Nikon's Latest Marketing Fail

Mark1 wrote in post #13184907
Why thank you!!! I got it at the same store Shakesphere got his pen!

Shakespeare didn't use no pen. That man used the best. He wrote everything on his iPad.

Can't say I understand all the Holier-than-thou comments. IMO, 80% of the shooters out there have long since chugged the Kool Aid and have come to believe that buying something will improve their pictures. Nikon is not taking a big step in formalizing this long-standing assumption. Indeed, the entire Photo Industry has long since been taken over by the Marketing Monkeys. They'll sell you megapickles, pretty red rings on your lenses, workshops, photo-editing software that costs more than the camera, and anything else they think they can shove down your throat.

The most insidious aspect of all this is that Joe Shooter truly believes that an extrinsic 'fix' of some sort will correct his crappy pictures. Go to a typical Photography Club and you'll hear more of the same - "What sort of camera are you shooting?" "What RAW utility do you use?" "How do I do HDR?" etc... No one EVER discusses the thought processes that go on when composing a shot or planning a trip, etc. Instead, people focus on all manner of distracting crap that will supposedly lift them to the next level, never realizing that they are shooting themselves in the foot. Oh well, the Monkeys gotta make a living, don't they?

People get bent out of shape over the most innocuous things.

Speaking of Shakespeare..."Much Ado About Nothing" is a play I haven't seen or read, amongst others.

rammsteinmatt wrote in post #13185459
The campaign is clearly directed towards the bottom of the barrel; you know the type... [walks into Best Buy] I want a DSLR cause their pictures are the awesomeness I read it on the inTARDnet. Lets see, the Canon bottom-of-the-line-POS is $30 cheaper than the Nikon and has 1 more megapixel. Sold.

I'm guessing that's what Ansel Adams did

Ansel Adams never said "even the cheapest P&S camera is corrected for maximum definition at the widest aperture" though.

Agreed with your first premise entirely (free ad copy for Nikon this one).

LemonScent wrote in post #13182018
Someone got fired.

I won't believe that until I see the pink slip.

This can't have been intentional but it worked regardless.

And for what it's worth, I agree with the premise, although the implications (that you have to be rich to go birding) are too harmful for people who are unfortunate enough to be stuck with their kit lenses. Seriously, there is some truth to what they're saying, else everybody would be fine using disposables with fixed focus.

Geonerd wrote in post #13185739
Go to a typical Photography Club and you'll hear more of the same...

I don't need to - There's the 'Equipment Talk' section right on this website.

So I guess now we know who their target market is for their recently announced Nikon 1 cameras: not so good photographers; with it's smallish sensor and slowish lenses.

Geonerd wrote in post #13185739
Can't say I understand all the Holier-than-thou comments. IMO, 80% of the shooters out there have long since chugged the Kool Aid and have come to believe that buying something will improve their pictures. Nikon is not taking a big step in formalizing this long-standing assumption. Indeed, the entire Photo Industry has long since been taken over by the Marketing Monkeys. They'll sell you megapickles, pretty red rings on your lenses, workshops, photo-editing software that costs more than the camera, and anything else they think they can shove down your throat.

+1. It runs in the photographic community. According to Pop Photo even, I need Lightroom 3 and a $3,000 Apple computer with Nik Software to put 5 hours of post processing into a snapshot to magically turn it into a prize wining photo. Or even get anything acceptable out of my photos. God forbid I take a good photo I'd be glad to share with others using a cell phone camera and an app I found in the Android market to do in-phone PP. Oh wait...... I have an entire folder full of photos I'd be glad to share doing just that. Canon LOVES shoving MP down our throats (lost count of how many times I've heard "but the Canon has more megapixels, you got more megapixels per $$ with it), Pentax (rightfully so) is riding on their weather resistant gear, Sony is pushing the "never miss a shot ever again" with the high burst rate of the new DLSRs.

On the other hand, it's the people who buy into this "gear above all else" who keep the companies well funded and keep the market going.

I agree with your statement completely.

MrWho wrote in post #13188856
+1. It runs in the photographic community. According to Pop Photo even, I need Lightroom 3 and a $3,000 Apple computer with Nik Software to put 5 hours of post processing into a snapshot to magically turn it into a prize wining photo. Or even get anything acceptable out of my photos. God forbid I take a good photo I'd be glad to share with others using a cell phone camera and an app I found in the Android market to do in-phone PP. Oh wait...... I have an entire folder full of photos I'd be glad to share doing just that. Canon LOVES shoving MP down our throats (lost count of how many times I've heard "but the Canon has more megapixels, you got more megapixels per $$ with it), Pentax (rightfully so) is riding on their weather resistant gear, Sony is pushing the "never miss a shot ever again" with the high burst rate of the new DLSRs.

You're entirely right, the whole concept of 'photography' has shifted from pre-exposure preparation to computer jockey fiddle-farting. I don't care if you're shooting fashion, landscape, architecture, whatever... a compelling photograph requires a lot of thought and planning. I've heard this referred to as 'Traditional Photography.' In today's digital era (whatever you wanna call it), the emphasis has shifted to post-processing - turd polishing, IMO - as the phase where the most effort is expended (or wasted, depending on your POV).

With respect to the Sony - how long before the camera records a continuous stream of full-res images into a big buffer. When the shooter sees something 'interesting' happen, he pushes the shutter and saves the last 50 image for possible future use...

Geonerd wrote in post #13190238
You're entirely right, the whole concept of 'photography' has shifted from pre-exposure preparation to computer jockey fiddle-farting. I don't care if you're shooting fashion, landscape, architecture, whatever... a compelling photograph requires a lot of thought and planning. I've heard this referred to as 'Traditional Photography.' In today's digital era (whatever you wanna call it), the emphasis has shifted to post-processing - turd polishing, IMO - as the phase where the most effort is expended (or wasted, depending on your POV).

With respect to the Sony - how long before the camera records a continuous stream of full-res images into a big buffer. When the shooter sees something 'interesting' happen, he pushes the shutter and saves the last 50 image for possible future use...

Wouldn't that depend on the type of photography one's taking? If you're a journalist, you can't "plan" a whole lot of shots. You're shooting by the seat of your pants.

What if you were a photographer shooting a war zone? You're going to use a blow horn and tell both sides to stop shooting so you can setup the shot the way you wanted/envisioned?

Times have changed and while it's nice to be able to pre-plan and setup your shots whenever possible, it's nice to know that there's more wiggle room these days thanks to the software available. You just need to recognize what is appropriate for the situation at hand.

Those who are stubborn and/or unable to accept/tolerate alternative methodologies will go by way of the dinosaurs... extinct.

LemonScent wrote in post #13182018
Someone got fired.

word.

jwcdds wrote in post #13190254
Those who are stubborn and/or unable to accept/tolerate alternative methodologies will go by way of the dinosaurs... extinct.

There's fixing an image that was all you could get and then there's being just plain lazy. True you can't always get what you want straight OOC all the time (i.e. photojournalism) but it's gotten to the point where enough magazines and "guides" are saying take a crappy picture and turn it into gold with photoshop. Specifically someone who did have the time to setup and mess with settings to get it right in-camera but didn't. I've heard "oh, I can photoshop that out later" many times when out shooting, but the truth is garbage in, garbage out. Those digital tools are there to help when needed, but it's gotten to the point where everything including a simple portrait of a person's family member has been put through 30-40 minutes of lightroom. If photoshop solved everything, why not just buy only a P&S or a tablet and just photoshop everything?

The point is not to avoid touching a computer at all costs, but to get it good enough in-camera that a minimal amount of PP is required, not to put it through several programs on a $3,000 computer to get anything out of it when you had every chance in the world to use physical lighting, filters, and proper lenses to create a quality image to begin with.

MrWho wrote in post #13191699
There's fixing an image that was all you could get and then there's being just plain lazy. True you can't always get what you want straight OOC all the time (i.e. photojournalism) but it's gotten to the point where enough magazines and "guides" are saying take a crappy picture and turn it into gold with photoshop. Specifically someone who did have the time to setup and mess with settings to get it right in-camera but didn't. I've heard "oh, I can photoshop that out later" many times when out shooting, but the truth is garbage in, garbage out. Those digital tools are there to help when needed, but it's gotten to the point where everything including a simple portrait of a person's family member has been put through 30-40 minutes of lightroom. If photoshop solved everything, why not just buy only a P&S or a tablet and just photoshop everything?

The point is not to avoid touching a computer at all costs, but to get it good enough in-camera that a minimal amount of PP is required, not to put it through several programs on a $3,000 computer to get anything out of it when you had every chance in the world to use physical lighting, filters, and proper lenses to create a quality image to begin with.

Why not quote my full statement instead of just one sentence? Because I'm pretty sure I noted that if/when possible, it's good to setup the shot, no?

jwcdds wrote in post #13192155
Why not quote my full statement instead of just one sentence? Because I'm pretty sure I noted that if/when possible, it's good to setup the shot, no?

I snipped some out to avoid having a block of text quoted, and I agreed with the part about pre-planning. The post was directed a little more towards what was quoted aka the adapting part and was written with the magazines that focus all on photoshop instead of technique or lighting equipment and all of that in mind which is what came to mind when I saw "adapt".

Apologies if I read too much into it.

It's easier to deal with the equipment then the problem. So, if I buy equipment X, I'm a legit photographer. If I buy cooking pot Y, I'm a serious cook. And so on. It's human nature.

Ah the old "You can't polish a turd" chestnut. I beg to differ

I put a lot of thought and planning into this shot:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/spacemunkie/3​914842431/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/spacemunkie/3​855768204/