p.1 #1 · Food for thought.........................................................
A friend of mine, who also shoots with Nikon DSLRs, described the feeding frenzy that surrounds the introduction of the D200 to me this way in email......
"It's the upscale version of people bashing each others heads in at Wal-Mart for $400 laptops..."
I thought that was pretty funny, with an element of truth in it. Comment?
p.1 #2 · Food for thought.........................................................
Well, whatīs wrong with that as long as you get a decent quality for your money? Cheap is not everything, and usually you get what you pay for, but I think that the camera makers might have a much larger margin in their products than PC makers. I love my D2X but is a product out of robotized industrial production really really worth 4500$ in comparison to what you get with your TV, Car, or dishwashing machine?
p.1 #3 · Food for thought.........................................................
Nicodad wrote:
Well, whatīs wrong with that as long as you get a decent quality for your money? Cheap is not everything, and usually you get what you pay for, but I think that the camera makers might have a much larger margin in their products than PC makers. I love my D2X but is a product out of robotized industrial production really really worth 4500$ in comparison to what you get with your TV, Car, or dishwashing machine?
p.1 #4 · Food for thought.........................................................
I think it's pretty funny Scott. It isn't only Nikon boards though. It's amazing what people blow their money on and the pace that they blow their money.
I'll admit I have my camera goodies, but I bought them only after all other debt (except my mortgage, which we're paying triple payments on) was gone.
p.1 #5 · Food for thought.........................................................
Fundy wrote:
I think it's pretty funny Scott. It isn't only Nikon boards though. It's amazing what people blow their money on and the pace that they blow their money.
I'll admit I have my camera goodies, but I bought them only after all other debt (except my mortgage, which we're paying triple payments on) was gone.
p.1 #6 · Food for thought.........................................................
As far as the social commentary part of this is concerned: ever wondered how things would be if our society was matriarchal? Maybe this is something like "boys and their toys". Women donīt like to change things that work for something that works better, because good is good enough to them. With women sitting in mens places we might still work with 8086, if we had any computers at all. So maybe this is not so much "People spending their money" but "Men spending their money". Or maybe better "The Boy in the man"
p.1 #7 · Food for thought.........................................................
Nicodad wrote:
As far as the social commentary part of this is concerned: ever wondered how things would be if our society was matriarchal? Maybe this is something like "boys and their toys". Women donīt like to change things that work for something that works better, because good is good enough to them. With women sitting in mens places we might still work with 8086, if we had any computers at all. So maybe this is not so much "People spending their money" but "Men spending their money". Or maybe better "The Boy in the man"
p.1 #10 · Food for thought.........................................................
Never thought that a woman would complain if someone thought things might be better with women as social leaders....
What I dare to mean was that man might buy things more on the "want" than the "need" basis. Well, maybe women do too- not cameras maybe, but shoes?
And for our chanceler ( chanceleresse?)- she didnīt buy now cameras for the government. Until now. But the day is still young.
Bye the way- what is puppycock? Canīt find it my dictionary. Closer explanation plse.
p.1 #11 · Food for thought.........................................................
Ah Steffan, you're squirming now :-) And you add insult to injury by raising that old stereotypical image of women and shoes. I'll have you know I only have 15 pairs of shoes, and I "need" all of them. All that said, I "need" a D200. Like my good friend Goldilocks says, the D2X is toooo big. And the D50 is tooooo small. But the D200 is just right.
p.1 #12 · Food for thought.........................................................
Ooooh, Steffen you must not know women very well. If it weren't for women, every economy in the world would collapse. Purses, shoes, makeup, hair styles, clothing, perfumes, appliances, homes ..................etc. The list goes on and on. It's us men that are more complacent about what we have. Just look at Scott and his D1X.
p.1 #13 · Food for thought.........................................................
Nicodad wrote:
As far as the social commentary part of this is concerned: ever wondered how things would be if our society was matriarchal? Maybe this is something like "boys and their toys". Women donīt like to change things that work for something that works better, because good is good enough to them. With women sitting in mens places we might still work with 8086, if we had any computers at all. So maybe this is not so much "People spending their money" but "Men spending their money". Or maybe better "The Boy in the man"
Yes, we would be using an 8086, otherwise how could we afford 400 pairs of black shoes.
p.1 #14 · Food for thought.........................................................
Scott,
I do not stand in lines. "Well" not if I can help it, not by choice, had enough in the service.
Your 2 links were very nice to look through, I enjoy them!
p.1 #15 · Food for thought.........................................................
Nicodad wrote:
As far as the social commentary part of this is concerned: ever wondered how things would be if our society was matriarchal? Maybe this is something like "boys and their toys". Women donīt like to change things that work for something that works better, because good is good enough to them. With women sitting in mens places we might still work with 8086, if we had any computers at all. So maybe this is not so much "People spending their money" but "Men spending their money". Or maybe better "The Boy in the man"
2. Matriarchy, and its counterpart, patriarchy, are systems in which family authority is in the hands of one gender or another. Those of us who believe that men and women are different, but that they are entitled to equal rights, work toward a society in which family authority is shared. That includes making decisions about how to spend the family resources.
3. Women donīt like to change things that work for something that works better, because good is good enough to them. In the US, studies have shown that women purchase 50% of the electronics (computers, video games, etc.) and 65% of the cars. Hardly likely if "good is still good enough to (women). That would have women playing the earliest versions of PacMan and Frogger according to your logic. Woman make purchasing decisions based on different criteria than men. For example, fuel efficiency is more important to women than to men. Regarding digital cameras, women make up 53% of the current market.
4. Judging by the number of women joining the threads here on FM about new cameras about to come on the market, it CAN be said that women don't spend as much time speculating about the new features, arguing about comparitive advantages, etc.
Steffan---Women don't want to take over, they want to take part. In photography, women are not still using Brownie Box cameras, they take advantage of new technology as fast or faster than men. It may be a point and shoot, but it will have all the bells and whistles they can afford.
p.1 #16 · Food for thought.........................................................
Soenda wrote:
4. Judging by the number of women joining the threads here on FM about new cameras about to come on the market, it CAN be said that women don't spend as much time speculating about the new features, arguing about comparitive advantages, etc.
And bless their hearts for that. My girlfriend is as discriminating about her gear as the next person, and will quite happily upgrade her equipment when she sees that a tangible benefit to her workflow exists. What she won't do is upgrade because just because she can.
She's happy that I am more into the gear speculation, since it makes it easier for her to keep abreast of the latest developments (i.e, she asks me, instead of wasting the kind of time I do in a gear forum... women are a lot smarter than we can ever imagine... )
The other day, she called me to tell me that one of her family acquaintances just received a $4000 engagement ring. Then she made me promise that I would not waste that kind of money on a 'stupid ring' with a 'big ugly diamond' on it. She was actually sincere about this, as evidenced by her next statement;
'Can you imagine how much lighting equipment we could buy for $4000??'
It was just more confirmation that I really am the luckiest man alive!
p.1 #17 · Food for thought.........................................................
Nicodad wrote:
What I dare to mean was that man might buy things more on the "want" than the "need" basis. Well, maybe women do too- not cameras maybe, but shoes?
p.1 #19 · Food for thought.........................................................
Skeeter Camby wrote:
Scott,
I do not stand in lines. "Well" not if I can help it, not by choice, had enough in the service.
Your 2 links were very nice to look through, I enjoy them!
That's a start.