bs kite
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: New Z9 Specs (NR) Aug 10th, 2021 | |
Thank you for posting that interview with the Nikon exec.
1. Please read the *entire* sentence of my statement. The last two words are "for now". The phrase "for now" means the same as "For the time being" (the Nikon exec's words)
I did not write "from now on". You did. In fact, I chose the phrase "for now" in hopes that it would avoid controversy.
To be honest, I had not seen that interview before you posted it here.
2. In your description of the transition from film to digital, you missed one little detail. What caused the film-developing businesses to fold? They folded because photographers went to digital, which eliminated the cost of film development.
I was there through the entire transition. I know exactly what happened. At the time, I was with Gamma Liaison International (subsidiary of Getty Images through all of that transition). If you had a contract with a stock agency and you shot regularly, you made a very good second income. For some, it was their entire yearly income. It was crazy good $ !
But most people could/would not do it. It is because of the cost of film/developing. Kodachrome and Velvia cost me at least 50 cents every time I pressed the shutter. I bought blocks of film the cheapest way: from camera houses in NY. My friend bought/developed her film at Maine Color (Portland, Maine) and they went out of business following the arrival of digital.
The cull/delete rate was just as high with film (slides), as the delete rate is with digital today. So. when I opened a box of newly arrived transparencies and culled them, upwards of 90% were tossed into the waste basket.
And the agency kept 50% of the sale from "One Time North American Rights". But the sales were so high, that when I started receiving royalty checks, I did not mind paying the 50% fee  . I could not have found any of those markets myself. They had subagents selling my images in France, Spain, Portugal and on and on.
Example: The Japanese paid $1900 for the one-time use of my image of a dew-drenched spider web I took in the Everglades. I was elated to receive a royalty check for $952! I do admit this was an extreme example. Most sales were in the low hundreds. I wish today I could have seen what the Japanese used that image for. It had to have been a large image for commercial advertising, not a 1/4 page in a magazine
This would all change with digital and there was one fact that would change it:
*When digital appeared, everyone became a photographer* ...........and that is because digital images were free to shoot. It did not cost a penny to shoot all day. And that is what caused the film development businesses to fold. That is the little detail that you missed.
And it was not long after digital entered photography, that Gamma LI folded and sent all my slides back. And that was the end of that.
Question: Would there be all the whining (myself included) 20 fps or 30 fps or whatever....... if you had to pay 50 cents to develop each of those frames?
Digital is far superior to film.
The transition from film to digital revolutionized photography. Revolutionize defined: change (something) radically or fundamentally.
3. I am with you when you express your frustration with the natrue of this thread. One does not need the latest equipment to shoot the best images. I am with the DSLR people too. Heck, I am one of them. That is the reason I started a thread or two for just DSLR images.
And the last thing: For all you Nikon whiners ( ): Take it easy, Nikon will knock the Z9 out of the park!
And I believe Nikon will release a D850 upgrade (that’s just me). If and when they do, I'll probably buy it . According to that interview you posted, Nikon is still not decided on *all* the details of their direction.
We know that the Z9 and mirrorless is top priority.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
bs kite wrote:
Nikon has made it clear that they will focus entirely on developing the mirrorless line for now.
Where have they said that?
In Feb 2020 they answered in a dpr interview "[DPR:] Do you have a sense of the timeframe over which you’ll transition customers away from DSLR, eventually?
[Nikon:] We haven’t finalized our plan yet. At this time I can say that we will prioritize both DSLR and mirrorless. We also want to complete our Z system: that’s the first priority. At a certain point, we hope that all DSLR customers will [ultimately] be satisfied by the features provided by mirrorless, and will shift to the Z system. That’s the goal. But until then, we will continue to develop DSLRs."
In this article January 2021 https://www.techradar.com/news/nikon-will-focus-on-mirrorless-cameras-rather-than-dslrs-for-the-time-being they say "For the time being, we will concentrate on mirrorless cameras".
This isn't quite the same as only developing mirrorless products from now on.
But this mirrorless thing is much different. Transitioning to mirrorless is like the transition to digital from film.
It's really not. Both DSLRs and mirrorless cameras are digital cameras and use the same post-processing infrastructure. With film the problem was that the infrastructure largely disappeared.
Film imaging required film manufacture and processing and many people stopped shooting film because there were no local labs that they were used to and could trust, so there was no choice. There has been a bit of revitalization of film photography and prices of some film cameras have increased significantly from where they were when there was a mass exodus to digital. However, this is more a niche activity now, done probably for the different look and feel of film photography. It's still not practical to use for day-in-day-out photography as that has been taken up by digital. Black and white darkroom users might disagree though.
Anyway, this forum seems inundantated with doctrine that says that one must always have the latest technology. This isn't really reflected in the wider world as many people continue to use existing, older gear, until it fails to be usable. From the point of view of nature and ecology, it would be best if the purchase price of a new product included the cost of recycling of the materials and re-naturalization of the mines, capture of all the pollution from water, soil and atmosphere and reversing the impact of the manufacture of the product once it is no longer in use. That would discourage unnecessary purchases and make it possible to experience a healthy and safe living environment for future generations.
|
