AbrasiveReducer: I hope a business student somewhere is following this. We'll never know but it would be interesting to compare the cost of admitting the problem up front vs. denying it and having to fix it anyhow.
Even more interesting would be the thought process that led them to believe their customers would accept the situation. To be fair, the intensity of Nikon fans may have misled them somewhat.
I wouldn't be surprised if the EU played a role in this too, because they are far less forgiving of warranty shenanigans.
Cultural arrogance and hubris would be my guess.
Wahrsager: That's great news- Makes me feel a lot better about the company I've invested a lot in!
You feel a lot better about a company that ignored and brushed off customer concerns for over a year, and only did the right thing less than a week after they had a class action lawsuit filed against them?
peevee1: All pictures look too flat. Maybe Sony tries to show off the dynamic range of the sensor which is higher than what you can from P&S and phones, but they've gone too far (just like Auto picture mode on Oly m43 cameras with Sony sensor - yeah, good DR, but just not contrasty enough - Normal looks great though).I am sure contrast is right there in the settings - I am not so sure many buyers will bother to find it, and will just choose Canon with high contrast by default.
Oh please! It's a $1300 super zoom camera when the small sensor super zooms are $300 at Walmart and Amazon.
The people who would even think of dropping $1300 on this thing aren't going to be morons too stupid to figure out how to change contrast settings and "just choose Canon" because of some default setting.
The Polaroid copied everything right down to the oily sensor issues. All it's missing is an inflated price tag. Somebody grab a rag!
stuntmonkey: If there was any justice, the Pentax K-3 should get the lions share of the traffic today, not the D610 announcement.
Anastigmat has been crying about full frame since 2004. Those days back then were spent trying to convince the people on the forum that sub $1,000 full frame was easily doable (then) if only the manufacturer's weren't conspiring to keep them out of the hands of the consumers.
GradyPhilpott: It seems to me that the only people who really have a complaint are those who bought a D600 and if those folks have only to send a faulty D600 in to a service center and get back what is basically a D610 without the badge, then I don't see that anyone has much to complain about.
There are no products that cannot have certain issues at the time of roll out, and beyond, and that is why there are warranties. That's why there are recalls.
I have to admit that since I got into photography I have been both appalled and amused at how ridiculous photo hobbyists can be with the "my camera brand is better than your camera brand" and what not.
I'm not going to defend the Nikon brand because I don't think that Nikon needs a defense.
There are names for those who refuse to live in the real world and have to whine about every little thing the corporate world does. Pick your favorite.
As for those who are completely bummed out, just move on to another camera brand. There's no shortage.
When did Nikon admit a problem with the D600 or issue a recall? They seem to spend as much time denying warranty repairs on the D600 shutter as much as they do on fixing them.
photohounds: Ah, amnother poster who "thinks" less glass/metal means the lens is "worth" less.They'll buy an f150 truck rather than a Ferrari because more metal for the money is "better".Making excellent small things is harder and costs MORE, not less.
Some people appreciate the price of everything and the value of nothing.
More compact cameras often translate into more/better photo opportunities.
Agree, Nuno, I don't hang around the CaNikon forums either. Too busy enjoying my camera.
These cross brand whiners are a very sad lot and it must be very depressing in CaNikon land for them to enjoy spending so much time here ....
Why do people care? Precision corrected optical glass costs a lot more than running a picture through a math equation. If they're going that route, they should price their junk lenses accordingly. Remember, software correction isn't "free". They degrade the image in some way, be it resolution, noise, or some other form.
That must be why the lens cap is so expensive and the hood isn't included.
So this is Nikon's take on Canon's PowerShot N? Do these two "competitors" do anything other than copy the "innovations" coming from the other?
From Nikon site---Brightness: Approx 130 lux/65 lux at 3.3 feet (1 meter) selected with switchBeam Pattern: Circular, 72 degrees, up down, left, rightIllumination Duration: 30 minutesPowered By: Four (4) AAA batteries (alkaline, lithium or Ni-MH)
No mention of lumen or CRI ratings.
You may as well buy any of the high end AA flood flashlights/headlamps on the market and just attach those to the shoe via a holder or magnet. Cheaper, lighter, longer lasting and not a huge pain in the ass when you need to change batteries.
P.S. No word on whether this is made in China or Japan. (LOL)
Quick! Everybody dump their old out of date lenses on Ebay now!
It's better than nothing but LED will always be inferior to xenon tubes until the spectrum issues are solved.
Jimmy jang Boo: $900? Even if it were $200 I'd pass. I waited a long time hoping to see just one real FW update that would address some of the simple quirks that cripple the V1. It ain't gonna happen. From my perspective Nikon doesn't believe their products or customers have any value after the sale. Going forward I'll pass on all things Nikon.
A friend of mine learned that first hand when Nikon never bothered to update some of their older SD-based DSLR's to support SDHC. I found that odd because the perpetually-on-the-verge-of-bankruptcy company that made my DSLR added SDHC support via firmware update. It never occurred to me that a big company like Nikon would leave their own customers hanging like that.
iamphil: The entire software industry has been salivating for years to move to subscription models. New versions of mature products like Photoshop and Office add very little in terms of actual value, so many people are perfectly willing to sit on older versions that get the job done.
Software vendors like Microsoft and Adobe hate that because it is not good for company revenues and as such have come out with schemes to extract rent from customers to fluff the numbers.
Other software vendors have tried other tactics to force potential customers to pay up more. Attempting to restrict second hand sales for example through activation schemes or illegal EULA terms. The prevailing attitude of many C-level execs is that if you're buying used you are stealing money from them.
It's all the more reason to pull copyright in the U.S. back to the original 14 years to give a kick in the pants of businesses that have become too reliant on sucking on the teet of their government granted monopoly privileges.
I presume you're talking about things like site licenses? Sure but mom and pop operations and independent photographers typically don't have need for such things.
Now the little fish get to swim with the big fish.
raincoat: OK, maybe if copyrights don't keep getting extended to 1mill years after author's death, you wouldn't need this orphan works stuff.
Then if you really need an image, then either1) you can pay someone to make it2) it's been out there for over 100yrs, reasonably assume it's out of copyright
Yes I'm looking at you Mickey Mouse.
But think of Walt! Think of his kids! They would starve if they had to sit around doing nothing while being unable to collect rent from something daddy did 80 years ago!
Danamr: Seriously.Adobe is not a non-profit.Adobe is not a charity.Adobe does not owe you anything.They are in business to make money. Software piracy costs them millions of dollars a year. This goes a long way to eliminating that.Their pricing model is more than fair for what you get.This is the future. Get used to it.
There's an odd thing I've seen in many posts across the internet is various blogs that have put up postings about DRM and similar items.
"This is the future, get used to it" is a comment that I see repeated a lot in said postings.
It makes me wonder.
Copyright laws that benefit large multi-national corporations at the expense of others? Say it ain't so...
RichRMA: Welcome to the new U.S. rental/service economy. Where the powers that be control the physical media and can pull it or change it any time, depending on which way the winds of politics, morality or business are blowing. This pertains to movies, music, software and whatever else they can create with ones and zeros. Personal ownership is the enemy of the current administration and business.
If copyright terms were reasonable (e.g. 5-10 years) instead of the ludicrous 75+ year monsters today, rent-seeking as an industry would not be nearly as lucrative. Businesses would be forced to innovate in short order or die.
However copyright maximalists and others have become too dependent on sucking on the teet of The People to give it up without a big fight.
With the help of politicians they've been stealing from the public domain for 50 years and it shows no signs of ending. These people have a lot of money and they're not shy about spending it on protection.
How do you like working at Adobe?
Are they hiring?
The entire software industry has been salivating for years to move to subscription models. New versions of mature products like Photoshop and Office add very little in terms of actual value, so many people are perfectly willing to sit on older versions that get the job done.