|
Well that's interesting. Nikon has begun selling their own stuff. That's going to piss off their distributors. http://shop.nikonusa.com/
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2010 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:02 |
|
|
Mannequin posted:That's going to piss off their distributors. On a related note: One of their flash screens crows "The confidence of 50 million" in regards to Nikkor SLR lenses. That's nuts. They've* made more than 50 million lenses. Fifty million. Jesus. *"They" includes lots and lots of Chinese and Thai factories since 1991.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2010 17:30
|
|
|
If Nikon competes directly with its retailers/distributors they won't want to carry Nikon products. This is not a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2010 17:32
|
|
|
Canon has an online store too, but you would have to be nuts to use it. Everything costs more to buy direct. If Nikon does the same thing it wouldn't upset any dealers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2010 17:56
|
|
|
If they use their means of production towards significantly undercutting distributors' prices, sure. Otherwise they're simply another store selling product that any distributor is able to sell. Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8D Nikon: $134.95 Amazon: $119.95 B&H: $119.95 Nikkor AF 16mm Fisheye f/2.8D Nikon: $999.95 Amazon: $909.95 B&H: $899.95 Nikkor AF-S 400mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon: $9,549.95 Amazon: $8,899.95 B&H: $8,899.95 I don't foresee B&H boycotting Nikon anytime soon. e;fb, but I have links 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2010 17:57
|
|
|
Okay. Maybe it will just end up pissing off high-end dealers (like Ritz), since they seem to be at about the same price point. Edit: The other thing I was thinking of was small camera stores because they can't buy in huge volumes like B&H. But I guess they faced that problem anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2010 17:59
|
|
|
Nikon will be selling stuff at MSRP, everywhere else will be selling it for less (except maybe hot new products). I am not really sure who it is meant for, anyone who knows anything will buy from B&H or something like that since you get the same product for less. Maybe they will sell re-furbs or something like that I am not really sure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2010 18:38
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:Nikon will be selling stuff at MSRP, everywhere else will be selling it for less (except maybe hot new products). I am not really sure who it is meant for, anyone who knows anything will buy from B&H or something like that since you get the same product for less. Maybe they will sell re-furbs or something like that I am not really sure. Yeah, that's in the outlet tab. Not that good of deals, but we'll see.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2010 19:29
|
|
|
I found this one while scrolling through tumblr: (And yes, I don't really like Terry Richardson's stuff)
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 18:24
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I found this one while scrolling through tumblr: someone needs to add a third panel of the owl being raped. drat I've just realized that you probably don't need to look hard to find a picture of a guy in an owl suit being screwed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 18:25
|
|
|
Spedman posted:(And yes, I don't really like Terry Richardson's stuff) I think you just have to look at Terry Richardson for what he is: an alternative to the million other celebrity shooters who sanitize everything and would never in a million years cross a publicist. It used to be that a photographer could shoot an editorial with a celebrity and not have a bunch of handler's fingers in the process telling them what they can and can't do. Richardson is one of the few people who can get away with taking risks and actually do something interesting. How many editorials does the world need with a retouched to hell celebrity on seamless, smiling with soft broad light along with some kind of tasteful copy about losing weight or sex tips? poo poo is boring. I can't even count the number of magazines I've seen Lindsay Lohan in where I did not recognize her because of the styling/retouching, but Terry Richardson was the guy who somehow convinced her to pose on a giant mirror literally the same week she got out of rehab.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 19:06
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I fully appreciate what your saying, I really digged his photos but that was before I knew who he was or what he's like. I don't think I can separate him from his work, primarily as he's in a lot of it. And I think the other problem I have is imitators doing really crap versions of his work and calling it edgy. But this is all a photographic amatuer's opinion. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 19:56
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I fully appreciate what your saying, I really digged his photos but that was before I knew who he was or what he's like. I don't think I can separate him from his work, primarily as he's in a lot of it. And I think the other problem I have is imitators doing really crap versions of his work and calling it edgy. But this is all a photographic amatuer's opinion. To be honest Terry Richardsons personality only makes his work more interesting to me edit: I'm not really sure what you mean by what you said, what is it about him that makes you dislike his work? Twenties Superstar fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Sep 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 23:09
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I fully appreciate what your saying, I really digged his photos but that was before I knew who he was or what he's like. I don't think I can separate him from his work, primarily as he's in a lot of it. And I think the other problem I have is imitators doing really crap versions of his work and calling it edgy. But this is all a photographic amatuer's opinion. I think that's it. Terry Richardson's work on its own is fine. It's all the Richardson wanna-bes that are ruining it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 23:10
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:To be honest Terry Richardsons personality only makes his work more interesting to me Its the numerous stories you read about him bullying young inexperienced models into getting naked to get his shots, and his overall creepiness in a sexual predator kind of way that turns me off him. Like I said, if I didn't know of this I'd probably like his work a hell'ova lot more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 00:08
|
|
|
Nothing personal about the guy, he just doesn't really shoot in a way that appeals to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 03:33
|
|
|
I'm a moron, sometimes. I was doing some low light shooting this weekend at around dusk, action snapshots of torgeaux, jr. being attacked by the torgeaux family animals. Just couldn't get focus down, and I was using my 70-200 f/2.8L, which is really good. Everything soft. Suspected it was the AF used, so I switched to single shot. Nope, still not good. Finally realized I'd been shooting Av, and hadn't changed my ISO, so I was shooting 200mm at 1/50th. Dumbass.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 19:46
|
|
|
Good news! I made into the film class I wanted, and the prof is going to let me use a friend's hassel. So now I'll get to learn the mysterious ways of the darkroom. Also, nyfw! On Terry Richardson, I definitely feel the same way as spedmen. His photography has a lot of merit, but it's kind of creepy and predatory. I always feel like of skeezy looking at his stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 21:46
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:I'm a moron, sometimes. I was doing some low light shooting this weekend at around dusk, action snapshots of torgeaux, jr. being attacked by the torgeaux family animals. Just couldn't get focus down, and I was using my 70-200 f/2.8L, which is really good. Everything soft. Suspected it was the AF used, so I switched to single shot. Nope, still not good. I really wonder why there isn't some kind of lock on the setting's wheel. It's frustrating to have it slip to Av when you have your M settings all dialed in or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 21:50
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I really wonder why there isn't some kind of lock on the setting's wheel. It's frustrating to have it slip to Av when you have your M settings all dialed in or whatever. With the battery grip, my 5Dii is huge, so when it goes in my bag, the wheel frequently gets moved. I'm pretty good about checking it out, but sometimes forget.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 21:56
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I really wonder why there isn't some kind of lock on the setting's wheel. It's frustrating to have it slip to Av when you have your M settings all dialed in or whatever. I think the new 60D has a locking mechanism on the mode dial.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 21:59
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I really wonder why there isn't some kind of lock on the setting's wheel. It's frustrating to have it slip to Av when you have your M settings all dialed in or whatever. A little tab of gaffer tape will fix that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 22:00
|
|
|
nonanone posted:On Terry Richardson, I definitely feel the same way as spedmen. His photography has a lot of merit, but it's kind of creepy and predatory. I always feel like of skeezy looking at his stuff. I feel kind of the same way but it's also what makes him interesting to me. You can't tell where the real him starts and his 'brand' starts. It's kind of Warhol-esque, he's created this situation where he can get away with basically anything that a lot of other celebrity photographers couldn't do in a million years, but he still maintains access to these very high level people (ie. the President). I know from trading listen-to-what-this-crazy-motherfucker-did stories with other assistants, who knows how much is actually true about him. And not to diminish the accusations of him crossing the line, buttttttttt this blog post kind of sums up how I feel about it: http://streetbonersandtvcarnage.com/blog/terry-richardson-raped-me-too/ (NSFW)
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 22:49
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Finally realized I'd been shooting Av, and hadn't changed my ISO, so I was shooting 200mm at 1/50th. Dumbass. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 23:29
|
|
|
psylent posted:I somehow flicked it to B during a wedding ceremony the other day Imagine my confusion when I discovered that B is a mode, not shutter speed, on the 1DIII.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 23:45
|
|
|
brad industry posted:buttttttttt this blog post kind of sums up how I feel about it:
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 00:03
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm a little divided about it because while there's definitely a lot "well, how could you not know this was coming" the models are also under a lot of pressure to do pretty questionable stuff overall. For example, one young model I knew moved to NYC, and the first thing I hear is "she used to be against nudes, but now she's learned what she has to do haha."  I mean, the models have the least control over anything unless she's big-shot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 01:08
|
|
|
nonanone posted:Yeah, I'm a little divided about it because while there's definitely a lot "well, how could you not know this was coming" the models are also under a lot of pressure to do pretty questionable stuff overall. For example, one young model I knew moved to NYC, and the first thing I hear is "she used to be against nudes, but now she's learned what she has to do haha." Yeah, and they're often the most replaceable part of a project because they know there are a dozen girls behind them that'd do whatever it takes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 01:13
|
|
|
Side note: Terry Richardson sucks at urbex http://www.terrysdiary.com/ (Photos from Sept 6+7) He was at Michigan Central Station and didn't even shoot inside? And whats with the uninspired house interiors? Come oooon! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 01:49
|
|
|
Is anyone else noticing that when taking photos of people in public, if the response is negative, it has changed from "Don't take my picture" to "You should pay me for taking my photo". People understand that they don't have expectation to privacy, but now expect compensation for it. This is probably because cameras are everywhere, and the most random local news clips go "viral" causing every person to think that they have a right to get their 10 seconds of recognition and want to capitalize on it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 03:38
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Is anyone else noticing that when taking photos of people in public, if the response is negative, it has changed from "Don't take my picture" to "You should pay me for taking my photo". People understand that they don't have expectation to privacy, but now expect compensation for it. Really? It's mostly homeless people that ask me for a few bucks to take their pictures, I don't think I've really run into anybody that's asked me for compensation, but they always want to give me their e-mail so they can have a copy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 04:12
|
|
|
nonanone posted:Good news! I made into the film class I wanted, and the prof is going to let me use a friend's hassel. So now I'll get to learn the mysterious ways of the darkroom. Also, nyfw! The first thing you should learn about the mysterious ways of the darkroom is that Hasselblad is shortened to Hassey - edit: Also, the "is this art or is it obscene" is one of the oldest debates in art and Terry Richardson's work and the response embodies it perfectly. On top of that Richardson's stuff is not even the most "racy" stuff out there, you can cite uncomfortable models until your face turns blue but there are other sketchy rear end dudes out there that get just as much if not even more acclaim than him. edit2: also don't even try to talk like pretty much all "UrbEx Photography" isn't uninspired garbage Twenties Superstar fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Sep 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 08:12
|
|
|
It pisses me off that I can make out pictures taken by full frames in the snapshot thread with an uncanny reliability. I want one. Sadly, they're still unaffordable as poo poo. I'm planning my gadget budgets on monthly net income, so any bonuses are assumed unplanned, even if they're regular ones, like the end of year one (Xmas monies!). Sadly the camera budget plus end of year bonus still won't get me a 5D MkII. And used body prices on Ebay are totally hosed, they usually sell for close or more than a new body.  
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 16:55
|
|
|
Get a mark1, problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 17:05
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:It pisses me off that I can make out pictures taken by full frames in the snapshot thread with an uncanny reliability. I want one. I have a hard time believing this. I would say it's probably that people with full frame cameras are a bit more serious as photographers and are better at postprocessing. Being able to see differences in resolution at the size they are posted at in SAD is a bit ridiculous. Hell if you compare the sensors in a 1DmkIV, a D3s and a D90 the only place that the full frame cameras really excel over APS-C is in their high ISO performance. Source: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/%28appareil1%29/439|0/%28appareil2%29/629|0/%28appareil3%29/628|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Nikon/%28brand2%29/Canon/%28brand3%29/Nikon All that being said I still want a D700. I'm going to wait until they come down in price quite a bit though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 20:26
|
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:I have a hard time believing this. I would say it's probably that people with full frame cameras are a bit more serious as photographers and are better at postprocessing. Being able to see differences in resolution at the size they are posted at in SAD is a bit ridiculous. He may be referring to the shallower depth of field that's available, or the wider angles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 20:57
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:He may be referring to the shallower depth of field that's available, or the wider angles. Even then you can get a pretty drat shallow DOF with a fast lens. There are also plenty of wide angle zooms too. Which brings me to the point that I want a fast wide angle for crop sensors dammit. Something like a 20mm f/2 would be perfect. Edit: On a D3s with a 50mm f/1.8 the depth of field range is between 5.77ft and 6.25ft (0.47 feet total) if the subject is 6 feet away from the shooter. On a D90 with the same lens and distance the focal range is between 5.85 ft and 6.16 ft (0.32 feet.) That's not really that big of a difference in DOF. I'm not trying to be a dick or anything I'm just pointing out the fact that it's pretty hard to tell just from an image what kind of camera they were shot with especially after post processing. It's like people who claim they can tell if an image came from a Nikon or Canon. It's gear fetishization. ZoCrowes fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Sep 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 21:22
|
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:Even then you can get a pretty drat shallow DOF with a fast lens. There are also plenty of wide angle zooms too. That's the big draw of full frame for me. I love the 14mm f/2.8 Rokinon. 14mm, truly 14mm, is loving fantastic. My 24mm f/1.8 is fun as hell also.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 21:27
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:That's the big draw of full frame for me. I love the 14mm f/2.8 Rokinon. 14mm, truly 14mm, is loving fantastic. My 24mm f/1.8 is fun as hell also. That's part of the reason I want to move to full frame. I do a lot of concert shooting and being able to get that wide and fast would be amazing. On the other hand having a fast zoom and a crop body is great for getting portrait shots at shows.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 21:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:02 |
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:That's part of the reason I want to move to full frame. I do a lot of concert shooting and being able to get that wide and fast would be amazing. On the other hand having a fast zoom and a crop body is great for getting portrait shots at shows. Reach versus width, the age old dilemma. The solution? 1D.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 21:37
|
|