Response from Nikon on their piss-take upgrade to D3.
Dave
option. Their response is below. I know there were a few spelling errors
in my original post, but I've copied exactly what I sent them, and their
response.
************** SENT TO NIKON *****************
Subject: Why are Nkin taking the **** over the D3 upgrade?
I'd just like to make that point that I feel Nikon are being very unfair
in charging for "D3 buffer memory expansion".
After paying this much for a camera, I think Nilon should have put the
extra RAM in before shipping it. Memory is not that expensive these days.
I gather in the US this is $499/ I've not seen a UK price from Nkon, but
I've seen in Amateur Photographer this is £352 pounds, which is about
45% more. This is really is taking the pee.
IMHO Nikon should offer this free. Doing it in order of serial number,
so those that bought the D3's first get upgraded first. I only bought my
D3 last week, so I would be almost last on the list, but I think Nilon
should do this free. Not take the mic out of people who have paid good
money for a camera.
So I have three questions.
1) Is there any good reason the D3 was not shipped with this.
2) Is there any good reason Nikon and charging so much for a couple of
GB of RAM in the USA?
3) Is there any good reason Nikon charge so much more in the UK than in
the US?
I can see how you will irritate a lot of processional photographers with
this.
Dave
****** Response from Nikon Europe Support. ******
Subject: Why are Nkin taking the **** over the D3 upgrade?
Dear David,
Thank you for contacting Nikon Support. The upgrade has not been
implemented in D3 cameras before because mainboards with extended buffer
was not yet available. However it will not be installed in new cameras
by default either - it will be an optional upgrade only.
The upgrade does not consist on just RAM unit replacement - actually the
buffer unit cannot be unsoldered and soldered back in the service centre
and therefore the whole mainboard has to be replaced. This also adds a
significant cost of labour to the cost of part alone.
You can find more details on D3 buffer expansion in the link below:
Title: D3 Buffer Memory Expansion Service
URL:
https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/nikoneurope_en.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=25465&p_created=1216726798
In regards to your third question, unfortunately I am not qualified to
comment on Nikon's financial strategy and economic environment.
If you require any further assistance, please update your incident and I
will be happy to help you.
Kind Regards,
Aleksander Nowak
Nikon UK Professional Support
www.europe-nikon.com/support
Paul Heslop
>
> 3) Is there any good reason Nikon charge so much more in the UK than in
> the US?
Oh I can answer that one. EVERYBODY does it.
--
Paul (We won't die of devotion)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Dave
> Dave wrote:
>
>> I sent the following to Nikon about the D3 Buffer Memory Expansion
>> option. Their response is below. I know there were a few spelling
>> errors in my original post, but I've copied exactly what I sent them,
>> and their response.
>
> this an optional upgrade ($500) to future manufactured D3s, I don't see it
> as a problem or kick in the ass to present D3 owners. It's kinda like
> buying a new car and selecting the options you need, want, and can afford.
> Sure, everyone wants a fully loaded whatever, but you gots to pay to play.
> Now if they can make upgradeable sensor packs that can be factory installed
> for $500 the rules will change and we will be the winners in the end. It
> sucks having to obsolete a camera every 18-months.
>
>
>
> Rita
If a new car comes with leather seats, satellite navigation, a turbo,
larger engine etc, then I can understand making these features optional
as extra cost to build the card would be significant.
In the case of a bit of memory in a D3, I can't see why Nikon just don't
put it there to start with. The main cost associated with this upgrade
is clearly the time it takes someone to take the camera apart and fit in
the new board. If the board was built with the memory in the first
place, the extra cost to manufacture the camera would be only $20 or so.
Annika1980
> It sucks having to obsolete a camera every 18-months.
18 months? I thought that was Canon's schedule?
Nikon has now managed to obsolete the D3 in only 4 months.
The D700 will be the D3-killer.
Annika1980
>If the board was built with the memory in the first
> place, the extra cost to manufacture the camera would be only $20 or so.
I wonder why they didn't put it in the D1 years ago?
C J Campbell
Gee. You wrote an incredibly rude and profane letter full of spelling
and grammatical errors and got a polite and reasonable response. Good
for Nikon.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
Chris H
>I sent the following to Nikon about the D3 Buffer Memory Expansion
>option. Their response is below. I know there were a few spelling
>errors in my original post, but I've copied exactly what I sent them,
>and their response.
Part of the problem may be the availability of memory chips. When the
camera was initially designed (2 years ago?) they fitted the largest
ones that were practical. 18 months on the capacity of parts that
physical size and power consumption may have doubled.
Just look at the size and cost of PC memory? 1GB strips now cost less
than 256Mb strips did. My first 50 Mb hard drive cost twice the 500
Gbyte Serial ATA I bought last month.
The problem is the new memory devices may not fit the old main board.
There will almost certainly be a new pin out. Try fitting a serial ATA
drive to an IDE connector.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
nospam
<ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> Try fitting a serial ATA
> drive to an IDE connector.
there are adapters for both directions. it adds a little depth to the
drive so the drive may no longer fit, depending on the dimensions of
the enclosure or drive bay.
Ken Hart1
"Rita Berkowitz" <ritabe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:JdqdneM80P6KID_V...@supernews.com...
> Dave wrote:
>
>> I sent the following to Nikon about the D3 Buffer Memory Expansion
>> option. Their response is below. I know there were a few spelling
>> errors in my original post, but I've copied exactly what I sent them,
>> and their response.
>
> this an optional upgrade ($500) to future manufactured D3s, I don't see it
> as a problem or kick in the ass to present D3 owners. It's kinda like
> buying a new car and selecting the options you need, want, and can afford.
> Sure, everyone wants a fully loaded whatever, but you gots to pay to play.
> Now if they can make upgradeable sensor packs that can be factory
> installed
> sucks having to obsolete a camera every 18-months.
>
>
>
I've upgraded the sensor in my cameras many times over the years: every time
an improved film comes out, I upgrade the ":sensor". The cost each time has
only been a couple dollars. Pretty sweet for forty year old Canons!
John McWilliams
> On 2008-08-13 00:16:47 -0700, Dave <f...@coo.com> said:
>> in the US?
>>
>> I can see how you will irritate a lot of processional photographers
>> with this.
The assistants who have to snap walking backwards as the B+G leave the
building.
>> ****** Response from Nikon Europe Support. ******
>>
>> Subject: Why are Nkin taking the **** over the D3 upgrade?
>>
>> Dear David,
>>
>> Thank you for contacting Nikon Support. The upgrade has not been
<< Snipped bits out >>
> Gee. You wrote an incredibly rude and profane letter full of spelling
> and grammatical errors and got a polite and reasonable response. Good
> for Nikon.
Whatever the 'problem' I am sure "Rita" will have an excuse.
--
john mcwilliams
SMS
> I sent the following to Nikon about the D3 Buffer Memory Expansion
> option. Their response is below. I know there were a few spelling errors
> in my original post, but I've copied exactly what I sent them, and their
> response.
<snip>
Early adopters understand that they often end up with a product at
higher cost and/or with more technical issues. $500 isn't unreasonable
for the upgrade.
I think you're kidding about sending that e-mail to Nikon. It's so full
of grammatical and spelling mistakes that it's guaranteed to be ineffective.
Dave
> I think you're kidding about sending that e-mail to Nikon. It's so full
> of grammatical and spelling mistakes that it's guaranteed to be
> ineffective.
Rather stupidly I did not compose it in OpenOffice or an email client
first, but put it directly on their web site.
Paul Furman
>
> Thank you for contacting Nikon Support. The upgrade has not been
> implemented in D3 cameras before because mainboards with extended buffer
> was not yet available. However it will not be installed in new cameras
> by default either - it will be an optional upgrade only.
>
> The upgrade does not consist on just RAM unit replacement - actually the
> buffer unit cannot be unsoldered and soldered back in the service centre
> and therefore the whole mainboard has to be replaced. This also adds a
> significant cost of labour to the cost of part alone.
Perfectly legitimate explanation for the upgrade cost but not for why
they don't just include it in the new models and charge $50 more.
Perhaps they've already got a bunch built and when those are used up
they'll start with a D3x.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
ASAAR
> Perfectly legitimate explanation for the upgrade cost but not for why
> they don't just include it in the new models and charge $50 more.
> Perhaps they've already got a bunch built and when those are used up
> they'll start with a D3x.
Possibly, but the new, higher density chips may be much more
expensive per GB. The high price may also be to discourage D3
owners from upgrading unless they really could use the extra buffer
memory. If all D3 owners want to upgrade, Nikon might have to hire
many extra technicians in order to be able to return the upgraded
cameras in a timely manner.
John Smith
Having worked in the high tech sector for 30 years, Nikon's response was a
reasoned and professional reply to a whiny, immature, profane and spelling
error-ridden childish tantrum by "Dave".
Get over it, Dave, and go buy Canon if you're so darned upset.
Besides, who really "needs" this memory upgrade? For heaven's sake, I can
already shoot 52 or so Large/Fine JPG's in a single burst. Who NEEDS more
than that? Only a very inexperienced shooter just blasting away and
"hoping" to get a good shot. I call it the "machine gun approach" to
photography. Certainly noting Atget, Adams, Steiglitz or Weston would have
ever done. Or needed to. Then again, "Dave" probably has never even heard
of these photographers... <s>
"C J Campbell" <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2008081307243175249-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
Ron Hunter
> In message <48a2...@212.67.96.135>, Dave <f...@coo.com> writes
>> I sent the following to Nikon about the D3 Buffer Memory Expansion
>> option. Their response is below. I know there were a few spelling
>> errors in my original post, but I've copied exactly what I sent them,
>> and their response.
>
>
> Part of the problem may be the availability of memory chips. When the
> camera was initially designed (2 years ago?) they fitted the largest
> ones that were practical. 18 months on the capacity of parts that
> physical size and power consumption may have doubled.
>
> Just look at the size and cost of PC memory? 1GB strips now cost less
> than 256Mb strips did. My first 50 Mb hard drive cost twice the 500
> Gbyte Serial ATA I bought last month.
>
> The problem is the new memory devices may not fit the old main board.
> There will almost certainly be a new pin out. Try fitting a serial ATA
> drive to an IDE connector.
>
>
>
each. This morning I saw 4GB SD cards for $19.99! Now if gasoline
would just do that!
Alan Browne
> Now if gasoline would just do that!
You can halve it instantly. Get a car with 2x gas mileage.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
mj
"Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ptWdncycjfjWwj7V...@giganews.com...
>>
>>
> When I bought my current camera, I bought two 128 meg SD cards for $45
> each. This morning I saw 4GB SD cards for $19.99! Now if gasoline would
> just do that!
Gas regular gas here in Houston is running $3.60 on average.
Dave
I read somewhere on rec.photo.digital there is extra 2 GB of memory, but
I suspect it is less than that.
Looking at
one sees the memory upgrade increases the number of images before the
buffer fills from 16 to 36 if you save images in the NEF 14-bit
uncompressed format. That is an extra 20 images. According to the D3
manual, the size of such images is 24.7 MB. So to hold an extra 20
images of 24.7 MB one would need an extra
20 * 24.7 = 494 MB.
I chose the uncompressed RAW file, since one knows the size will not
change, unlike a JPEG, or RAW lossless compressed file, where the size
would depend on the image content.
Picking the smaller 12-bit uncompressed, which has an image size of 18.8
MB, the upgrade will increase the number in the buffer from 17 to 38,
which is an extra 21 shots
21 * 18.8 = 394.8 MB.
Taking a 3rd example, of medium sized TIFF files, the upgrade increases
the buffer from 19 to 42 shots, which is an increase of 23. The sizes of
these are 20.7 MB.
23 * 20.7 = 476.1 MB.
I'm not sure why these figures differ quite as much, but I very much
doubt the extra memory needed is as much as 2 GB, as someone said here.
More like 512 MB.
There is no doubt some overhead in memory moving data around, but that
overhead would be included in the basic camera. I don't actually believe
any more overhead would be incurred.
The next thing I thought of is how fast does the memory need to be? The
largest amount of data one can save is the large TIFF file at 35.9 MB.
(You can save RAW and JPEG at the same time, but that is still smaller
than the single TIFF file). At a maximum frame rate of 9 frames per
second, that is
9 * 35.9 = 323.1 MB/s
Looking at
http://www.crucial.com/support/memory_speeds.aspx
one finds the *maximum* transfer rates of say PC-1600 ram is 1600 MB/s,
and for the DDR400 (PC-3200) it is 3200 MB/s. So whilst I accept those
are maximum figures, it suggests to me the memory is nothing too special
- just cheap PC memory would do.
So IF my calculations are correct (and of course I have no inside
knowledge), Nikon decided to not put 512 MB of cheap PC memory in the
camera, but rather make that an optional extra for which the camera
would need to be returned.
These sizes and speeds of memory have been available a long time, so I
don't think availability of chips would have been an issue myself.
As I say, I'm only making educated guesses here, but without detailed
technical information, that is the best one can do.
Blinky the Shark
> Ron Hunter wrote:
[snipped data restored:]
>> When I bought my current camera, I bought two 128 meg SD cards for $45
>> each. This morning I saw 4GB SD cards for $19.99! Now if gasoline
>> would just do that!
[end restore]
>> Now if gasoline would just do that!
>
> You can halve it instantly. Get a car with 2x gas mileage.
128MB for $45 is more than 32x the cost per unit of capacity as is
4,000MB for $20.
32x is a long way from 2x
--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
George Kerby
On 8/13/08 5:48 PM, in article DwJok.18165$mh5....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com,
"mj" <lakediver@dd..net> wrote:
Except for the Gas War on Eldridge @ FM 525 where it got down to ~ $2.20
yesterday!
John O'Flaherty
<jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>C J Campbell wrote:
>> On 2008-08-13 00:16:47 -0700, Dave <f...@coo.com> said:
>
>>> in the US?
>>>
>>> I can see how you will irritate a lot of processional photographers
>>> with this.
>
>The assistants who have to snap walking backwards as the B+G leave the
>building.
Wouldn't that be "recessional"?
--
John
Toby
develops. Take, for instance, the fact that the D700 has sensor cleaning
with the same chip as the D3. Obviously Nikon would have loved to put that
in the D3 as well, but at a certain point they had to introduce a working
model to market. If they had waited six months more to introduce the D3
perhaps they would have had the sensor cleaner ready, but that is then six
months of lost sales.
Actually I applaud Nikon for making the memory upgrade available, even at a
cost. What other manufacturer ever offered an optional upgrade of this type?
If you want or need the extra buffer it is available without you having to
buy a new camera.
And it would make no sense to just put it in all new D3s, as Nikon would
then be obligated to upgrade all existing bodies at no cost. My guess is
that soon there will be a new model with the sensor cleaner, upgraded buffer
and perhaps a few other refinements.
Me, I'm waiting for the 24 Mpx D3x or D4 or whatever it is going to be
called.
Toby
Toby
> time an improved film comes out, I upgrade the ":sensor". The cost each
> time has only been a couple dollars. Pretty sweet for forty year old
> Canons!
When you factor in the cost of film, processing and eventual scanning,
digital is way cheaper, not to mention all the other advantages over film,
such as white balance, better high ISO performance, etc.
If I shoot 7200 frames/year, for example, or the equivalent of 200 rolls of
chromes--that would cost me over $3000 for film vs. a few dollars to charge
my batteries in digital.
Now which sensor looks cheaper in the long run?
Toby
John McWilliams
By Jingoe, it would be, for those who are close studies in language.
Darn. I've never seen photogs on the procession, but, well, it loses
something in the translation!
--
john mcwilliams
D-Mac
You might have missed something there Toby.
I used a Mamiya 6x7 and a Pentax 645 for maybe 20 years. The maintenance
cost was probably $500 tops. When I sold them, I got back what they cost
me plus some. I wish now I hadn't sold them but that's life, eh?
I've had six digital cameras in 5 years the upgrade / replacement costs
to keep up with the changing quality of images they produce has been
close to $20,000. And...
The bloody things have a shelf life at which point they will become
useless. All electronics are sunset stuff... Eventually they die.
So suppose it cost me $3k a year for film and processing (more like
$1900 but I'll work on your figures... I'd still be $5,000 in front if I
hadn't gone digital.
David J Taylor
[]
> So IF my calculations are correct (and of course I have no inside
> knowledge), Nikon decided to not put 512 MB of cheap PC memory in the
> camera, but rather make that an optional extra for which the camera
> would need to be returned.
>
> These sizes and speeds of memory have been available a long time, so I
> don't think availability of chips would have been an issue myself.
>
> As I say, I'm only making educated guesses here, but without detailed
> technical information, that is the best one can do.
Bulk-manufacturerd PC memory in modules is /not/ what is used in digital
cameras!
[cross-posting trimmed]
David
Dave
I remember why that message was below a standard one would normally
expect when I write a letter/email - I had just come back from the pub
after a few drinks!
My spelling and grammar has never been one of my strongest points, but I
have at least got an O-level in English, so it should not have been as
bad as it was.
Dave
> You might have missed something there Toby.
> I used a Mamiya 6x7 and a Pentax 645 for maybe 20 years. The maintenance
> cost was probably $500 tops. When I sold them, I got back what they cost
> me plus some.
Have you factored into that inflation? If not, that is meaningless.
> I wish now I hadn't sold them but that's life, eh?
I'm thinking this about my F6 - should I sell it or not? Currently the
D3 is worth a lot more used that the F6, but give it a few years and I
suspect the F6 will be worth more than a D3. It's clear Nikon are not
going to bring out a better film camera than the F6, but just as clear
the D3 will be upgraded soon.
I somewhat suspect the D4, D5, D6 etc will follow much more quickly than
did the F3, F4, F5 and F6.
> I've had six digital cameras in 5 years the upgrade / replacement costs
> to keep up with the changing quality of images they produce has been
> close to $20,000. And...
> The bloody things have a shelf life at which point they will become
> useless. All electronics are sunset stuff... Eventually they die.
True, and a they will be unrepairable in far less time than some earlier
electronic equipment. The earliest valve equipment can be repaired
easily to this day - valves are still made and have a very long lifetime
if not used.
Believe it or not, values (or tubes to Americans) are still manufactured
to this day for high power use, where semiconductors are just not up to
it. The 4CM2500KG from Eimac
http://www.cpii.com/product.cfm/9/22/78
produces 2.8 MW - I can't see semiconductors ever being able to produce
that sort of power economically - it might be possible to get it with
combiners, but I doubt it would be practical.
> So suppose it cost me $3k a year for film and processing (more like
> $1900 but I'll work on your figures... I'd still be $5,000 in front if I
> hadn't gone digital.
There is no doubt that specific models of digital camera will become
obsolete very quickly. It is less certain whether one will need to
upgrade those models.
Chris H
>ASAAR wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:03:27 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:
>>
>>> Perfectly legitimate explanation for the upgrade cost but not for
>>>why they don't just include it in the new models and charge $50 more.
>>>Perhaps they've already got a bunch built and when those are used up
>>>they'll start with a D3x.
>> Possibly, but the new, higher density chips may be much more
>> expensive per GB. The high price may also be to discourage D3
>> owners from upgrading unless they really could use the extra buffer
>> memory. If all D3 owners want to upgrade, Nikon might have to hire
>> many extra technicians in order to be able to return the upgraded
>> cameras in a timely manner.
>>
>I don't believe the higher density chips are an issue. See below.
>don't think availability of chips would have been an issue myself.
It is... the memory used in PC-s is made up of multiple chips. Space is
not a problem. Also power is not a problem, neither is heat output.
The chips used in the Nikons will be a little different
You could of course try fitting the PC memory sticks into a camera...
>As I say, I'm only making educated guesses here, but without detailed
>technical information, that is the best one can do.
On the face of it it does look simple. I am an electronics engineer so I
have a little more background knowledge.
As I said the capacity of chips changes all the time ans does the power
consumption. This is why PC memory is built on to standard simms. The
cameras don't use simms
Chris H
<rphu...@charter.net> writes
Exactly but you can bet the actual chips inside the SD card have a
different pin-out. This is why Nikon say they have t5o replace the
whole main board.
> Now if gasoline would just do that!
:-))))
Might have helped if some idiot had not invaded Iraq.
David Nebenzahl
This post is off-topic for this newsgroup, rec.photo.equipment.35mm,
which is concerned with film cameras that use 35mm film, not digital
cameras that look like 35mm SLRs.
Please use an appropriate newsgroup for postings on digital cameras. One
of the following groups would be a good place for such postings:
rec.photo.equipment.digital
rec.photo.equipment.digital.point+shoot
rec.photo.equipment.digital.rangefinder
rec.photo.equipment.digital.slr
rec.photo.equipment.digital.slr-system
--
"Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
doodle. It is balder and dash."
- With apologies to H. L. Mencken
Dave
> In message <48a3...@212.67.96.135>, Dave <f...@coo.com> writes
>> ASAAR wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:03:27 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Perfectly legitimate explanation for the upgrade cost but not for
>>>> why they don't just include it in the new models and charge $50
>>>> more. Perhaps they've already got a bunch built and when those are
>>>> used up they'll start with a D3x.
>>> Possibly, but the new, higher density chips may be much more
>>> expensive per GB. The high price may also be to discourage D3
>>> owners from upgrading unless they really could use the extra buffer
>>> memory. If all D3 owners want to upgrade, Nikon might have to hire
>>> many extra technicians in order to be able to return the upgraded
>>> cameras in a timely manner.
>>>
>> I don't believe the higher density chips are an issue. See below.
>> These sizes and speeds of memory have been available a long time, so I
>> don't think availability of chips would have been an issue myself.
>
> It is... the memory used in PC-s is made up of multiple chips. Space is
> not a problem. Also power is not a problem, neither is heat output. The
> chips used in the Nikons will be a little different
>
> You could of course try fitting the PC memory sticks into a camera...
I suspect the ram quite possibly comes from the same wafer though, but
packaged differently. I'm not suggesting cameras would use SIMMs, DIMMs
or whatever the latest buzz word in memory is.
It might be static RAM, which uses less power when not doing very much.
Static RAM is more expensive than dynamic ram, but the quantities uses
are I believe quite modest.
Ron Hunter
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Now if gasoline would just do that!
>
> You can halve it instantly. Get a car with 2x gas mileage.
>
>
128 meg. More like 31X. BTW, there aren't many cars that get 2X the
mileage of my current car, and I wouldn't want to have to drive any of them.
Ron Hunter
routinely bought it for under $.30/gallon for many years, this is
obscene. Of course it is not the ONLY thing that costs 10 times as much
these days as it did in the 1960s.
D-Mac
You've still got it cheap compared to other nations.
Australia's recent unleaded price is $1.50+ per litre.
3.78 litres per US gallon = Aussies paying $5.67 or $4.96545 USD.
Considering we produce at least 30% of our own fuel, this is pretty bad
and never going to get better.
Enjoy low prices while you can.
ASAAR
> Yes, I saw it here (Ft. Worth) yesterday for $3.51, but for someone who
> routinely bought it for under $.30/gallon for many years, this is
> obscene. Of course it is not the ONLY thing that costs 10 times as much
> these days as it did in the 1960s.
Politicians too. They can't be bought off for as little as they'd
take in the 1960s. I wonder how many senators aren't
multi-millionaires?
Chris H
Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> writes
The D3 is a 35mm camera.
>which is concerned with film cameras that use 35mm film, not digital
>cameras that look like 35mm SLRs.
It is equipment.35mm not equipment.35mm.film
>Please use an appropriate newsgroup for postings on digital cameras.
>One of the following groups would be a good place for such postings:
>
> rec.photo.equipment.digital
> rec.photo.equipment.digital.point+shoot
It is not a point and shoot
> rec.photo.equipment.digital.rangefinder
It is not a range finder.
> rec.photo.equipment.digital.slr
> rec.photo.equipment.digital.slr-system
SO your solution is not to post to an equipment.35mm grouip about a 35mm
camera but do post to a point+shoot and range finder groups about an
SLR....
mj
"D-Mac" <do...@D-Mac.info> wrote in message
news:g80ueq$cag$1...@cb.generation-online.de...
> You've still got it cheap compared to other nations.
>
> Australia's recent unleaded price is $1.50+ per litre.
> 3.78 litres per US gallon = Aussies paying $5.67 or $4.96545 USD.
> Considering we produce at least 30% of our own fuel, this is pretty bad
> and never going to get better.
>
> Enjoy low prices while you can.
What is the tax rate on gasoline in OZ?
David Nebenzahl
This post is off-topic for this newsgroup, rec.photo.equipment.35mm,
which is concerned with film cameras that use 35mm film, not digital
cameras that look like 35mm SLRs.
Please use an appropriate newsgroup for postings on digital cameras. One
of the following groups would be a good place for such postings:
rec.photo.equipment.digital
rec.photo.equipment.digital.point+shoot
David Nebenzahl
> In message <48a3de26$0$24548$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com>, David
> Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> writes
>
>>This post is off-topic for this newsgroup, rec.photo.equipment.35mm,
>
> The D3 is a 35mm camera.
No, it's not: it's a *digital camera*. 35mm cameras use 35mm *film*.
>>Please use an appropriate newsgroup for postings on digital cameras.
>>One of the following groups would be a good place for such postings:
>>
>> rec.photo.equipment.digital
>> rec.photo.equipment.digital.point+shoot
>
> It is not a point and shoot
>
>> rec.photo.equipment.digital.rangefinder
>
> It is not a range finder.
>
>> rec.photo.equipment.digital.slr
>> rec.photo.equipment.digital.slr-system
>
> SO your solution is not to post to an equipment.35mm grouip about a 35mm
> camera but do post to a point+shoot and range finder groups about an
> SLR....
I simply included a list of *all* possible digital photographic
equipment groups that I could find (apologies if my ISP doesn't carry
some others), as a guide. Obviously. discussion of this particular
camera (the D3) belongs in r.p.e.digital.slr.
David Nebenzahl
> Dave wrote:
>
>> I'm thinking this about my F6 - should I sell it or not? Currently the
>> D3 is worth a lot more used that the F6, but give it a few years and I
>> suspect the F6 will be worth more than a D3. It's clear Nikon are not
>> going to bring out a better film camera than the F6, but just as clear
>> the D3 will be upgraded soon.
>
> It's funny that now you are describing the 18-month rule to a tee. It's
> going to be much shorter with the D3 and future models, not only because of
> the D700, but when the D3x (24MP) is released in a few months at an MSRP of
> $5,000 USD. I won't even mention how quickly that event will put the 1Ds Mk
> III in the toilet farther than the 12 MP D3 did. It will be the final flush
> for Canon.
This post is off-topic for this newsgroup, rec.photo.equipment.35mm,
which is concerned with film cameras that use 35mm film, not digital
cameras that look like 35mm SLRs.
Please use an appropriate newsgroup for postings on digital cameras. One
of the following groups would be a good place for such postings:
rec.photo.equipment.digital
rec.photo.equipment.digital.point+shoot
rec.photo.equipment.digital.rangefinder
rec.photo.equipment.digital.slr
rec.photo.equipment.digital.slr-system
John McWilliams
> On 8/14/2008 3:38 AM Chris H spake thus:
>
--
lsmft
D-Mac
Huge! And not easy to find.
Our benevolent Government introduced a "parity pricing" excise tax (now
43¢ per litre) about 20 years ago that was supposed to stop the daily
(hourly sometimes) price fluctuations in fuel prices.
Today it is an essential part of the economy our present government says
it can't do without. So we have this excise + GST (10%) + state taxes
(?) + some hidden levies (?). At least 60¢ per litre is taxes of one
form or another.
dj_nme
> On 8/14/2008 2:56 AM Rita Berkowitz spake thus:
>
>> Dave wrote:
>>
>>> I'm thinking this about my F6 - should I sell it or not? Currently the
>>> D3 is worth a lot more used that the F6, but give it a few years and I
>>> suspect the F6 will be worth more than a D3. It's clear Nikon are not
>>> going to bring out a better film camera than the F6, but just as clear
>>> the D3 will be upgraded soon.
>>
>> It's funny that now you are describing the 18-month rule to a tee. It's
>> going to be much shorter with the D3 and future models, not only
>> because of
>> the D700, but when the D3x (24MP) is released in a few months at an
>> MSRP of
>> $5,000 USD. I won't even mention how quickly that event will put the
>> 1Ds Mk
>> III in the toilet farther than the 12 MP D3 did. It will be the final
>> flush for Canon.
>
> This post is off-topic for this newsgroup, rec.photo.equipment.35mm,
> which is concerned with film cameras that use 35mm film, not digital
> cameras that look like 35mm SLRs.
The Nikon D3 doesn't just look like a 35mm camera, it's sensor is the
same size as one, so it could be argued with some authority that it's
actually a digital 35mm slr camera.
Just like the Canon EOS 5D, Contax N Digital and Kodak DCS-14n.
If you don't wish to read this message thread, single-click on the the
first post in the thread and then press the "k" key and this will hide
it from you.
D-Mac
Having established that a few digital SLRs are in fact 35mm equipment,
are we now to consider all the ASP and 4/3 size sensors are not 35mm
equipment and get 'em shoved off the group?
Jürgen Exner
>The Nikon D3 doesn't just look like a 35mm camera, it's sensor is the
>same size as one, so it could be argued with some authority that it's
>actually a digital 35mm slr camera.
Yeah, indeed to bad that the term "Kleinbild" didn't catch on. Otherwise
there would be no confusion about if someone is talking about a chemical
or an electronic sensor. In particular as even "35mm film" is not
unambiguous because it could refer to a still as well as a movie camera.
jue
Chris H
>On 8/14/2008 3:38 AM Chris H spake thus:
>
>> In message <48a3de26$0$24548$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com>,
>>David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> writes
>>
>>>This post is off-topic for this newsgroup, rec.photo.equipment.35mm,
>> The D3 is a 35mm camera.
>
>No, it's not: it's a *digital camera*. 35mm cameras use 35mm *film*.
The D£ is a 35mm format camera. rec.photo.equipment.35mm specifies the
format. It does not say "film", "positive film", "negative film", "IR
film" or "digital sensor"
>I simply included a list of *all* possible digital photographic
>equipment groups that I could find (apologies if my ISP doesn't carry
>some others), as a guide.
OK.... I include all CAMERA groups.... and the D3 fits
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
>Obviously. discussion of this particular camera (the D3) belongs in
>r.p.e.digital.slr.
But not exclusively. It also fits rec.photo.equipment.35mm as it is a
35mm format camera.
Chris H
Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> writes
The D3 is a 35mm camera.
>which is concerned with film cameras that use 35mm film, not digital
>cameras that look like 35mm SLRs.
It is equipment.35mm not equipment.35mm.film
>Please use an appropriate newsgroup for postings on digital cameras.
>One of the following groups would be a good place for such postings:
>
> rec.photo.equipment.digital
> rec.photo.equipment.digital.point+shoot
The D3 is not a point and shoot
> rec.photo.equipment.digital.rangefinder
The D3 is not a range finder.
> rec.photo.equipment.digital.slr
> rec.photo.equipment.digital.slr-system
So your solution is not to post to an equipment.35mm group about a 35mm
camera but do post to a point+shoot and range finder groups about an
SLR...
D-Mac
Only the mind of an absolutely brilliant psychopath could have come up
with it Chris. Nowhere in the charter or the name does it specifically
say 35mm film although... The group was originally going to be renamed
equipment 35mm lenses... Now that would have fixed the little cretin for
sure!
Walter Banks
Chris
We should introduce David to Chuck Falconer self appointed net nanny...
Walter..
Chris H
<wal...@bytecraft.com> writes
>
>
>Chris
>
>We should introduce David to Chuck Falconer self appointed net nanny...
>
>Walter..
That would be too cruel :-)
John McWilliams
> In message <48A56A1D...@bytecraft.com>, Walter Banks
> <wal...@bytecraft.com> writes
>>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> We should introduce David to Chuck Falconer self appointed net nanny...
>>
>> Walter..
>
> That would be too cruel :-)
Besides, he's not a net nanny; more of a net Nazi.
Oooops.
Thread is Dead.
--
lsmft
Dave Martindale
>Believe it or not, values (or tubes to Americans) are still manufactured
>to this day for high power use, where semiconductors are just not up to
>it. The 4CM2500KG from Eimac
>http://www.cpii.com/product.cfm/9/22/78
>produces 2.8 MW - I can't see semiconductors ever being able to produce
>that sort of power economically - it might be possible to get it with
>combiners, but I doubt it would be practical.
Actually, it seems that commercial broadcast use is switching to
solid-state transmitters for VHF and UHF. You can't get as much power
from a single device, but multiple power modules fed by a splitter from
the same source produce in-phase outputs that are added by combiners to
produce the necessary output. I've seen one local TV station's
transmitter room and that's what they use - the old tube transmitter is
still there but it's only used as a backup.
The nice thing about the solid-state transmitters is that the failure of
a single module only reduces output power slightly - the transmitter
stays on the air. And electric power consumption is substantially reduced -
there's no filament supply, and no exotic cooling system.
The highest-power transmitters will be the last to change, but at more
moderate power levels solid-state transmitters are already taking over.
Dave
David Nebenzahl
> Chris H wrote:
>
>> In message <48A56A1D...@bytecraft.com>, Walter Banks
>> <wal...@bytecraft.com> writes
>>>
>>> We should introduce David to Chuck Falconer self appointed net nanny...
>>
>> That would be too cruel :-)
>
> Besides, he's not a net nanny; more of a net Nazi.
>
> Oooops.
>
> Thread is Dead.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Contrary to popular misconception, one
doesn't invoke Godwin's Law by incantation.
--
"In 1964 Barry Goldwater declared: 'Elect me president, and I
will bomb the cities of Vietnam, defoliate the jungles, herd the
population into concentration camps and turn the country into a
wasteland.' But Lyndon Johnson said: 'No! No! No! Don't you dare do
that. Let ME do it.'"
- Characterization (paraphrased) of the 1964 Goldwater/Johnson
presidential race by Professor Irwin Corey, "The World's Foremost
Authority".
Chris H
Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> writes
>On 8/15/2008 4:18 PM John McWilliams spake thus:
>
>> Chris H wrote:
>>
>>> In message <48A56A1D...@bytecraft.com>, Walter Banks
>>><wal...@bytecraft.com> writes
>>>>
>>>> We should introduce David to Chuck Falconer self appointed net nanny...
>>> That would be too cruel :-)
>> Besides, he's not a net nanny; more of a net Nazi.
>> Oooops.
>> Thread is Dead.
>
>Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Contrary to popular misconception, one
>doesn't invoke Godwin's Law by incantation.
Please don't cross post. Incantations have nothing to do with
rec.photo.digital