Octane: All the complaining here won't make any difference. You are not going to change how Nikon is pricing their products in some regions. Especially when there are different taxes and import duties in place. It's speculation what really happened. I highly doubt Nikon made that change after looking at Canon. They would have increased the price everywhere, not just in one small region.
The only thing that is important: what can you learn from it?
For me that's pretty simple. Buy now before Nikon adjusts the price up in my region as well. Buy NOW!
@Damo83 unless you pay import taxes and VAT it would be illegal and admitting it online is brilliant!
All the complaining here won't make any difference. You are not going to change how Nikon is pricing their products in some regions. Especially when there are different taxes and import duties in place. It's speculation what really happened. I highly doubt Nikon made that change after looking at Canon. They would have increased the price everywhere, not just in one small region.
ZAnton: Big size does not help if they compress everything with 10% quality. All my photos have "nice" lines and squares on the color gradients.
are you talking about past experience or did you actually try to upload new photos *after* they made the change?
Octane: Being connected and most of all, being able to share your photos instantly is the reasons the majority of people accept limited cell phone camera quality and features over real cameras today already.
I agree, system cameras really need to get connected.
I don't need a survey, you just look at the metadata on photos you find online and you will see that the majority of photos taken and uploaded today are from cell phone cameras. So it's a fact that people today already are prefering the convenience of a connected phone over the better quality of a good camera. It's a fact.
It's not hard to take out a memory card, plug it in a computer & download it, it's the fact that you have a quicker and more convenient alternative. And when a simpler, more direct alternative exists, people will use it.
Are you taking your laptop on a trip to Disneyland and download your cards while in the park and then upload them? It's very inconvenient. With a phone or with a connected cameras, you would send the photo to a friend, to facebook or your private gallery in just 10 seconds without the need for any extra device.
How hard is it to see that's so much more convenient.
whtchocla7e: I have no desire to be "connected" - to anything, ever.
hahaha, that statement wrtten in an online forum is priceless!
A man with lenses: Speculating about the future takes a little more attention to the details than this.
One thing that makes the internet so important is the nature of the computers that are connected to it. Computers facilitate both the production and consumption of information by people. Smart phones are quite a bit like that because they are small, general-purpose computers.
Cameras are different. They only facilitate information production. That information, video and stills, will be useful and meaningful outside of the cloud for a long time because there are and will continue to be many useful ways to share and consume their output besides blatting it into the cloud.
There is also the small matter of artists and professional photographers not wishing to automatically share everything that strikes a light sensor. They will continue to choose and refine their output.
To suggest that a camera that's not connected to the cloud will be meaningless is just plain nonsense.
Very true, but being connected and sharing is not the same thing. The point is more that being connected means you don't have to download photos of a card any more, not having to deal with memory cards at all any more. Not having to worry about loosing photos because your computer crashed and you never made a backup. It's about being able to access your photos wherever you are without having to put them on a physical device that you take with you.
Sharing photos is just one fraction of the cloud idea and being connected.
AdventureRob: Funnily, I mentioned cloud connectivity in the last post about Samsung and Android.
Samsung and Sony will push this forward as it will cost them relatively little to migrate the technology over. It will cost Nikon and Canon a fortune to keep up with the big electronic giants. Even Panasonic will lag behind a bit as they don't make phones.
Sony already provide LCDs, sensors and processors to the other brands (pulled apart a Canon compact the other day only to find Sony logos all over the inside). So all this tech will have to come from those companies anyway.
who makes the components says very little and doesn't mean those who don't produce their own components have a disadvantage. Apple doesn't produce any of their components and even buys them from their direct competitors like Samsung, yet they are doing fine.
Nikon and Canon are well established and trusted brands in the photography world. That is key to selling a product. They can easily and cheaply buy components for their new cameras to make them connected. The general customers will rather buy from an established brand.
Being connected and most of all, being able to share your photos instantly is the reasons the majority of people accept limited cell phone camera quality and features over real cameras today already.
12 fps sounds so impressive until you realize it's only in crop mode meaning lower resolution, with the aperture locked (which will also locks the AF operation once you go lower than f/5.6). On top of it you always loose almost half a stop due to the mirror.
Funny how they call it 'tele mode'. It's a crop mode at half resolution.
ozgoldman: I'd like to see Nikon try that in Australia, as they would be fined zillions of $$$$. Restrictive trade practices are illegal here, and so they should be.
like they got sued in the EU when they didn't allow cameras to be sold across EU borders in order to fix prices.
I usually don't like that kind of protectionism, but i have 25 years of experience dealing with Nikon's support in different countries going all the way back to the F3 that I got back in the 80s. I had never had a single bad experience with their support and I always got my cameras and lenses back fixed when I broke something and always at a reasonable price and within a reasonable amount of time. And I'm not even an NPS member. So I can understand their decision not wanting to jeopardize the quality of service.
I don't think you can compare cameras and lenses to cars where changing out a break pad is something very simple to do.
Honestly I would not send my D3 to anyone else but Nikon.
At the same time, nothing prevents independent repair shops to use used/broken/second hand lenses and cameras as a virtually infinite supply for spare parts.
Photographer 'must-have' apps:
Shuttersnitch (in connection with EyeFi card)Dropbox (provides excellent photo gallery)Box.net (25 gb of free cloude storage)GoodreaderLightTrac (shows sun angle & position on map any given time/date)EasyRelease (model release forms legally accepted by Getty Images)PhotoBuddy StroboxTide Graph HD (if you live near the ocean)Splashtop (remove desktop)
Marek Rucinski: Is anything known about further updates to Lightroom 3? Does Adobe plan to update LR3 to support recent cameras (at least for a while), or does LR4 release mean LR3 becomes obsolete instantly? I failed to find any related information on Adobe's website.
Yes they have an will continue to update it, It's now called Version 4. How difficult is it to understand that additional work requires additional payments. This is the basics of running any business. LR 3 does not become obsolete, in fact is does not change in anyway. It will continue to work in the exact same way it has been. If you want additional features or support of new cameras you will have to pay for these new developments.
I don't really care what the price is, it's so worth it. I payed 200 for the original version and then 100 each time to upgrade to V2 and V3. Now $80 to upgrade to V4. It's been one of the best spent money on any photography related item I ever made.
Thanks Adobe for making an awesome software that makes my life dealing with photos a blast!
impressive. As good as the D3s for the most part but higher resolution and more detail.I think the D3s looks smoother, but it's really very close.
A solid and worthy upgrade. Nothing overwhelming, nothing stands out, though. The price seems a little high compared to the D800 which is what people will look at side by side.
Personally I find 22 mp more sane than 36, but then the average users still thinks more = better.
very cool! Kudos to Canon for being the first to have their own radio trigger. But man all those things are pricy!
The effect is cool, the resolution is the deal breaker. It's already very low, but the quality/detail is really poor on top of it. The edges between OOF objects and in focus objects is also not as smooth as you would see it from a conventional lens.
Second deal breaker is that all images only go through their web server. WTH?
As many have said already, it's fun to play with it for a minute, then you get bored because there is no purpose. Refocusing a photo isn't anything exciting, there is zero entertainment value.
The simple and cheap filters inside the Instagram/Hipstamatic app offer more creative looks and more fun (thus user satisfaction) even though they are very basic and sloppy. It's irrelevant how sophisticated this camera captures light rays, the end result isn't convincing in terms of quality nor fun or creative satisfaction.
There are more comments here than actual owners of the X10 :)
Octane: Did you do any tests with a different camera (not an X10 but one with similar resolution) in the same conditions? It would be interesting to see side by side what 'normal' looks like to get an idea how bad/distracting the white disk effect is.
Opps I guess I scrolled down over the first shots too fast and just looked at the samples of the different ISO settings. By bad!
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review