Why would anyone spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a Ferrari, when you can't fit your kids into it? Why would anyone spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a Rolls Royce when you can't win a race with it?
I have no plans to buy a Leica on my budget, but I have no beef with those who want to buy the best thing of its kind in the world, and have the means to do so.
The battles are so fierce because the stakes are so low.
Navmark77: This is an incremental improvement to an already-good camera. If this camera were not in the Nikon product line, it would leave a gaping hole, as no other non-DLSR that they make offers the photographer so much control.
I'm sorry to see the lack of OVF myself, but I'm seeing rave reviews for the articulated LCD from people who have used them, so maybe it's a case of not being a Luddite.
This is an incremental improvement to an already-good camera. If this camera were not in the Nikon product line, it would leave a gaping hole, as no other non-DLSR that they make offers the photographer so much control.
jsis: Photography should be a part-time job then, if the photographer spends that amount of dedication and resources to keep up the business. I never thought in my mind that photography is a good full-time career, because the amount of work you get is spotty at best depending on your area and what time of the year it is.
As far as I know there is a shortage of good photographers. Anyone these days assumes that he/she is a good photographer by picking up a DSLR camera and charge $3000. Photography takes talent, skills, and planning. Not all of those skills are learned through experience, some people are artistic, so they're naturally skilled.
That is true of artists, it is true of musicians, it is true of actors. I don't know of any creative fields that don't require supplemental income for all but the top 1%.
waxwaine: So you work 4 months of 12 a year. I want that job.
Not true that the wedding season is 4 months a year. Maybe somewhere it is, but not everywhere. My daughter works in floral design and does multiple weddings every week, year round.
Emotions are running high here. Strip away the histrionics and she has a reasonable question: why does she have to pay what some people make in a month for a day of photography.
IMHO, instead of addressing the question on an annualized basis, it would have been best to keep it simple and say that it's actually more like 3-4 days' work plus expenses and list the prorated expenses.
Or, like a lot of people stated, point out that a free market seeks its own level, or range of levels.
John Mackay: I think I identified the potential for this as far back as 2005 when Antonio Perez took over the CEO reins.
Kodak - First in sales but last in profitshttp://www.johnmackay.net/2005_07_01_archive.html
A sad day.
Actually it sounds like Mr Mackay thought that Perez could potentially save Kodak through radical downsizing but had to deal with a recalcitrant board. At least that's what I took away from the article.
I find this very sad. Kodak gave us a vast system that addressed every photographic need in its time. A fond memory to me is walking into a camera shop with an entire wall of every kind and size and weight of printing paper available, shelves stuffed with various options of chemicals for processing, and of course the wide range of films. Not to mention processing services, reference and instructional books, etc. Any other player in the industry would have to measure themselves against Kodak, because Kodak had no peer when it came to a comprehensive system. When I was starting out, I did not find them unaffordable, and I certainly did not have much money. I guess changing times caught up with them but it's undoubtedly the end of an era.
I have always been skeptical of all the reported "bad copies" of lenses in the past. I found it hard to believe that an industry that makes instruments of such high precision, would have so many out-of-tolerance products going out the door.
Roger's article certainly has opened my eyes. Unfortunately, in this day of mail order, with fewer and fewer actual local camera stores to deal with, when you get a lemon you have to embark on a journey of shipping back and forth, with less guarantee, in my opinion that the replacement product will be any better than the original. I can't speak from experience having never returned a lens. I did send a P7000 in for warranty work, and while the repair facility was as prompt and responsive as it was able to be, it was still harder than it would have been to drive down to the local store and get the matter resolved on the spot.
Tigadee: Mark - It's a Canon patent thing, so Nikon would have to pay Canon to implement that style of swivel screen. I can't imagine that the P7100 would be any different from the P7000 IQ-wise, so it's only improvements in the firmware or internal hardware to resolve the AF and operational speed issues we'll see (plus the screen, of course). Small but nice touches... If only Nikon would offer the firmware and speed improvements tp P7000 owners like me.
Tigadee - you might want to search the forums about P7000 improvements. I think I remember that somebody who actually had worked in camera development posted an informative item about what can be improved in firmware and what cannot.
The G12 comparisons based on appearance are ludicrous. Take a look at 35mm cameras from the film days when there were a lot more companies in the market: they all looked fundamentally alike. Form follows function, people.
Sounds like they kept everything that was good about the P7000 and fixed what was wrong. Good job Nikon.
Interesting assertion WERAQS, considering this camera is not yet available for purchase.
BTW this is not a black and white shot, the fog just makes it look that way.
I do get kind of tired of having to register for umpteen million web sites in order to make a comment or ask a question. But I'm already registered on dpreview, so for me, the question is moot :-)
I think this is a nice example of having your eyes open and grabbing a good shot that presented itself.