I haven't seen the magazine, but surely they are trying to be funny. It's a joke.
If I had been present at the creation, I would have given some useful hints for the better arrangement of the Universe.
Alfonso the Wise, 1221-1284
That magazine lost all relevance with me a long time ago. It simply became a ugly, boring resource, not to mention, I could think of a lot of things to do with my $12 or so a year it cost, like buy some film.
He was just upset because he had spent a half an hour trying to jam the 35mm cassette into the card reader on his PC before someone finally told him that he had to bring it to a lab.
Originally Posted by Tom Duffy
That is called grain. It is supposed to be there.
I think the editors are pissed that it won't be out of date and or discontinued in 18 months leaving them nothing to talk about. The sales dept is pissed because the bulk of their revenues are based upon products with a life expectancy of <18 months. HR is pissed off because if the F6 is a trend then they may need to hire writers who can do more than regurgitate product PR.
Was it the April 1st issue?
[COLOR=SlateGray]"You can't depend on your eyes if your imagination is out of focus." -Mark Twain[/COLOR]
Rio Rancho, NM
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Even when Pop Photo wasn't all woo-woo for digital they still didn't bother to hire writers that did more than regurgitate PR. Or occasionally get very confused; the Epson RD-1 review in that same issue struck me as really amazing in its ability to miss the point.
Fair enough - it's fun to drool. So, do you think they were not being objective any more? Or were you simply objecting to their objectivity?
Originally Posted by Tom Duffy
Again, fair enough.
2. I enjoy Herbert Keppler's monthly column on the SLR. He knows the history of the SLR (hell, he lived it!).
Um, why not just say you don't really care for digital cameras and let them make their own way into the darkness? My first question for those people is "Why do you want a digital camera?" and then try to talk them into buying a film camera. I usually introduce enough doubt that they at least consider buying a new film camera.
3. Last Christmas, 5 people asked me which point and shoot digital camera they should buy.
It sounds to me like you might be paying too much ....
Finally, it costs about a dollar a month.
Nikon should be lauded for the decision, instead we get this pithy little put down from the photography magazine with the largest circulation in the world.
But I guess you got your dollar's worth, right?
FWIW, Photography Monthly (UK) did a review of the F6 in their January 2005 issue. It was a fair review, no negatives. The only comment they made was along the line of "in an increasingly digital world, we don't see how professionals can justify the cost of a film camera like the F6". Well, I have decided that if I ever replace my N80 it will be with an F6. What a beautiful camera!!
I picked up an F6 soon after it came out, and I love it. I had and F4 previously, and the AF is light years ahead of the F4. I like that it is a smaller camera, as the F4 is a bit bulky and heavy with the 6 AA pack on it.
Originally Posted by roteague
I think its kind of funny that people are calling it "so expensive", since here in Canada its about $2600, and the closest digital competitor in terms of being full frame and similar image quality is the Canon 1DS mk2, which sells for $9500. In that company, the F6 is a bargain and pays for a lot of film to even come close to the EOS's price.
Is it the April issue yet? They have been know to pull some legs in the past. My favorite was a review of some really awful photographs, that ended up being shown at a gallery and a reception to follow. The photographers was one of the editors' last names reversed, and the whole thing was a very elaborate prank. I really enjoyed it.