D600, for me too little, too late for too much

Started Sep 13, 2012 | Discussions
ThomasH_always
Regular MemberPosts: 291Gear list
Like?
D600, for me too little, too late for too much
Sep 13, 2012

For me D600 is a very clear and decisive "no by."

That's the short opinion. Below is the long one.

Approx. 3 years ago Sony A850 hit the streets.
24.60 Mpix, FX format, $2000.

Now 3 years later Nikon comes out with their D600, controls like in the D7000, 1/4000 shutter speed. Confronting fans and users by a price far off and beyond the "rumor" from "reliable sources" that the body price will be settled at roughly $1500-1600.

Of course it was only an "unsubstantiated rumor," but the rumor should have been known best to Nikon's PR people. They used the "leakvertisement" in many cases, they should have spread their own rumor, along the lines, "we cannot imagine that a price far off Sony A850 would be viable."

And so we have here the camera, with meager functionality, except for the expected noise property, and the depth of field resulting from this frame size, at a price which knocks off some people, while others say "most affordable Full Frame." I am struggling to make up my mind, is it a good price, or gold digging? I think its the latter.

The fact is, that at least here in the US, we all "after Bush" have much less. Contrarily to people's declining purchasing power, the cameras and lenses seem to explode in prices, but they provide no new innovation or add-on value. Its mostly "tinkering," incremental improvements. Except for the new sensors, and of course the accompanying data copy/storage electronics. But even that is in part merely tinkering. Lets look at some other miniaturized electronics sold in millions of cases, with ever raising speed and power, called "laptops." They do not explode in prices! Why should they? Manufacturing lines all paid off, software lays out the mother boards, keyboards are being made in billions for pennies, so the screens. Similarly the DSLR's! Its all made in hundreds of millions pieces, shutters are as old as 30-40 years, so are mounts, and many other parts. Where is the justification for such raise in price?

Your mileage may vary. I set a limit for my photographic equipment to be $25,000 total, mostly lenses of course, but also tripods, heads, lighting etc. The entire set. I will not spit out $2000 on a body with childish controls, when I can get the same results for a half price.

Any DSLR body is expected to age very fast, and mirror less might replace them anyways, its a real possibility. Considering my insider knowledge about design and manufacturing processes and costs, I think such prices are Gold Digging. This includes of course the EOS-5 as a parade example (I also own a small Canon set, and I called the EOS-5 "a $1300 camera for $3000," to dismay of my friends who own them. Well, now for $4000. Suit yourself.)

This photographer will stay out of such purchases. Rather Lego and dresses for our girls. I think its not very clever to pay that much for a DSLR. Rather pay to bring your body and the camera body to a fascinating location worth photographing. As always, your mileage may vary.

In any case, should you get, the D600, enjoy! May it translate into superior results.

 ThomasH_always's gear list:ThomasH_always's gear list
Leica V-Lux 3 Canon EOS 6D
Nikon D600 Nikon D7000 Sony Alpha DSLR-A850
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Mike H
Contributing MemberPosts: 745Gear list
Like?
Re: D600, for me too little, too late for too much
In reply to ThomasH_always, Sep 13, 2012

Simply put if its not another D300 next generation (D400) I dont want it and will use my 300's to death.
--
Im having too much fun with my D 300 to worry about what camera comes next

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
reddirt14
Regular MemberPosts: 450Gear list
Like?
Re: D600, for me too little, too late for too much
In reply to Mike H, Sep 14, 2012

It's an FX camera. Why does everyone compare it to the D7000 and D300s? It's not intended as an upgrade to those cameras.

 reddirt14's gear list:reddirt14's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon D7100
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
freddyNZ
Senior MemberPosts: 2,557
Like?
Re: D600, for me too little, too late for too much
In reply to reddirt14, Sep 14, 2012

reddirt14 wrote:

It's an FX camera. Why does everyone compare it to the D7000 and D300s? It's not intended as an upgrade to those cameras.

Exactly. Some Dx users will move to Fx, some won't.

I'm so tired of reading the "d600 disappointment" threads. For what many people buying this camera will use it for, it will easily outperform the D3x - at 1/2 the size and 1/4 the price.

If they know that they need an AF button, more pixels, less pixels, or higher burst speed, then they should be able to work out what to buy instead.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Deleted-pending
Senior MemberPosts: 2,665
Like?
Re: D600, for me too little, too late for too much
In reply to freddyNZ, Sep 14, 2012

freddyNZ wrote:

reddirt14 wrote:

It's an FX camera. Why does everyone compare it to the D7000 and D300s? It's not intended as an upgrade to those cameras.

Exactly. Some Dx users will move to Fx, some won't.

I'm so tired of reading the "d600 disappointment" threads. For what many people buying this camera will use it for, it will easily outperform the D3x - at 1/2 the size and 1/4 the price.

If they know that they need an AF button, more pixels, less pixels, or higher burst speed, then they should be able to work out what to buy instead.

Because the author is 100% right about quick obsolescence of DSLR cameras and the fact that Nikon doesn't even match his own cheaper products such as the D7K with the D600 : The D600 is clearly an outdated shrink out D7K with a "FX" sensor and this, is not normal, especially for a 2000$ camera. Moreover their is NO proper innovation in video since years now which is mind-blowing, knowing the fact that Nikon was the proud "inventor" of video DSLR...

And the argument of FX vs DX is quite obsolete also today, you may gain 1 stop of noise and be able to take advantage of a wider angle prime lens such as the 28mm 1.8G but that's about it. If the goal is to add more weight to your shoulders and pay an arm for bigger Tele-photo glass, it is up to you. I do Like FX cameras but the D600 doesn't fit well in any category, especially at this price tag : it is a 800$ body better than a D3200 and worse than a D7K, with a FX sensor and outdated video.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
freddyNZ
Senior MemberPosts: 2,557
Like?
Re: D600, for me too little, too late for too much
In reply to Deleted-pending, Sep 15, 2012

FTH wrote:

freddyNZ wrote:

reddirt14 wrote:

It's an FX camera. Why does everyone compare it to the D7000 and D300s? It's not intended as an upgrade to those cameras.

Exactly. Some Dx users will move to Fx, some won't.

I'm so tired of reading the "d600 disappointment" threads. For what many people buying this camera will use it for, it will easily outperform the D3x - at 1/2 the size and 1/4 the price.

If they know that they need an AF button, more pixels, less pixels, or higher burst speed, then they should be able to work out what to buy instead.

Because the author is 100% right about quick obsolescence of DSLR cameras and the fact that Nikon doesn't even match his own cheaper products such as the D7K with the D600 : The D600 is clearly an outdated shrink out D7K with a "FX" sensor and this, is not normal, especially for a 2000$ camera. Moreover their is NO proper innovation in video since years now which is mind-blowing, knowing the fact that Nikon was the proud "inventor" of video DSLR...

And the argument of FX vs DX is quite obsolete also today, you may gain 1 stop of noise and be able to take advantage of a wider angle prime lens such as the 28mm 1.8G but that's about it. If the goal is to add more weight to your shoulders and pay an arm for bigger Tele-photo glass, it is up to you. I do Like FX cameras but the D600 doesn't fit well in any category, especially at this price tag : it is a 800$ body better than a D3200 and worse than a D7K, with a FX sensor and outdated video.

I'm sure there are plenty of regulars in this forum who don't take such umbrage at the fact that an FX sensor will totally outperform crop sensors for many uses.

What's "not normal" is to have an FX sensor dslr available with nikon mount for about $2,100 list price, a premium of about $900 over the D7000 list price, compared to a premium of about $1300 for the D700 over the D300 when they were released.

There shouldn't be an "argument" about DX vs FX, they are just different formats.

Yours is about the most childish (and ignorant) post I've seen relating to the D600.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sshoihet
Senior MemberPosts: 2,397Gear list
Like?
Re: D600, for me too little, too late for too much
In reply to freddyNZ, Sep 15, 2012

freddyNZ wrote:

FTH wrote:

freddyNZ wrote:

reddirt14 wrote:

It's an FX camera. Why does everyone compare it to the D7000 and D300s? It's not intended as an upgrade to those cameras.

Exactly. Some Dx users will move to Fx, some won't.

I'm so tired of reading the "d600 disappointment" threads. For what many people buying this camera will use it for, it will easily outperform the D3x - at 1/2 the size and 1/4 the price.

If they know that they need an AF button, more pixels, less pixels, or higher burst speed, then they should be able to work out what to buy instead.

Because the author is 100% right about quick obsolescence of DSLR cameras and the fact that Nikon doesn't even match his own cheaper products such as the D7K with the D600 : The D600 is clearly an outdated shrink out D7K with a "FX" sensor and this, is not normal, especially for a 2000$ camera. Moreover their is NO proper innovation in video since years now which is mind-blowing, knowing the fact that Nikon was the proud "inventor" of video DSLR...

And the argument of FX vs DX is quite obsolete also today, you may gain 1 stop of noise and be able to take advantage of a wider angle prime lens such as the 28mm 1.8G but that's about it. If the goal is to add more weight to your shoulders and pay an arm for bigger Tele-photo glass, it is up to you. I do Like FX cameras but the D600 doesn't fit well in any category, especially at this price tag : it is a 800$ body better than a D3200 and worse than a D7K, with a FX sensor and outdated video.

I'm sure there are plenty of regulars in this forum who don't take such umbrage at the fact that an FX sensor will totally outperform crop sensors for many uses.

What's "not normal" is to have an FX sensor dslr available with nikon mount for about $2,100 list price, a premium of about $900 over the D7000 list price, compared to a premium of about $1300 for the D700 over the D300 when they were released.

There shouldn't be an "argument" about DX vs FX, they are just different formats.

Yours is about the most childish (and ignorant) post I've seen relating to the D600.

Most people that really needed a FF already bought a D700 or 800. The D600 is here to suck in consumers that think their photography will be better when they spend $2100 instead of $1000 on a D7000.

It's being compared to DX because that's who the target market is, people who have older DX bodies or first time buyers that were considering going DX for the lower price or smaller body.

depending on your application, the D600 may be more of a sidegrade from the D700... for landscapes the D600 extra resolution may be nice. For portraits, the D700 is still a great camera. For low light, high ISO performance, the D600 appears to have a slight edge but depending on how you display your images, this might not be readily apparent anyway.

 sshoihet's gear list:sshoihet's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Nikon D7000 Nikon D7100 Canon EOS M Nikon D600 +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
freddyNZ
Senior MemberPosts: 2,557
Like?
Re: D600, for me too little, too late for too much
In reply to sshoihet, Sep 15, 2012

sshoihet wrote:

depending on your application, the D600 may be more of a sidegrade from the D700... for landscapes the D600 extra resolution may be nice. For portraits, the D700 is still a great camera. For low light, high ISO performance, the D600 appears to have a slight edge but depending on how you display your images, this might not be readily apparent anyway.

The D600 shoots faster than a D800, has a 100% VF unlike a D700, and more pixels than a D4. The D700 is obsolete - so get over it.

Is it the perfect camera? Nope. Was the D700? Nope. Is it the D300 replacement? Nope.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Barry Fitzgerald
Forum ProPosts: 29,888
Like?
Re: D600, for me too little, too late for too much
In reply to ThomasH_always, Sep 15, 2012

I would tend to agree it's not cheap enough to tempt higher end crop sensor users to FF (cost is far too high v the D7000)

Nikon have missed a great chance to bag lots of FF users into an affordable update path. Not sure what they were thinking, I would expect a big price drop..

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Deleted-pending
Senior MemberPosts: 2,665
Like?
Re: D600, for me too little, too late for too much
In reply to freddyNZ, Sep 15, 2012

The ignorant and childish ones are the ones not being able to answer with smart arguments to a civilised conversation.

freddyNZ wrote:

FTH wrote:

freddyNZ wrote:

reddirt14 wrote:

It's an FX camera. Why does everyone compare it to the D7000 and D300s? It's not intended as an upgrade to those cameras.

Exactly. Some Dx users will move to Fx, some won't.

I'm so tired of reading the "d600 disappointment" threads. For what many people buying this camera will use it for, it will easily outperform the D3x - at 1/2 the size and 1/4 the price.

If they know that they need an AF button, more pixels, less pixels, or higher burst speed, then they should be able to work out what to buy instead.

Because the author is 100% right about quick obsolescence of DSLR cameras and the fact that Nikon doesn't even match his own cheaper products such as the D7K with the D600 : The D600 is clearly an outdated shrink out D7K with a "FX" sensor and this, is not normal, especially for a 2000$ camera. Moreover their is NO proper innovation in video since years now which is mind-blowing, knowing the fact that Nikon was the proud "inventor" of video DSLR...

And the argument of FX vs DX is quite obsolete also today, you may gain 1 stop of noise and be able to take advantage of a wider angle prime lens such as the 28mm 1.8G but that's about it. If the goal is to add more weight to your shoulders and pay an arm for bigger Tele-photo glass, it is up to you. I do Like FX cameras but the D600 doesn't fit well in any category, especially at this price tag : it is a 800$ body better than a D3200 and worse than a D7K, with a FX sensor and outdated video.

I'm sure there are plenty of regulars in this forum who don't take such umbrage at the fact that an FX sensor will totally outperform crop sensors for many uses.

What's "not normal" is to have an FX sensor dslr available with nikon mount for about $2,100 list price, a premium of about $900 over the D7000 list price, compared to a premium of about $1300 for the D700 over the D300 when they were released.

There shouldn't be an "argument" about DX vs FX, they are just different formats.

Yours is about the most childish (and ignorant) post I've seen relating to the D600.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ThomasH_always
Regular MemberPosts: 291Gear list
Like?
Re: D600, for me too little, too late for too much
In reply to freddyNZ, Sep 15, 2012

freddyNZ wrote:

FTH wrote:

freddyNZ wrote:

reddirt14 wrote:

It's an FX camera. Why does everyone compare it to the D7000 and D300s? It's not intended as an upgrade to those cameras.

[....]

Because the author is 100% right about quick obsolescence of DSLR cameras and the fact that Nikon doesn't even match his own cheaper products such as the D7K with the D600 : The D600 is clearly an outdated shrink out D7K with a "FX" sensor and this, is not normal, especially for a 2000$ camera. Moreover their is NO proper innovation in video since years now which is mind-blowing, knowing the fact that Nikon was the proud "inventor" of video DSLR...

And the argument of FX vs DX is quite obsolete also today, you may gain 1 stop of noise and be able to take advantage of a wider angle prime lens such as the 28mm 1.8G but that's about it. If the goal is to add more weight to your shoulders and pay an arm for bigger Tele-photo glass, it is up to you. I do Like FX cameras but the D600 doesn't fit well in any category, especially at this price tag : it is a 800$ body better than a D3200 and worse than a D7K, with a FX sensor and outdated video.

I'm sure there are plenty of regulars in this forum who don't take such umbrage at the fact that an FX sensor will totally outperform crop sensors for many uses.

What's "not normal" is to have an FX sensor dslr available with nikon mount for about $2,100 list price, a premium of about $900 over the D7000 list price, compared to a premium of about $1300 for the D700 over the D300 when they were released.

There shouldn't be an "argument" about DX vs FX, they are just different formats.

And why not? The DX format was created because manufacturing costs of 35mm sensors used to be very high. After that, many photographers complained about changed focal length and depth of field of their lenses. But after many years of use on DX bodies, isn't that so that the same argument can be applied in opposite direction? Glass in a DX set is clearly smaller, and on the wide end we have alternatives going down to 8mm (12mm 35mm-equivalent.) Thus the argument is that the horse is out of the barn, we have millions of DX users counting Nikon/Canon together, and many people would like to keep the format and have a semi-pro body to play with.

Yours is about the most childish (and ignorant) post I've seen relating to the D600.

Why would you say something so unkind? I think he provided fine observations, its a good talk.

And to answer these who ask why to mention a FX body here in this forum: Because apparently Nikon will not upgrade our D300 style body, and rather launches an "affordable" FX body with a DX mode, corresponding to D200 in resolution.

I just saw Tom Hogan's commentaries about the D600. He also wonders about the price rumor. He wonders why the rumor source got all the details right, but not the price, which held for so long and so persistently, almost to the last day:

http://www.bythom.com/d600.htm

He believes though that D600 will sell well. On

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/full_frame_war.shtml

you might find a "leaked" Canon memo of Feb. 2012, which though assessed a proper introductory price for the D600. Apparently they both (Nikon/Canon) are trying to protect the profit margins.

 ThomasH_always's gear list:ThomasH_always's gear list
Leica V-Lux 3 Canon EOS 6D
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Leonard Migliore
Forum ProPosts: 11,375Gear list
Like?
Great D400 news
In reply to Barry Fitzgerald, Sep 15, 2012

With the D600 over $2000 (full frame sensors are still expensive; sometimes the magic doesn't work), there's a spot in Nikon's lineup for a $1600 high-performance DX camera. So Nikon may want to fill that spot with, say, a junior D800. Or they may not.
--
Leonard Migliore

 Leonard Migliore's gear list:Leonard Migliore's gear list
Canon PowerShot G12 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Nikon D300 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 10-24mm f/3-5-4.5G ED Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mais51
Senior MemberPosts: 1,413Gear list
Like?
Re: D600, for me too little, too late for too much
In reply to ThomasH_always, Sep 15, 2012

Agree
If I want a DX class body I'd buy a D7000

D600 is a no-man land camera - no advantage at all - may be as a second body to a D800 shooter. As a D300s owner I will not spend my money on a crippled camera like D600. If Nikon will not provide an upgrade to the D300/D300s I may have to consider the D800/D800e not the D600 or worst still look somewhere else

 mais51's gear list:mais51's gear list
Canon PowerShot S120 Nikon D300S Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mosswings
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,453Gear list
Like?
Re: D600, for me too little, too late for too much
In reply to ThomasH_always, Sep 15, 2012

$25,000? Wow, I wish I had that photo budget.

Consider this: 3 years ago, the A850 sold for $2000 at 100 yen-dollar. Today, the D600 will sell for approximately the same price at 78 yen-dollar. This means that you're getting nearly 30% more content for the same price. Given the mechanical complexity of DSLRs (as compared to even top-end mirrorless cameras), that's a pretty dang good learning curve reduction in capability. If the D300 were to be introduced today, it would have to be priced at $2500 (it was $1800 in 2007). You need to adjust for exchange rates before deciding that something is overpriced.

Currently, the format that is GROSSLY overpriced is mirrorless. The manufacturing complexity of those products is vastly lower and far more electronic in content. Manufacturers are clearly overcharging relative to the profit margins common for DSLRs.

But as to your general point - yes, we've reached a point of diminishing returns here. Once one has SOMETHING to shoot with in the DSLR category, one doesn't really need to run on the upgrade wheel again for multiple generations.

 mosswings's gear list:mosswings's gear list
Olympus XZ-1 Olympus Stylus 1 Nikon D90 Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mitrajoon
Senior MemberPosts: 1,469Gear list
Like?
Re: D600, for me too little, too late for too much
In reply to freddyNZ, Sep 15, 2012

What was the point of interjecting such disparaging comments in what should be just a discussion of different points of view?
--
Jim
http://jmlphotography.smugmug.com/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ThomasH_always
Regular MemberPosts: 291Gear list
Like?
Good point with the Yen! Re: D600, for me too little, too late for too much
In reply to mosswings, Sep 17, 2012

mosswings wrote:

$25,000? Wow, I wish I had that photo budget.

PS: It is a result of 30 years of collecting and preserving a percentage of a value. 25k prorated on 30 years is... $833 per anno! This sounds now suddenly much more reasonable. Trust me, many people who photograph have such value of equipment, they just often do not add up the prices of the stuff lying around.

Recently while walking Na Pali on Kauai I just counted the EOS-5's passing by: I met 4 young guys, 3 Asian, each with a EOS-5 MkI or MKII, and one or two L-lenses, each thus carrying around on a hike a $3000 body and $3000-$4000 value in lenses. I hope this puts a total of $25,000 in perspective.

Consider this: 3 years ago, the A850 sold for $2000 at 100 yen-dollar. Today, the D600 will sell for approximately the same price at 78 yen-dollar. This means that you're getting nearly 30% more content for the same price. ...

Indeed, its a good point which escaped me! We have to consider the currency fluctuation. The declining value of our dollar due to a trillion dollar deficit per year cannot go unnoticed.

... Given the mechanical complexity of DSLRs (as compared to even top-end mirrorless cameras), that's a pretty dang good learning curve reduction in capability. If the D300 were to be introduced today, it would have to be priced at $2500 (it was $1800 in 2007). You need to adjust for exchange rates before deciding that something is overpriced.

Sure thing, I got the point!

Thomas

Currently, the format that is GROSSLY overpriced is mirrorless. The manufacturing complexity of those products is vastly lower and far more electronic in content. Manufacturers are clearly overcharging relative to the profit margins common for DSLRs.

But as to your general point - yes, we've reached a point of diminishing returns here. Once one has SOMETHING to shoot with in the DSLR category, one doesn't really need to run on the upgrade wheel again for multiple generations.

PS: This is how it used to be in "Film Times." We kept the bodies for a longer time with us. Putting in a new roll of film was comparable to using the "most recent rendering technology." Now the deciding factor is the chip, and the electronics dealing with the noise reduction and data copy stream. And that changes at a very high pace.

 ThomasH_always's gear list:ThomasH_always's gear list
Leica V-Lux 3 Canon EOS 6D
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mosswings
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,453Gear list
Like?
Re: Good point with the Yen! Re: D600, for me too little, too late for too much
In reply to ThomasH_always, Sep 17, 2012

ThomasH_always wrote:

mosswings wrote:

$25,000? Wow, I wish I had that photo budget.

PS: It is a result of 30 years of collecting and preserving a percentage of a value. 25k prorated on 30 years is... $833 per anno! This sounds now suddenly much more reasonable. Trust me, many people who photograph have such value of equipment, they just often do not add up the prices of the stuff lying around.

I hear you. I recently cleaned out my closet and unearthed a 30 year old Minolta X570 and a 20 year old Canon EOS-10. Total value: $250 for the lenses. Bodies: zip.

One of the things that kicks up the cost is the fact that digital now puts the darkroom and the photo album on our computers, so one has to buy sufficient computing power and storage and photo-quality monitors do actually view what one's shot. That alone can be $2000-$3000 depending on the size and quality of the monitor. Lightroom is, thankfully, now relatively cheap; but if one wants to move into pixel-level editing, ouch.

There's a lot of up front costs now in digital that one didn't quite notice in the film era, though the incremental costs in the film era probably equalled that of the current era.

 mosswings's gear list:mosswings's gear list
Olympus XZ-1 Olympus Stylus 1 Nikon D90 Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Michael Oersigh
Senior MemberPosts: 2,036
Like?
Re: We need a new company not a new camera
In reply to ThomasH_always, Sep 17, 2012

Oooops sorry I meant we need the old company, the classic one.

Nothing beats DX pro except New Nikon Inc.

Mike

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
pavi1
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,500Gear list
Like?
Re: D600, for me too little, too late for too much
In reply to ThomasH_always, Sep 17, 2012

Anyone who thought the D600 was going to be $1,500--- ( to early to be that nasty on Monday morning so I will not finish my comment).

Now 3 years later Nikon comes out with their D600, controls like in the D7000, 1/4000 shutter speed. Confronting fans and users by a price far off and beyond the "rumor" from "reliable sources" that the body price will be settled at roughly $1500-1600.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GuyMcKie
Contributing MemberPosts: 583
Like?
Re: D600, for me too little, too late for too much
In reply to ThomasH_always, Sep 17, 2012

With the financial crisis the idea is "doing more with less".

Translated to the consumer it sounds like "you get less for more".

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads