>> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On 1/28/2012 5:25 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >>>
    >>> <<< Le Snip >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Sure. My comment was aimed only at the notion that trying to
    >>>>> impress the
    >>>>> customer is a justification for buying new equipment.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Bob
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> The same reason men where ties to work.
    >>>
    >>> Who wore what where, when wearing was wrong?
    >>>

    >>
    >> Damn spel chekker
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Gee, and I thought it was Bush's fault. ;)
    >


    He still cant spel nuculah.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jan 29, 2012
    #19
  20. Bruce

    nick c Guest

    PeterN wrote:
    > On 1/29/2012 5:30 PM, nick c wrote:
    >> PeterN wrote:
    >>> On 1/29/2012 3:03 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>> On 2012-01-29 10:35:57 -0800, PeterN <>
    >>>> said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 1/28/2012 5:25 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> <<< Le Snip >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Sure. My comment was aimed only at the notion that trying to
    >>>>>> impress the
    >>>>>> customer is a justification for buying new equipment.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Bob
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The same reason men where ties to work.
    >>>>
    >>>> Who wore what where, when wearing was wrong?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Damn spel chekker
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> Gee, and I thought it was Bush's fault. ;)
    >>

    >
    > He still cant spel nuculah.
    >


    LOL ....

    Could be a problem with his Texas spell checker.
     
    nick c, Jan 29, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Cynicor

    OFFICIAL: Nikon D700 and SB-900

    Cynicor, Jul 1, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    604
    Jufí
    Jul 1, 2008
  2. TK

    D3000 and D300s is coming... so excited...

    TK, Jul 27, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    405
  3. TK

    D3000 and D300s finally released..

    TK, Jul 30, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    591
    Paul Furman
    Aug 1, 2009
  4. agvx
    Replies:
    40
    Views:
    1,320
    Paul Furman
    Dec 11, 2009
  5. me

    Re: Remote trigger device for D300s

    me, Feb 20, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    2,215
    Peter
    Apr 17, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page