Well, obviously the shock of introducing two stunning cameras in the D3 and D300 have made Nikon introduce a truly underwhelming camera, the D60 (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08012910nikond60.asp).

It's almost as cynical as the 20D to 30D move by Canon. Not only have Nikon finally caught up Canon in IQ and high ISO, but they have decided that Canons lame upgrades for the lower cameras is the way to go.

As far as I can see, it's a D40X with dust reduction!:rolleyes:

Round 1 of 2008 to Canon. Come on, make the D90 a belter!

Geezer

New 16-85 VR on the way too?

link (http://www.thaisecondhand.com/view/print.php?product_id=6056960)

I guess they have to be careful to protect their high-end products.

Time was, not so long ago, that £1000 would buy you a top-of-the-line professional camera. Now you're looking at spending £2000+ for one, so the camera manufacturers are cheerfully raking it in at the expense of film processing labs.

The last thing they want to do is produce a camera that's good enough for everyday professional use for less than they have to. Photographers are already better off because they're not paying for processing any more, so why should the manufacturers want to sell a £1000 camera when they can sell a £2000 camers?

I guess they have to be careful to protect their high-end products.

Time was, not so long ago, that £1000 would buy you a top-of-the-line professional camera. Now you're looking at spending £2000+ for one, so the camera manufacturers are cheerfully raking it in at the expense of film processing labs.

The last thing they want to do is produce a camera that's good enough for everyday professional use for less than they have to. Photographers are already better off because they're not paying for processing any more, so why should the manufacturers want to sell a £1000 camera when they can sell a £2000 camers?

Because the money is not in expensive cameras. For every D3 sold, they probably sell about 50 D50s/D40s etc., and that's considerably more dosh. Even if they only sold 10, it's still alot more than a D3 costs.

The money is in the low end, and Canon must be breathing a big sigh of relief after that announcment. The 450D will sell in droves, and rightly so.

Canon may have a muddled and ill thought out upgrade path, but they can get people on board with the 450D and then worry about sorting out the reat later.

The only thing that might save the D60 is price.

Geezer

Photographers are already better off because they're not paying for processing any more

Photographers aren't paying for processing anymore! Correct
But the processing would be included into the clients invoice!

And that was it as far as the photographer was concerned, hand the trannys over to the client and usually the client would arrange for any repro/retouching to be done.


But now once the photographer has returned from the shot he or she will have to sit infront of there mac/pc sometimes for hours on end, selecting the images. Then carefully processing each file and after that doing any further retouching.
And finally burning them onto a CD/DVD
This is the bit which takes the time.

Photographers should always make sure they include this bit on the invoice as it is certainly chargeable time. Its only like you including film processing on your final invoice to the client.
But the amount of times customers have said to me 'Oh its easier nowadays on digital isn't it'
But they fail to comprehend and understand all the 'post shoot' work that goes into their job.

I have said in the past Jokeingly to some customers who I know quite well, that I'll shoot the job on film and give them trannys. They look at you horror struck as half of them would even know what to do with a transparency:) :)