D70 $1000 or $1320 SNEAKY!!

While I certainly do not support Bush, there is or ought to be nothing wrong in pointmg out that he has devalued the dollar by 20% and that this of necessity will cause price differences between the US and elsewhere.

Luckily for those of us who live here the US market is so big that companies in effect dump their goods here or overcharge elsewhere to make up the difference.

So, price in Euros will now be 20% higher than they would have been a year ago (relative to US dollars) until Nikon decides it can anot absorb the hit here.

Stephen Schwartz said:

Actually in US or Europe wone can buy cameras for export wo the
taxes. The big gap is Bush's devaluation of the dollar

Click to expand...

--
Stephen M Schwartz

we dont know if the vat is included in that assumed price. For certain it will be launched with a price difference interesting enough for a large consumer group. Your preference for a more expensive FF camera represents only one of many consumer groups.

I'd say this D70 is a necessity for Nikon. It's longer term competitive position depends on it. Unless they think a different strategy - fewer new releases and no price leadership but more innovative camera systems - will secure their future. In such a fast moving business as DC's this is quite a risk if followed too strict.

I agree that in any case this D70 "in development" is too late to be a complete competitive success. And why put the "old" D100 6MP sensor in a camera to be released mid 2004? We certainly would like to see a new one...

(i'm a happy D100 user by the way, but at the same time quite impressed with the competition who seem to have more momentum than Nikon)
Remco.

jacques said:

looking at the expensive of just the body of a (D)SLR is so stupid
and realy short sighted.

One has to imagine the total cost of the system one would like to
own, as th e lenses will be the major part of the investment.
Diffrerence in the total of several thousend $ or Euro for the
system in respect to a few hundred $ or Euro for the body is plain
stupid.

One can buy a S2 body including 19% VAT for 1600 Euro in the
Netherlands, I don't feel exited at all by the anouncement of a D70
at euro $ level of a 1000 without taxes.

Spending double of the 1600 at a FF frame body with S2 qualities
would be far more exiting,

jacques.

Click to expand...

So far, IMO none of the SLRs have picked up the advantages of going digital. The Oly may be going in that direction but it should be obvious that deleting the film transport mechanism and taking advantage of the advanatges or differences between a dig. and a fil camera should NOT produce just a film camera redo.

Some thoughts:

1. The form factor.

Why do all these dSLRs lok like their film progenitors? Innovative digicams like the coolpix 900 series, Minolta bent lightpath cameras, etc suggest alternatives that make more sense.

My own concept camera would be a mini-hasslebald with interchangeable viewers ON top rather than in the back.

2. The size. There MUST be some reason all the digicams look like the old Nikon F1 rather than a Leica M rangefinder or OM1 Oly. Beats me what that is. We know that it os possible to make very compact high pixel cameras. The only difference in an SLR is ... the mirror. A compact dSLR would be the opening for whole new genre of camera-work .. bringing backl a lot of the sponaneity of the original Leicas!

3. LUX vs LENS .. In a film camera speed is basicaly dependent on thefstop of the lens. In digicams, so far, the focus seems to be on speeding up the film (good) but ignoring the potential advantages of a smaller chip to get a bigger f stop.

4. EVF vs Int. lenses. Who says that interchangebale lenses REQUIRE a mirror?

OK,OK lotsa folks INSIST that nothing beats a mirror for composition and focus. I am not at all sure this is true. The EVF on my Cpix 5700 is a lot better than I expected. Moreover, the image processing that can be dne in an EVF has only just begun ... it is easy to imagine EVFs with tools that assist in manual focus or depth of field that could not be matched by an optical finder.

5. EVF=flexible design. Delete the film xport mechanism, the SLR mirror, but keep the interchageable lenses.

RESULT=rebirth of the Leica!

Michael Meissner said:

I wouldn't expect a Federal sales tax, but instead the vendor being
required to pay the appropriate state/city sales tax for the place
where the item is shipped to. I dunno, I kind of like the states
providing schools, maintaining roads and bridges, inspecting the
health of restaurants, and all of these take money (obviously there
is a tradeoff in terms of how much tax vs. the goods and services).
There is a big effort among the states to collect this lost
revenue, particularly as I think there are only 3 states that had a
balanced budget this year, and I think it will only be a matter of
time before it goes through.

Click to expand...

Michael,

I understand your concern about tax revenue sources for governmental efforts, but I'd suggest that you do some investigation about the true sources for your list of services above. For instance, providing for "schools" has nearly always been funded totally by property tax. Maintaining roads and bridges are in the province of the ever popular gasoline tax a (and your occasional tolls). I hardly think that the states are going into default over the loss of some sales taxes; I expect that considerably more than sales tax is at issue for them. However, the more services you want, the more service you will pay and pay and pay for. And TRUST me on this point....they will find a way to get the money from your pocket to theirs!

BTW, you are always at liberty to pay in more than you have to....it would be happily accepted by the feds, state, or locals.

Dave
--

'However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.' -- Winston Churchill

the math should be like this:
$1000 + 8.5% = 1085. the gap between 1330 and 1000 is 330. 85/330 isn't 2/3

Fazal Majid said:

Stephen Schwartz said:

hmmm "$999 or € 1,100." but € 1,100 = $ 1,330!
hmmm ... new trick!

Click to expand...

Don't forget US prices are before sales tax, whereas European
prices include VAT (usually 18-20%). This accounts for 2/3 of the
gap.
--
Fazal Majid ( http://www.majid.info )

Click to expand...

Stephen Schwartz said:

Luckily for those of us who live here the US market is so big that
companies in effect dump their goods here or overcharge elsewhere
to make up the difference.

So, price in Euros will now be 20% higher than they would have been
a year ago (relative to US dollars) until Nikon decides it can anot
absorb the hit here.

Stephen Schwartz said:

Actually in US or Europe wone can buy cameras for export wo the
taxes. The big gap is Bush's devaluation of the dollar

Click to expand...

--
Stephen M Schwartz

Click to expand...

--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida

cuz he's a typical democrats that just like to whine about Bush. I had a good laugh when he insinuated in his OP that the higher prices in Europe is somehow the Republican's fault.

Greg Gebhardt said:

Stephen Schwartz said:

Luckily for those of us who live here the US market is so big that
companies in effect dump their goods here or overcharge elsewhere
to make up the difference.

So, price in Euros will now be 20% higher than they would have been
a year ago (relative to US dollars) until Nikon decides it can anot
absorb the hit here.

Stephen Schwartz said:

Actually in US or Europe wone can buy cameras for export wo the
taxes. The big gap is Bush's devaluation of the dollar

Click to expand...

--
Stephen M Schwartz

Click to expand...

--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida

Click to expand...

Sean Sha said:

the math should be like this:
$1000 + 8.5% = 1085. the gap between 1330 and 1000 is 330.
85/330 isn't 2/3

Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about the final price for the end-user. The $1330 (equivalent of euro) already includes VAT, currently 19.6% in France, for example.

So Canon's own price is $1112, to which is added $218 in VAT for an end-user price of $1330. Thus, $218 of the difference is in VAT, which goes directly to the government, not to Canon or the retailer, and is included in the euro price, whereas US sales taxes are added on top of the US list price. $218 represents 2/3 of the list price difference of $330. The remaining $112 are due to a less efficient retail distribution system in Europe, paying to translate the manuals in 16 languages, more expensive labor charges, less competition, more greedy local affiliates of Canon, and so on.

If you ordered the Euro camera shipped outside the EU, or if you are a business, the reseller wouldn't charge you the 19.6% VAT and you would get the camera for $1112. In Europe, the list price for businesses (before VAT) is not the same as the list price for consumers.

The reason why the european VAT is 19.6%, when US sales taxes are usually more around 7-8% is outside the scope of this forum. Suffice it to say, a more comprehensive social net and welfare state is not without its costs. VAT and petrol taxes are major sources of revenue for most European countries, usually dwarfing income or property taxes.
--
Fazal Majid ( http://www.majid.info )

Why does everyone assume that the price between US and Europe is caused by manufacturer price-fixing? There are several economic factors that could explain the higher cost in Europe.

First Europe requires a two year warrenty compared to US's one year.

Second, the US has a more efficient distribution system. Europe on the other hand has not completely integrated into a single market. There may still exist in-efficiencies in the distribution network. Plus there are more labor union influence which may raise distribution costs.

Third, I believe US has lower trade tariffs on Japanese, Chinese, and Taiwanese products than the EU.

Fourth, the european tax may include 15-20% VAT rate.

Stephen Schwartz said:

hmmm "$999 or € 1,100." but € 1,100 = $ 1,330!

hmmm ... new trick!

lets see give the price in euroes, without lens ... and pretty soon
you can sell a $2000 for € 1,100!

Or ... is this a typo?

Or, is this a republican forum?

--
Stephen M Schwartz

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with the value of the dollar. Prices in Asia (excluding China which charges very high important tariffs) are in line with that of the US. The fact is, economies are not equal. Some are more efficient than others. All these "low" price countries have more streamlined and competitive economies than the higher priced ones.

Stephen Schwartz said:

Luckily for those of us who live here the US market is so big that
companies in effect dump their goods here or overcharge elsewhere
to make up the difference.

So, price in Euros will now be 20% higher than they would have been
a year ago (relative to US dollars) until Nikon decides it can anot
absorb the hit here.

Stephen Schwartz said:

Actually in US or Europe wone can buy cameras for export wo the
taxes. The big gap is Bush's devaluation of the dollar

Click to expand...

--
Stephen M Schwartz

Click to expand...

I agree with you, Stephen! All DSLR's up to now are copies of film SLR's!!

I really think today the best design/ergonomics/size/weight there is for a digital camera is the Minolta Dimage A1. It's afantastic design, taking advantage of a small CCD ( 2/3 ) and an EVF.

I know many think it's a blasfem to say this, but I woud love to see camera with an APS size 6 MP CCD, a high resoluton EVF ( 512K pixels? ), interchangeable lenses in a A1-like body !!!
That would be a breakthrough!!

Lucas

Stephen Schwartz said:

So far, IMO none of the SLRs have picked up the advantages of going
digital. The Oly may be going in that direction but it should be
obvious that deleting the film transport mechanism and taking
advantage of the advanatges or differences between a dig. and a fil
camera should NOT produce just a film camera redo.

Some thoughts:

1. The form factor.

Why do all these dSLRs lok like their film progenitors? Innovative
digicams like the coolpix 900 series, Minolta bent lightpath
cameras, etc suggest alternatives that make more sense.

My own concept camera would be a mini-hasslebald with
interchangeable viewers ON top rather than in the back.

2. The size. There MUST be some reason all the digicams look like
the old Nikon F1 rather than a Leica M rangefinder or OM1 Oly.
Beats me what that is. We know that it os possible to make very
compact high pixel cameras. The only difference in an SLR is ...
the mirror. A compact dSLR would be the opening for whole new
genre of camera-work .. bringing backl a lot of the sponaneity of
the original Leicas!

3. LUX vs LENS .. In a film camera speed is basicaly dependent on
thefstop of the lens. In digicams, so far, the focus seems to be
on speeding up the film (good) but ignoring the potential
advantages of a smaller chip to get a bigger f stop.

4. EVF vs Int. lenses. Who says that interchangebale lenses REQUIRE
a mirror?

OK,OK lotsa folks INSIST that nothing beats a mirror for
composition and focus. I am not at all sure this is true. The EVF
on my Cpix 5700 is a lot better than I expected. Moreover, the
image processing that can be dne in an EVF has only just begun ...
it is easy to imagine EVFs with tools that assist in manual focus
or depth of field that could not be matched by an optical finder.

5. EVF=flexible design. Delete the film xport mechanism, the SLR
mirror, but keep the interchageable lenses.

RESULT=rebirth of the Leica!

Click to expand...

Well, my D7 blew highlights fast so I wonder if the A1 is any better. My biggest complaint about p&s and Canon DSLR's.

R

lcmacedo said:

Lucas

Stephen Schwartz said:

So far, IMO none of the SLRs have picked up the advantages of going
digital. The Oly may be going in that direction but it should be
obvious that deleting the film transport mechanism and taking
advantage of the advanatges or differences between a dig. and a fil
camera should NOT produce just a film camera redo.

Some thoughts:

1. The form factor.

Why do all these dSLRs lok like their film progenitors? Innovative
digicams like the coolpix 900 series, Minolta bent lightpath
cameras, etc suggest alternatives that make more sense.

My own concept camera would be a mini-hasslebald with
interchangeable viewers ON top rather than in the back.

2. The size. There MUST be some reason all the digicams look like
the old Nikon F1 rather than a Leica M rangefinder or OM1 Oly.
Beats me what that is. We know that it os possible to make very
compact high pixel cameras. The only difference in an SLR is ...
the mirror. A compact dSLR would be the opening for whole new
genre of camera-work .. bringing backl a lot of the sponaneity of
the original Leicas!

3. LUX vs LENS .. In a film camera speed is basicaly dependent on
thefstop of the lens. In digicams, so far, the focus seems to be
on speeding up the film (good) but ignoring the potential
advantages of a smaller chip to get a bigger f stop.

4. EVF vs Int. lenses. Who says that interchangebale lenses REQUIRE
a mirror?

OK,OK lotsa folks INSIST that nothing beats a mirror for
composition and focus. I am not at all sure this is true. The EVF
on my Cpix 5700 is a lot better than I expected. Moreover, the
image processing that can be dne in an EVF has only just begun ...
it is easy to imagine EVFs with tools that assist in manual focus
or depth of field that could not be matched by an optical finder.

5. EVF=flexible design. Delete the film xport mechanism, the SLR
mirror, but keep the interchageable lenses.

RESULT=rebirth of the Leica!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
It's a tough job, living in Hawaii, but someone has to do it!!!

Powewred By Sigma..........Empowered By FOVEON..........

http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.silveroaksranch.com
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home

The democrats can distort the truth too.Ask Ted Kennedy about his days in college or about Chappaquidick or maybe ask Clinton about little girls under his table.
Or maybe you just ought to leave politics out of the discussion?
John

Stephen Schwartz said:

Or, is this a republican forum?

--
Stephen M Schwartz

Click to expand...

I agree ... although the 5700 and the Minolta have simialr form factors. The on the lens Nikon controls are critical.

Also, part of the reason I refer to the blad is that the OBVIOUS palce for the EVF is on top!

Michael Meissner said:

I wouldn't expect a Federal sales tax, but instead the vendor being
required to pay the appropriate state/city sales tax for the place
where the item is shipped to. I dunno, I kind of like the states
providing schools, maintaining roads and bridges, inspecting the
health of restaurants, and all of these take money (obviously there
is a tradeoff in terms of how much tax vs. the goods and services).

Click to expand...

States wih sales tax already have tax on out of state purchases. However they cannot force out of state sellers to collect it on their behalf. There was a Supreme Court decision that prevents them from doing that. Trying to force individual purchasers to pay the tax would cost more than they would collect. Of course if you feel that strongly about paying the sales tax, your state's Department of Revenue will gladly furnish you with apropriate forms.

Michael Meissner said:

There is a big effort among the states to collect this lost
revenue, particularly as I think there are only 3 states that had a
balanced budget this year, and I think it will only be a matter of
time before it goes through.

Click to expand...

They've been yapping about it for more than twenty years (long before internet), but unless a federal law is passed, they can't do much about it.

Why would you want to blow that last XX years of development in SLRs just because of a media change?

The life of SLRs and the millions invested by the Canons, Nikons and all has developed around providing the best possible image to the spot where the film, or sensor, is.

Yes you can move stuff around, but why on earth would you want to fully revisit and force re-investment of all the glass people own?

If you start from no SLR base, fill your boots, buy whatever you like, but many, many amatuer and professional photographers have a multi-thousand investment in high end glass that they are very familiar and comfortable with.

So - does it then make sense for Canon or Nikon say to re-invent their top end systems and run them side-by-side with the requirement to support the existing glass? Yes, you could run the existing glass to an active sensor and use that to 'preview' your images = i.e. drop the mirror/prism - but the ability to much beyond compose average shots is past most EVFs. You rarely get enough detail to focus by, the exposure is still ultimately shutter based so you cannot really get exposure preview either. I'm not sure if this is true for every camera, but I've not yet seen an EVF that could compose true night scenes either - it is too dark!

Apart from changing where the image is seen (viewfinder or screen) I fail to see where the huge improvements are available over SLR? If you want to take an SLR and make a prosumer or other camera out of it, why not just buy the prosumer in the first place?

You want the image a the top of the camera? That may for you be important but for others it may be .05% of the shots taken. I personally prefer looking over the top at my shooting subject when composing than looking at the ground. To have to look up, then down again during composition would be a lot of hassle. The ability to choose would be nice, but I do not belive EVFs are yet good enough to really compose and asses focus properly.

It would be interesting to get more data - for those existing (D)SLR users would you change your camera layouts if you could? I'm betting may people would change dial placements, available controls maybe, but otherwise probably little else. The way people shoot and use their equipment is, for the most part, ingrained.

The market is confused right now because the cost of DSLRs is coming down to prosumer level. People used and looking at prosumer at looking up to DSLR and seeing a hacked SLR underneath. To expect the SLR market and cameras to change significantly to accommodate prosumer desires is unlikely. I expect the Rebel will be as far as we will see. Sure, it is possible that someone might knock out a camera that can use SLR lenses but have prosumer features, but it would be a limited entry point - the (D)SLRs we have now (and their successors) will continue to rule the roost - IMHO.

Stephen Schwartz said:

hmmm "$999 or € 1,100." but € 1,100 = $ 1,330!

hmmm ... new trick!

lets see give the price in euroes, without lens ... and pretty soon
you can sell a $2000 for € 1,100!

Or ... is this a typo?

Or, is this a republican forum?

--
Stephen M Schwartz

Click to expand...

Minimum wages here in Denmark is 3-4 times higher than in the US...Which means warranty repairs would be more expensive...

"Why would you want to blow that last XX years of development in SLRs just because of a media change?"

This is a non sequitur. There is no need to blow the development, the issue is whether a digital camera needs to be slavishly limited by the deign limits of a film camera?

1. size

35 mm camera have become monstrously large for reasons that often are irrelevant to digital cameras (e.g. film storage and transport. For many of us the Leica M series were the highpoint of body development.

2. viewing

the flipping mirror or half silvered mirror all exist because the film camera can not read the image from the film plane. Remove all this gadgetry using an electronic VF and the designs change dramatically.

3. optics

a lot of optics design is based on artificial limits of film These limits are different for digital media so lens designs should change.

"The life of SLRs and the millions invested by the Canons, Nikons and all has developed around providing the best possible image to the spot where the film, or sensor, is."

Nope. The qualities of these lenses is dependent on feature sof the 35 mm design ... the odd aspect ratio, large flat imaging surface, and even the sensing characteristics of the film.

"Yes you can move stuff around, but why on earth would you want to fully revisit and force re-investment of all the glass people own?"

WHO says this? Most of the discussion is about creating a box that can use these lenses AND allow future developments. However, there are reasons that a different sort of lens design may be good for digital film.

"To expect the SLR market and cameras to change significantly to accommodate prosumer desires is unlikely. I expect the Rebel will be as far as we will see."

Yep. Why even bother with Digital cameras? We already have polaroid!