["Open Mike" is the Editorial Page of TOP,
in which Yr. Hmbl Ed. betimes pouts, oft
proclaims, and ever opines.]
Richard Skoonberg commented, on the "Nikon-RED" post: "I have always had a passion for photography, however, I spent approximately 10 years working as a professional video producer. I made television commercials, promotional videos, and a TV pilot. Unlike photography, video production is more closely related to filmmaking and involves different skills. It is a form of visual storytelling that requires more than just a camera. To produce an engaging video, you must have a well-written script, talented actors, proper lighting and audio equipment, a crew, and access to editing software. You also need money. Using a DSLR as a substitute for a professional video camera is kind of silly. All the extras you need [are] already built into video cameras, so it never made sense to me."
Making sense? There are lots of things we would do if we were sensible. We'd put an age limit on being president (make it so that any candidate has to be in their 40s or 50s on election day; that would do the trick). There would be no McDonalds. There would never have been "infotainment" screens in motor vehicles—I don't know about you, but I've found that I drive better when I pay attention to the road and the actions of other drivers. We'd outlaw tackle football, at least for children. Protect birds. We'd get rid of QWERTY and the legacy horizontal stagger on keyboards. (Mike! Do not go there! Some subjects are just too touchy!)
And we wouldn't put video cameras in all still cameras. Maybe only half of them. Okay, okay, 70%. Doesn't still photography deserve 30% of the market for loyalty after 185 years of faithful service? Stop making all of our tools double as some other tool.
(I should start an militant movement in favor of still cameras. Placard on stick: HYBRID CAMERAS ARE SPORKS)
There are lots of things we would do if we were sensible. :-)
Mike, admittedly out of step with the culture...
Ed. note: This post was re-edited late Sunday night. Too late Sunday night.
Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)
Featured Comments from:
Ken Sky: "Primes are usually better than zooms (for IQ). And certainly single use photography equipment tends to outperform multiple use equipment except for convenience. However, there seems to be a renaissance for vintage style cameras. Old-timers like me never use the video functions in modern cameras. But, we represent a small segment of the market. And no, I will not return to vinyl but you will take my CDs out of my cold dead hands."
Rick in CO: "The simplicity of a Leica M10. Backed up by an iPhone."
Mike replies: Now there's a really elegant little outfit! Retro in the best way, and yet no one could accuse you of not being up to the moment.
Kye Wood: "Knowing the things you removed from the original post, now...I honestly find it quite unsettling that you felt you needed to remove them. I figure this comment won't make the cut. Just wanted you to know that editing yourself is part of how we got to 'here' in the world."
Mike replies: Yes, it's a dilemma, one I have pondered many times. I'm aware that when I self-edit that I'm being "a good German." (Wikipedia says, "Good Germans is an ironic term...referring to German citizens during and after World War II who claimed not to have supported the Nazi regime, but remained silent and did not resist in a meaningful way.") I know I'm not contributing to any solutions. But it's a photography and general interest blog. I wrote a political blog before I started this one, and it achieved 20,000 page views in a year. This blog averaged 20,000 page views a day in its peak years of 2011–18.
I probably do my readership a disservice by proactively editing out progressive ideas just because someone might object. Even if they're far to the right of me, the great majority of TOP readers are plenty intelligent and secure enough to read divergent viewpoints without feeling threatened or responding negatively. I'm that way too—when Trump became the nominee ahead of the 2016 election, my response was to read a biography of him. But there's always that odd-man-out. One guy threatened to leave if I ever mentioned global warming or climate change again. (Guess he just left.) I also had a TOP reader threaten to withdraw his Patreon support and it turned out he wasn't even a Patreon supporter! That takes a bit of cheek.
But in the end, I don't want to make people uncomfortable, and discussions of hot-button topics often do that.
ASW: "I read the original post last night and didn't have any problems or disagreements with the points you have now edited into oblivion. But, I also recognize that you have to walk a tightrope to not make this or that group of folks upset. Knowing that you have a child and now a grandchild, I am glad that you think about these sorts of big-picture issues. Much better than the many folks who can't see past the end of their own nose when it comes to the future they're creating and supporting for their descendants."
Mr Andrew Johnston: "Sorry Mike, you're wrong on this one. The problem with many hybrid tools (spork is a prime example) is that they do neither or no thing well. That's not the case here. Cameras in this class do at least one of the two things well, in many cases both. Something like the Panasonic G9II or S5II is a professionally capable stills camera, on which you can either use the video or largely ignore it (as I do), or use the video and ignore the stills capability (as I have seen done). However when you need the other capability, it's there, just where you need it. And just to annoy everyone, I drive a convertible and use the air-conditioning!"
Mike replies: But as with some of my other enthusiasms, I'm not advocating that there be no hybrid stills-video cameras, just that some cameras not be. Same thing with B&W-only cameras—a small selection (which we now have) is enough; I don't insist that color be banished altogether. Same thing with simple, or rather just-complex-enough cameras (which we do not have, unless you count Leica). Same thing with a TLR-style digital (viewing screen on top with a fold-out hood) which we do not have. Same thing with cameras designed to make files exclusively for use on screens. We also do not have those, at least not in the way I envision them.
And I sometimes drove the Miata in borderline Winter weather with the top down and the heat on!
Jim Arthur: "Infotainment Screens: According to my 2023 CR car issue, the In-Car electronics are the least reliable part of a new car. On page 85 they summarize reliability across 17 categories (trouble spots) based on 300,000 survey responses, and the entertainment/navigation/communication systems have at least twice the problems of other categories. While those infotainment screens can be handy (tempting) for their mapping/communication abilities, they are also data harvesting gold mines for automakers. Mozilla recently published a report named Privacy Not Included that begins…'It's Official: Cars are the worst product category we have ever reviewed for privacy.' Because your phone can be connected to the car, all sorts of information (texts, call logs, health app info, genetic info, etc.) can be collected for resale and you can’t manage (opt out) this data. Soon all cars will come equipped with video cameras that watch the driver at all times as part of the active driver assistance system. Lord knows how they will monetize this new video data. Apparently they already monitor the driver, passengers and nearby pedestrians in one way or another. The report mentions that the Nissan and Kia privacy policies state they can collect data on your sexual activity and sex life…whatever that means. Note that there was also a recent Washington State class action suit against the automakers for data collection."
]]>Every now and then a particular photograph draws the public's attention. Right now it's a photo of a mother surrounded by her children, all grinning as madly as Americans.
A few past examples of such viral photos spring to mind. In 1994, there was a Los Angeles Police Department mugshot of O.J. Simpson used on the cover of both TIME and Newsweek, two weekly magazines that were major news sources then. Newsweek ran it apparently straight; the one on TIME's cover was given to photographer Matt Mahurin to "interpret," and was labeled, in a credit in small type on page 3, as a "photo illustration." The changes he made were highlighted, of course, by comparison with the Newsweek version, which was easy, because the magazines were usually displayed right next to each other on most newsstands. In TIME's version, O.J. was made to look more sinister and menacing, which of course had racial overtones. Black people were not the only ones who took exception. The managing editor of TIME didn't seem especially sensitive to the resulting storm of criticism, either, even after having had time to reflect on it.
Another was a picture taken in early 2009 of Captain "Sully" Sullenberger's US Airways Flight 1549 floating in the middle of the Hudson River, with people standing on the wing and huddled on the inflatable exit slide prior to rescue. It was taken by one Janice Krums, with a cellphone, the cameras in which were still crude at the time. It was one of the first photographs of the incident to be circulated, an early example of crowdsourced photojournalism before that idea became ordinary.
A third was the 2014 group selfie taken at the annual Oscar Ceremony when host Ellen DeGeneres decided to carry out a carefully planned "spontaneous" selfie shoot with Meryl Streep. But Bradley Cooper grabbed "her" phone, and a whole crowd of movie stars photo-bombed the planned dual-selfie of Ellen and Meryl. The phone wasn't really Ellen's—she owned an iPhone at the time, but Samsung had paid a lot of money to be a sponsor for the Oscars that year, so, after delicate negotiations, Ellen had been presented with a tray of Samsung delicacies from which to choose her phone-for-the-night. The resulting group shot was retweeted 750,000 times in 45 minutes and, according to Fred Graver, a member of Twitter's TV Team in 2014, "broke" Twitter for a short time. (Twitter is now known as "X, formerly known as Twitter.")
Kate's Uncle Gary called it "Sleevegate"
The photo of the Princess of Wales and her three children appears to have been clumsily doctored in small but possibly significant ways. As soon as the discrepancies were discovered, the news agencies all issued kill notices. In the ongoing absence of real information, the picture became the subject of intense scrutiny and speculation. The Princess herself appeared to take the blame, tweeting (X'ing), "Like many amateur photographers, I do occasionally experiment with editing." (Hereby nominated our Quote o' the Day.)
On the subject of scrutinizing photographs for the purpose of divining whatever truth might lie behind them, I hope you have seen The Commissar Vanishes by David King. (I'm sorry, that's his name.) Just from the cover of that book you can get the gist of the concept—as Stalin had rivals murdered, which seems a predilection of Russian leaders, he also had them expunged from photographs. The word was that during the Stalinist years, the CIA had a department whose job it was to scrutinize Soviet publicity photographs for clues as to what was going on in the Soviet hierarchy. That book kept coming to mind whenever my glance flitted across a headline about the photo of Catherine and her kids. You couldn't avoid those. Maybe your library has the book.
Princess Catherine has been out of sight for a number of weeks, purportedly recuperating from a planned medical procedure, which remains the simplest explanation for her absence from view. But a story that's emerging more lately makes it appear that she might be facing the sort of humiliation that in most peoples' lives would remain partly or mostly hidden, restricted to a local community or a circle of friends, but which in her case would be laid bare before the entire world. Humiliation magnifies according to the size of the audience, as you might know if you have ever been shamed in public through no fault of your own; I hope you haven't. I don't have the heart to limn the details. These people might be royals, but they're still people. That's how I choose to read them right now. No direct proof of anything seems to exist—it's overwhelmingly a matter of gossip and the sort of "facts" that often get agreed upon in the absence of facts. Hence all the attention being paid to a picture that is in itself nothing much to go on. Perhaps a young wife is in private pain in a life that is too public for that. And...so? If privacy is the real reason she's out of sight, let her have it. Most couples and all families go through periods of difficulty. Being privileged is no protection. They're still people. Life is not always a fairy tale even for a princess.
Mike
Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)
Featured Comments from:
Malcolm Myers: "As a Brit and a Royalist I thank you for your sensitive post on this subject. It's been headline news over here for no reason I can really think of. It has given the conspiracy theorists in the press a field day. The truth will out eventually I'm sure but everyone is entitled to medical confidentiality, even those in the public eye."
MarkB: "My decades in the ad industry make me certain the unskilled retoucher in her public-facing media team was summarily dismissed, and the art directors given a stern talking-to about 'attention to detail, regardless of the messaging deadline.' (The '...experiment with editing' quote is almost equally ham-handed. Maybe her copywriters should also get the boot.)"
]]>Thom accused me today of being "knee-jerk." Definition: "(of a response) automatic and unthinking." Sounds like ad hominem to me. I am many things (wayward, eccentric, crackpot maybe), but I promise, I am not knee-jerk. I think way too much about this stuff. :-)
But to further illuminate where I'm coming from, the thing that got me excited in Thom's original "Nikon Acquires RED" article is this part:
So how does Nikon pull in new users from the young that want to go beyond what the product they grew up with does?
I’m pretty sure the answer lives in APS-C (or as Nikon calls it, DX). That’s because of cost and size, first and foremost. You don’t go from carrying a phone in your pocket to a 35 pound bag-a-gear on your back in one step ;~). You also don’t go from letting the phone make all the decisions and heavy lifting to dealing with 2+ billion customization possibilities in one step, either. Finally, you don’t go from the modest phone sensor costs to global shutter full frame sensor costs in one step.
Thus my comment: the answer lies in APS-C done right. We’ll see how fast Nikon figures that out.
APS-C done right. That's the precinct where I would be happiest contributing, if I could have any say in camera design and market planning. (Big IF. Thom likes to be prescriptive with Nikon—his relationship with the company is that of a gadfly, in the noblest Socratean sense—but I don't have much stomach for telling companies what to do. Because not only do they not listen, they don't even want to give the appearance of having heard, lest there be litigation over the credit for ideas in the future. I've actually had companies [not in the photographic sphere] implement specific ideas of mine, in detail, unmistakably, after long, multi-part discussions, and then disavow knowing me and deny having heard from me after the products came out. I had never mentioned payment and didn't require any, but they had to be sure. That's corporate behavior. Covermyassism. And it makes sense from the corporation's perspective, if you conceive of a corporation being a juggernaut that must constantly cruise forward and feed itself like a shark, preying on whatever it comes across.)
But I digress. DX would be the area where my ideas about what cameras should be would be most at home. IF Nikon could get comfortable thinking of DX as a transition step between smartphones and full-capability FF mirrorless Z cameras; and IF Nikon could get over that period in its history when it intended to stay dedicated to DX, stubbornly not moving to FF (later FX) until it realized it didn't get to say; and IF it could get over the cultural imperative to festoon and becrud products with all possible features purely as lazy marketing; and IF it could get over the failure of the Nikon 1 cameras while at the same time realizing that the Nikon 1 cameras were actually pretty good cameras in some important ways....
...Ah, forget it. Never happen. I don't think I should bother discussing my vision for what such Nikons might be like. I'd be a gadfly on the hide of a rhino. The rhino never knowing the fly was there. I accept that I'm at odds with current camera culture and that's an end on it.
But that's the area I like. It occurred to me yesterday that the Integra Type S I drove the other day is the best car I've ever driven as well as probably the best car I ever will drive. Part of that is that it's right at the very upper edge of the category I'm at home in: go any bigger, more powerful, fancier, more exclusive, more expensive than that, and I would progressively lose interest more and more. I wouldn't drive a Lambo if I had the chance. No interest. Back when I briefly sold audio, the other salesmen would gather after work in the high-end room for a soak in the Wilson Watt-Puppies and the $35,000 four-piece Krell Audio Standard, each channel on its own separate 40-amp circuit. I, meanwhile, alone, would head to the mid-fi room to listen carefully to mini-monitors, box two-ways and three-ways with no bass like the Spendor SP-1, along with 85-WPC one-box power amps and barebones preamps—simple, purist, purposeful, elegant, accessible, and nothing at all pretentious, snobby or show-offy in any corner of the room. No interest in the "statement" Krells and Wilsons; no interest in statements. Listening in the high-end room to the "reference" system and audiophile-approved recordings, I would fidget and squirm, and try to remain polite. I didn't enjoy it. It left me cold.
But a thoroughgoing reconceptualization of DX as a gateway step between phones and the Z series? As an excuse to make a pared-down light-weight single-purpose RWD roadster of a camera? I'd be all over that. Thom would have to move over!
Mike
P.S. If I bought a new car now it would probably be the Civic Si. Pending a test-drive, which might not be trivial to arrange: the local Honda dealer told me there's a year-long wait list! But I'm pretty sure my next car will be electric, or at least PHEV (plug-in hybrid electric vehicle).
Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)
Featured Comments from:
Dave Millier: "I recently purchased a Kia E-Niro EV. By no means a high-end EV, just a budget compact crossover with an all-electric drive train (there are ICE and Hybrid versions as well).
"What a car! Just makes petrol cars instantly obsolete. Accelerates like many a hot-hatch, but smooth as a Rolls. No stupid clutch to have to constantly pump as you stop-start along through the London rush hour at an average speed of 4 MPH. No choking tailpipe emissions. No gears to mess with. Most of the time you don't even have to brake, as it stops on its own when you lift on the throttle. Not quite a Tesla, but it does nearly 300 miles on a charge and (if you are crazy) the cruise control maintains your speed, slows automatically or speeds up again to maintain a set distance to the car in front, and it steers itself around bends! Terrifying, but it can do it.
"Best, Dave Millier, newly minted LRPS"
[The initialism means "Licentiate, Royal Photographic Society." More explanation here. Congratulations on that, Dave! —Ed.]
Nigel Voak: "I believe that DX was a stopgap sensor format that really does not make much sense in today's market. DX lenses are not much smaller or lighter than lenses made for 35mm sensors. Indeed the unexpectedly good 24–200mm travel zoom I use on my Z7 weighs about the same as its Olympus Micro 4/3 equivalent. The 17–55 ƒ/2.8 zoom I used on my D300 was a heavy beast of a lens probably not much lighter than a 24–70 ƒ/2.8 FF lens. Looking at the second hand market. There seems to be a big upsurge in the demand for 'vintage' glass. Especially at the wide end, these lenses make little sense on a DX- or smaller-sensor formats. Again specialist lenses like my shift lenses are best matched to 35mm sensors."
Mike replies: That 17–55mm you mention wasn't characteristic. It was an all-out professional lens made to match the pro-oriented DX cameras like the D500 while Nikon was still planning to stick with APS-C. Very big and heavy relative to its coverage. Also one of the best zooms I ever used, in the top 20, creme de la creme.
Dogman: "I won't hold my breath on Nikon ever taking the DX format very seriously. They never really did that with their DSLRs (after the introduction of the D3) except for a couple of lenses and one 'pro' model for use with their long telephotos. This after touting DX as the best choice for digital pro cameras (again, until they introduced the D3). Of course, my crystal ball is cloudy and who knows?"
John Camp: "Comment on Thom's post. I'm a longtime Nikon user, going back to the '70s, and Thom is one of the most useful resources on the net for people like me.
"But I disagree about the DX. They're not really smaller or handier and you don't have to have a 35-pound bag around your shoulder. I know that because my Nikon Z7 II has a 24–120mm ƒ/4 S mounted on the front and it fits nicely in what I believe is Think Tank's second smallest bag (the one they copied from Domke) along with Nikon's superb 85mm, a couple of batteries, a couple of cards and a charger.
"There really isn't much difference in the handling between a Z7 II and a DX, the lenses aren't much different, and if people are thinking of moving from a phone to a ICL camera, then there's also the prestige factor involved—why carry an identifiable 'amateur' camera where you could carry a full frame pro rig? There's a difference in cost, of course, but what about resale value if you decide to go back to your phone, or the new purchase cost if you decide to move up to FF?
"I'm aware of some of this because I have a X-T5 Fuji APS-C which is slightly smaller overall than my Z7 II, but then again, at the far end of things, the Z7 II is also slightly better. (The X-T5 is a fabulous camera. I could go the rest of my life needing nothing else. But the Nikon does have an edge.) IMHO."
Craig Yuill: "Nikon has been breaking my heart for a number of years. They created the Nikon 1 system, which I bought into shortly after it was introduced. Sadly, it was hampered by missing/crippled features, and lenses that were solid optically but could be unreliable mechanically and electronically. It was unceremoniously discontinued once the Z system was introduced.
"A few years ago I bought a D500, a superb DX-format DSLR, for bird photography. (It is a very fine general-purpose camera too.) I had considered buying one of their DX-format Z-mount cameras, but decided against it because of lacklustre AF and lack of IBIS. Unfortunately, it appears that Nikon is unlikely to introduce a DX camera with better AF, like some of the APS-C cameras that their competitors have on the market. One suggestion that annoys me to no end is to just buy a US$4,000 Z8 and crop down to DX. Yeah, right! I might have to look at another brand for a higher-performance crop-sensor mirrorless camera."
Mike replies: Yeah, actually this post of mine is extremely unrealistic. Nikon has demonstrated little commitment to DX and the smaller 1 System for many years now. It's not going to suddenly want to develop newthink small-sensor stepping-stone cameras to lure maturing smartphone photographers into the brand and eventually the Z system.
]]>Thom has weighed in on the Nikon-RED merger in more detail now. Worth the read. The comment that struck me was, "RED brings Nikon instant credibility in the serious video and cinema market, something that would have cost many many millions and years to try to do from the mirrorless hybrid platform." He makes a lot of other points, many of them cruising by at an altitude high above my pointy little head.
Personally I find my interest in this event to be minimal. I'm not a videographer and have no interest in becoming one. The invasion and takeover of still cameras by video, making our once single-purpose devices into hybrid camcorder + camera devices, is just one more of many negative trends in recent years to my way of thinking. That's a personal and self-centered response, but then, my interest isn't actually in the business of image technology.
Let me venture an analogy. Imagine that washing machine manufacturers suddenly got very interested in making the tops of clothes washing machines into, say, cooktop grillers for meats. For some reason maybe it was easy to do (perhaps the ventilation for the dryer becomes the ventilation for the cooking smoke—stay focused, Mike, don't get carried away!), and most people like meat, and grilling is very popular, and the fashion takes off and people get very interested in the grilling features of washing machines. An internet "community" pops up, and it's enticingly huge. So the manufacturers start taking clothes washing for granted and divert R&D resources into improving the meat-griller cooktop functions at the expense of clothes washing, which is considered mature and adequate. Eventually new products are mainly centered on grilling functions, and sales of plain old-fashioned non-cooktop washing machines start to wither. Meanwhile, there's me and a few people like me. I don't eat meat more often than maybe once a week and never cook it at home, but I can't buy a washing machine any more without a cat-danged cooktop. I won't go on.
I was okay by me when cameramakers started adding video capability to stills cameras as an extra bonus feature. They did it because it was easy to do and created added value for their products. Didn't bother me. But gradually, video improvements have started to overshadow stills improvements, a little, and the interest of the market in video devices has begun to influence product trends and directions and impose costs on many cameras that used to be solely intended to make photographs. This is just the way it is and there's no use crying about it. But on the other hand I don't have to like it.
The reason for all this (and your mileage definitely might vary) is probably because I start with the result I visualize and work backward from it. I've always been that way. It's what guides my interests. Sometimes, that leads me to embrace new technology; for example, I do 98% of my reading on my tablet. Other times it leads me to reject trends in technology; for example, I've been an audiophile since I was a young teenager, but I don't have any parallel interest in the quality of movie reproduction at home. I've never for five seconds wanted a home theater or coveted a huge flatscreen. That's because my interest is music. Specifically recorded music. Not in home entertainment technology of any kind for its own sake.
In the same way, I like photographs. And that's what guides my interest.
Consider Brunswick. Brunswick started out making pool tables. Then bought up its major competitors and became No. 1. Then flexed its might and power and branched out into other areas. As pool drifted down in popularity, tried to consolidate with bowling alleys and bowling equipment. Eventually diversified into, well, recreational boats. Kept its pool table business going as its legacy. Eventually stopped even building tables, started selling cheap Chinese crap (no offense) at grotesquely inflated markups instead. Bought more and more boat manufacturers. Finally said the hell with legacy businesses and the origin of the corporate name and jettisoned its greatly withered and vestigial (and cynical, and tiny) little backwater pool-table importing business. Now it's a big name in boats. It's very successful.
The problem there, for me, is that I'm not interested in Brunswick. I'm interested in pool tables.
Yes, I admire Nikon, and yes, I want Nikon to prosper, and yes, I feel a lot of respect for Nikon's user-base and fans. And of course I have zero criticism for anyone who's interested in video in any way. On the contrary, I'm happy for them that high-quality video tools are more accessible than ever before. That's great. I just don't much like the way video is impinging and imposing on tools once only used to make photographs, is all. And I don't have to like it. So my reaction to the news of this acquisition is just a little mistrustful. Maybe a tad skeptical. Maybe Nikon needs to be more video-centered, as a company, because it has to do what businesses do to survive, which is adapt. But I don't need it to be more video centered. And yes, that's just selfish, looked at narrowly through the peephole of my own idiosyncratic concerns. But my interest goes photographs > photographers > photographic tools > photographic tool companies > Nikon. My interest isn't in Nikon per se. No matter how big, fat and prosperous it might someday get to be in boats.
Mike
Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)
Featured Comments from:
Richard Alan Fox: "What if Nikon started making pool tables?"
Mike replies: I would vigorously endorse its new direction and praise its astute leaders! Naturally.
David Dyer-Bennet: "I understand you're not much interested in video, and that's fine. However, your example is entirely unfair; a clothes dryer and a grill don't have much in common, not time, or place, or purpose (you found the one functional similarity in their needing to exhaust air they'd used). On the other hand, lots of uses of still cameras and uses of moving picture tech (old film tech, or newer video tech) are closely related, used by the same people or at least people on the same project. Photojournalism and news reels, using sequenced stills or movies to study movement (from horses to atom bombs), home movies and snapshots, wedding albums and wedding videos, film strips in class and also movies or TV, and so forth. These two things are very like each other! Even if they're not much connected in your own artistic thinking."
Jeff: "Fortunately there are still some companies like Leica (with the M) and Hasselblad (with the X2D) that produce photo-centric cameras sans video, each reflecting customer demand."
Terry Burnes: "I love my OM-D E-M5 III. But I don't need the video parts and menus and would love to have the screen just flip up and down, not sideways.
"But I'm also reminded a bit of snow sports. The arrival of snow boards caused a lot of consternation, and resistance, among skiers. But in the end snow boards had a great influence on the design of skis, resulting in a renaissance in ski design. Skis are much better today as a result. And the two technologies have found a way to coexist peacefully. Many younger enthusiasts use both.
"Still, I don't see why I can't pay, say, $100 extra to have an E-M5 that is devoid of video features."
nextSibling: "Couple of observations from mulling the arguments around this subject over the last few years...
—> Yes, of course, video technology has arguably enhanced still photography technology. No, all that technology doesn't have to be crammed into the same product. Even when it is, have you noticed how much additional accessorization these hybrid cameras attract when employed in serious video use? Why not design cameras with all that stuff already built in?
—> The cost saving argument is unsatisfying. It may be cheaper to manufacture hybridized all-in-one-package cameras for a wider market share, but cost isn't just about dollars for technology and features. There's an opportunity cost to the cognitive viscosity and redundant complexity of an over-engineered tool.
—> Video and still photography are fundamentally different media, requiring very different skills and techniques to do well, regardless of the technology.
—> Those skills and techniques should drive product design, not simply the availability of technology that appeals to online camera reviewers, marketers and forum critics more interested in gear than the outcomes of its use.
—> People who are highly capable and accomplished at both still and video are extremely rare. Perhaps they'd be less rare if appropriate technology was available to them."
]]>[Oooof! I goofed. I scrambled to get this done this morning, got it all done, then forgot to post it before I went out the door. Here it is, late.
—Mike the scrambled egghead Ed.]
I'm driving a loaner car today—a 1.5-liter 200-HP Acura Integra that shifts its own gears. My Acura is in Rochester getting ready to kick my wallet in the butt. I gotta sell some cameras and lenses.
This Integra is a lineal descendant of Phred, my mother's 1978 Honda Accord, her first foreign car. The Accord famously went on to become the best-selling Japanese car for 17 years in a row and, in 1989, the first Japanese car to become the No. 1 best-selling vehicle in the U.S. She had Accords for something like 15 years before switching to Saab. And I think I drove most of them more than she did. At least the earlier ones. The Integra is based on the current Civic, which is now larger than Phred was; the Integra is the successor to my 2014 Acura ILX 2.4. The loaner is red (I guess you can see that) and has an automatic transmission (I guess it's a CVT actually) which, for me, takes a little getting used to.
I also got to test drive an Integra Type S yesterday while loafing around the dealership awaiting the verdict on my car. One reason I bought my ILX was that the model with the larger, better engine only came with a manual transmission, and buying that model was the only way you could get a stick. In those days, most cars that offered a stick only paired them with the worst engine—very frustrating to my way of thinking—so the configuration of ILX models came as a relief. The Type S has a larger two-liter, 320-HP engine and, true to tradition, only comes with a stick. Which makes me want to buy one just to support whoever made that decision. Unfortunately it's also a $50,000-plus car, so no soup for me. I'm probably three to five years away from a new car, something like that. I've had seven cars in my lifetime. Is that a lot or a little? I wish it had been more.
Acura Integra Type S camouflaged by reflections
But man, did I ever like it. The Type-S (it was black) has gobs of power and just the niftiest snick-snick short-throw shifter. Awesome/brilliant. The test drive with the Type S did exactly what it's designed to do: sold me. Which would have been great for the dealership had I been a potential customer. I love these cars. They hit the sweet spot for me. Of course, it's easy to love what you're used to.
But it's got me looking at reviews of the Civic Si, which has the 200-HP 1.5 engine, only comes with a manual, and has basically the same interior as the Integra. All in the family.
Black or gray or gray-black or silvery gray
As an aside, here's my theory as to why car colors are mostly so bland these days, my red loaner notwithstanding. When I was a teenager, most people in America owned their cars. So you saw more self-expression—clusters of whimsical bumper stickers, bright colors, decorations and customizations, etc. Now when you go to the car dealer, cars come in very predictable colors. Black, white, grays, and silvers are the default. Murky brownish/olive beiges of some indeterminate sort might be in the mix, with the occasional muted token red or blue thrown in so people don't lose the will to live. This is another of my many unpedigreed theories, but I think the reason is that most of us these days drive cars owned by banks. Banks like bland, so that their property can more easily be resold later. Rather than hard-to-remove bumper stickers, people now put fiddly little decorations on the windows, where they can be scraped off without a trace. The other day I saw a car with one decoration on it. On the rear passenger side window, about six inches high, was a white stencil of...a grenade. Wonder what that person's trying to say. Better yet, don't tell me. I probably don't want to know.
In case you're wondering why I willingly subjected myself to the dealer's service department—the one I'm convinced has an unofficial $600 minimum—it's because mechanics in my area don't have any openings. The local shop in town that I use told me the earliest they could look at my car would be next week. I can't limp along with no brake fluid for a week. The good mechanic up in the next town—the independent former racecar mechanic who specializes in Toyota and Honda (whose shop is begging to be photographed, by the way—it's got character out the wazoo, including pinup girls plastered all over the bathroom walls that must have been there since the '70s)—he has a six-week waiting list. Then again, that guy just inspected my car a month ago, and then this.
This culture is just sucking money out of people like me these days. As if to add insult to injury, the propane guy was just here, like I needed to spend more money this day in particular. My bills for propane refills used to start with a "1." Now they start with a "3." Got to get back to work on that book.
Call just came
Welp, the call just came in—my car's all done. Time to make the hike to Rochester again, gaze longingly at the Type S out front, give the red car back, and retrieve the old buggy. Later.
Mike
Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)
Featured Comments from:
Speed: "The Splash Screen image of the new electric Porsche Taycan Turbo GT Weissach Package (from $230,000) is...purple. But what a purple. It's a Porsche thing."
[Note: Link added by Ed. —Ed.]
Sean: "If, like me, you know very little about cars, the asymmetric relationship with a car mechanic is built on hope, not trust."
Cecelia: "I choose a color for three reasons: I do not want to stand out in often contentious city driving; it doesn’t show the dirt; and it isn’t too hot in the sun. This always leads to silver or white for my urban California life."
Mike replies: I try to buy silver cars for similar reasons. My brother prefers black, saying black cars look the best when they're clean and the worst when they're dirty, but my observation was that his black cars were far more often dirty. As for not wanting to stand out, great point. I have a friend here in town who has a bright iridescent yellow-green Kia, and she says her friends are always telling her when and where they saw her car around town.
Robert Roaldi: "I like car colour names. My current Jetta is Pyrite Metallic Silver. I owned an Escort that was Cayman Green. My favourite was a friend's Legacy Turbo in Cranberry Mousse."
]]>Looks like today's post will be late...my car suddenly went on the fritz yesterday and I have to deal with it. All the warning lights went off. Lights I didn't even know were on the dashboard lit up. The Service Manager at the dealer said, "we call it the Christmas tree of lights." Apparently in Acuras when one goes off they all go off.
This makes perfect sense, because I just had the car in for servicing and a general over-all inspection a month ago. Not even.
When you live in the country, it's not smart to have one vehicle. Borders on dangerous, actually. You don't need five, like one of my friends has. He bought his second full-sized pickup just because it was a great deal. New widow, didn't care about the money, just wanted it out of the driveway. Some of my friends buy beater used cars for $500 to use as a backup, and the damn things run on and on like perpetual motion machines, sipping oil and gas and emitting nary a murmur of complaint; but the universe would never let me get away with that. If I bought a $500 car it would need $1,500 worth of work within a week.
So I'm off to Rochester, three hours there and back, hoping whatever's wrong doesn't go more wrong on the way. On the good side, comment posting is all up to date. Maybe backups should be our topic of discussion today. Not computer backups necessarily. Usually when we talk about computer backups we hear from the minority subset of the readership that has that problem overmastered; all those who do not maintain deferential silence. But I used to distinguish pros from enthusiasts (advanced amateurs, hobbyists, art photographers, fans, devotees, camera addicts—c'mon, everyone knows what an enthusiast is, despite recent comments from people saying the term is undefined) by how many cameras they take to an important job. Hobbyists take their one good camera. Pros take two. They always have a backup. Do you have a backup? Is it kept in the closet or do you take it with you?
I don't have a backup. If my camera goes on the fritz somehow (usually it's operator error or poor planning, run-down battery, filled-up card), well, that's it for that day.
Wish me luck on my odyssey. My prediction in advance, not knowing what's actually wrong: the bill will be $600...and, if not, more.
Mike
P.S. Oh, and about comments: It's true that I need to keep comments current, but sometimes comments come in too late, too. Caleb Courteau's comment on "Honesty: Isn't it Refreshing?" would have been a Featured Comment, but it only came in this morning and the post is already three days old. Most people don't go back to look for new comments on older posts, so a lot of great comments get buried because of timing. And now I had really better get my ass in gear and get going. Turns out it takes a lot of time to not write a post!
Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)
Featured Comments from:
Vijay: "I’m an amateur enthusiast and I take a backup camera whenever I’m taking a trip of seven days or more that requires a significant outlay. If I don’t have a functioning camera, the airfare, lodging, etc. has significantly lower ROI. Phones are not a backup, yet."
Doug Anderson: "I have no backup car. I always carry my phone with the Uber app. And in 70+ years of using all-mechanical, i.e., no battery, film cameras I have never carried a backup camera body and I have never found myself in a situation where having one would have helped."
Craig Beyers: "When I shoot sports (and events), I have a Canon R6 as primary, a 7D Mk II as secondary (i.e., the prior primary), and an iPhone 13 Pro Max. I typically use the 7D and an EF 24–70 ƒ/4 only during warm-ups and player intros and occasionally after an event for photos of families, then switch to the R6 with a EF 70–200 ƒ/2.8L with a 1.4x converter and the monopod for the action shots. The iPhone is my primary overview/ultra wide angle photo camera and it’s always in a holster on my waist. I bring the other cameras and a monopod in a ThinkTank roller bag with additional lenses and memory cards. For personal photo work I tend to restrict the kit to one camera and my iPhone, mostly to limit the carry weight. This works for me."
Stephanie Luke: "I'm so paranoid that besides having a couple of backups of an image file—on computer and external hard drives—I don't even consider it a finished picture unless I have printed it and it's sitting in my flat file. If I lose it there, then the house has burned down, and it's the least of my problems!"
robert e: "I have more 'backup' tripods, camera bags and camera straps than I know what to do with."
Ken Bennett: "When we got the 'Christmas tree' of lights, it was because a squirrel had spent a week chewing up the wiring inside our truck engine. In a Toyota, one fault means that lots of other things get turned off as well, like the cruise control, and so lots of warning light suddenly show up even though they aren't indicating actual issues, just that a feature was shut down due to the actual problem. The dealership service writer just wrote one word on the service form: 'rodent.'"
Mike replies: My problem was a bad brake part that ruptured and drained all the brake fluid. (I drove all the way to Rochester with almost no brake fluid.) The car will be visiting the dealership for three days, after which it will kick me in the wallet to the tune of $1,070. Told you it would be more than $600.
F Hall: "In 1980 when I was using a Leica M I had an Olympus OM something as a backup camera since I could not afford two Leicas. One day I went to use the Olympus and it was gone. I asked my wife of a few months if she had seen it. She said she gave it to her brother as I never used it. He lived in Canada and we were in Trinidad so I could not retrieve it. I explained the whole backup camera thing. The camera disappeared as the brother probably thought it was worthless since it was never used. Still married, did not want to change wives and have to go through that again!"
]]>There have been two significant consolidations in the photo industry recently.
Nikon and RED
Just three days ago Nikon announced that it has acquired RED Digital Cinema, a leading maker of high-end digital video cameras for moviemaking. RED will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nikon. The leading independent online website centering on all things Nikon, ByThom.com, has an article about it in its News/Views section. Thom says he has "witnessed a resurrection of energy, enthusiasm, and excitement at NikonUSA" since the Z9 was announced, and that "that got another boost with last night’s announcement." He also notes that "the RED acquisition puts Nikon back in Hollywood." Nikon's press release is unspecific about potential advantages or future plans, and the majority of commentators don't seem to know quite what to make of the announcement. But all in good time, no doubt.
Will the acquisition "make it rain" for Nikon? The hope is that mergers and acquisitions by companies with cracks showing in their core business model result in increased synergy and dynamism for both companies involved. Less encouragingly, it's also a common behavior of companies that are flailing around trying to find a cure for what ails them; studies show that 50% of acquisitions don't succeed (Wikipedia, citing Investment Banking Explained pp. 223–224). In a weather report, you know what a 50% chance of rain means. Might rain, might not.
Nikon is currently third in market share among cameramakers, having ceded second place to Sony in 2019. Sony now has more than double Nikon's market share, with 26.1% against Nikon's 11.7% in December of 2023, according to Statista.
Although market share has been declining for years, however, the company is showing strength by other metrics. Nikon's Z cameras and lenses are highly thought of by committed amateurs, artists, and pros alike, and, like Leica in the film days, seem to be responsible for more good work than their market share by itself would predict. Here's hoping the RED acquisition works for Nikon as its executives intend.
Lensrentals and BorrowLenses
Lensrentals has acquired "select assets" of BorrowLenses, a would-be competitor. I think it's safe to say the former bought out the latter's inventory and customer lists. This acquisition was most probably done for old-fashioned reasons, namely, because the acquiring company is so good it's tough to compete with. Have you rented a lens or a camera from Lensrentals recently? Those people have the process down. It's impressive.
Lensrentals' press release states, "The acquisition will expand Lensrentals’ loyal customer base while augmenting its enormous inventory of more than 400,000 copies of over 6,000 different lenses, cameras, drones, lighting, audio and other high quality production equipment and accessories, in every format, from every major manufacturer available in the market. Additionally, the used gear program known as Keeper will also receive a significant boost in inventory." Keeper, if you don't know, means that you can buy equipment you've rented if you'd like to hang on to it after trying it out as a rental. This is great with lenses, because lenses still do have sample variation, as Lensrentals' owner/guru Roger Cicala makes obvious with real published data from time to time. If you love the way a certain rented lens renders, it's safest to buy that specific one rather than buy a new copy and spin the roulette wheel again.
Mike
Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)
Featured Comments from:
Jon Porter: "Very disappointed to hear BorrowLenses is going away. I used them for years to try out cameras I was considering buying. Their West coast office was nearby so I could easily pick up and drop off gear, as well as chat with their staff about the camera. Now with the added hassle and expense of shipping it's not worth bothering to rent."
Jayanand Govindaraj: "Nikon's market share is declining, which only means they are, very sensibly, getting out of the point-and-shoot and other low-margin categories. Their margins are increasing as they focus more and more on high-value-added products, and their financials have become robust in the last few years.
"As an aside, in the last four years, Nikon equity has almost tripled on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. As a corporate finance professional through my working years, if you ask me, the camera brands that will be the first to disappear, if at all, would be Sony or Panasonic—the camera division within both these companies are insignificant in terms of size in relation to the behemoths that both the companies are, which means that they are inconsequential to the overall performance of the parent, and could be axed (or sold) the minute the need for cost cutting arises."
robert e: "RED+Nikon sounds very cool to me. Not that I have any expertise in this area, but on its face, I see two companies with core strengths that don't overlap but could complement each other very well. A maker of superb cinema bodies joining a maker of superb lenses; a well established presence in high-end digital cinema joining a legend in pro and consumer photography. Nikon has arguably caught up technically in hybrid video, but is having trouble competing with the head starts and reputations that Sony, Panasonic and Canon enjoy in that space and in the budget cine space. RED has no presence in either space but it would bring enormous prestige to compete with."
Mel: "Lensrentals definitely has the process down. And Roger's blog is full of technogeek information on bodies, lenses, testing, etc. I've rented from them several times and was never disappointed. Great way to try out a lens to see if it fits my needs."
]]>So here's an interesting issue about running a blog and acting as discussion leader, and promoting selected comments to "Featured" status. When I respond to comments inline, it increases the sense of community and responsiveness, and fosters a sense of involvement. But on the other hand, as the writer of the post in the first place, I've had my say, and I should give you yours. So I don't want to "step on" somebody's comment for whatever reason—because I disagree, because he's wrong, because I'm wrong, because my feelings are hurt, because his comment might be misleading, because he's challenging my authority, because one of us is being picayune or playing devil's advocate, because he reminded me of my version of his story, or because he's a contrarian and it pleases him to disagree with whatever I said just because I said it. Most of the time it's simply best to give others their turn.
I try to hold myself to the same standard I request of you. I don't allow commenters to be insulting, and I don't allow people to respond to other commenters unless they're being friendly, or helpful, or both. I should hold myself to the same standard, right? No anger, no hitting back, no rudeness or put-downs. I try not to respond if it doesn't add anything positive or productive. Many times I will type a reply to someone's comment, read it over, and delete it, thinking, "you're just arguing," or "his opinion is as valid as yours...."
Old days
The idea of the Featured Comments comes from the old days when TOP was getting 20,000–30,000 pageviews a day and an average post could easily get 50 or 100 comments. I checked back to 10 years ago and alighted on a string of posts with 58, 38, 49, 82, 22, and 69 comments...that was the norm then. The "Featured Comments" is intended to be like a Letters to the Editor section—an edited representative sample of comments for people who don't have time to read all of them. Now, of course, you probably could just read all of them—the posts this past week, working backwards, got 15, 21, 5, 7, 7, 24, 17, and 19 comments. But I'm already in the habit, so yeah, here we go.
The key word is "representative"—it's not a selection of the best comments, necessarily. It's a sampling. I don't just pick comments that agree with my opinion. I try to air dissenting viewpoints, promote comments that oppose each other, and give weight to real-world experience. I worked with a guy many years ago who was very impressed with his own knowledge of photography, which exceeded that of most of the audience. But that made him belittle the audience and talk down to them. I learned a lesson from that; my conception ever since then has been that I might know more about my field than much of my audience does, but they know a lot more about their fields than I do. It keeps me from getting snotty. One of the coolest things about the blog to me is that so many readers have actual life experience or direct knowledge that relates to the topic under discussion. The example I like best is that we did a post about Irving Penn's oversized platinum prints once, and we got a comment from Penn's former darkroom assistant who actually made the prints. That's a standout case, but similar things happen all the time.
I'm not a perfect moderator. I try to be as fair as I can, and to value other peoples' input. I'm always trying to improve. For instance, I used to have a bias against people who write poorly. What cured me of that was when I realized that English isn't everybody's first language! And as the old saw goes, they write English a lot better than I can write their language. I can only speak English, despite years of French torture class in school.
The comments are a lot of work, but they're also the best part of the job for me. In the run-up to my pacemaker operation seven weeks ago, I heard from many people and learned a great deal. As he was explaining the process to me, the surgeon (a photography enthusiast too) was so surprised at how much I already knew that he asked if I have a medical background! Nope. Just a lot of readers who do.
Online discussion is inherently fraught, but, all in all, we do remarkably well. Keep those comments coming, and I'll try not to step on them. And, thanks.
Mike
Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)
Featured Comments from:
Kye Wood: "Perhaps comments have decreased as more people began reading your blog using their phone? Typing this on mine just now is quite arduous. But reading the post was easy."
Mike replies: Oh yes, that's quite possible. I keep forgetting about that.
Paul: "I spend very little time online. This is the only blog I read with any regularity. I am partial to the photographic pieces. The well-moderated comments often enrich the article with an expansive and diverse set of opinions and views."
Dave B: "I always wonder when reading the featured comments…what nugget(s) am I missing from the ‘other’ comments?"
Bob Johnston [no relation —Ed.]: "You really do moderate extremely well. I only comment when I think that what I have to say will add something of value or sometimes because I disagree with what has been said. So I don't comment very often. I think that is what most of your commenters do."
Bear.: "This is the only public site I’ve ever posted on. That’s due to the quality of your moderation and of the posts. I do agree that posting from a phone is a pain. I’m pretty sure the same difficulty is also the behind rise of the like/dislike button and the emoji."
Aakin: "Your posts are over of the few things I comment on online, even though I read a ridiculous amount of blogs and sites. I think a large part of that is that I know you read every post, and actually look for things that are useful, and it makes me want to be a part of that."
]]>Forum review of [X] camera:
Title: MY ENDGAME CAMERA!! By George*
Review begins: "This is it!! This is the camera I have always wanted and it will be the last camera I will ever buy!!"
Review might have continued, but doesn't: ...Because I just got it after weeks/months of focused and intense gear longing/pining/desire and I just unboxed it and it's brand new and I'm still enthusiastic about it. I've been working hard for days/ weeks now talking myself into it in order to justify the mostly unnecessary expense!! I.e., still on the pink cloud of NTS (new toy syndrome). I've got the latest shiniest bauble and few other people have it and everyone envies me. Besides, my wife is frustrated and borderline annoyed with me for slinging so much ready dosh into the crapper and I kinda need to broadcast my happiness so she'll think "at least he's happy" and back down.
Actual but unspoken conclusion: In three years I'll be tired of it and bored anew, and at that time there will be new shiny new toys enticing me across the far-flung domains of internet camerababble. Ardent influencers will be joyously proclaiming some new product's virtues just as they are my new toy's virtues today, slighting if not overlooking altogether its inevitable weaknesses because they got blessed by the manufacturer with a pre-release sample and they know which side of their bread the butter's on. So suddenly I'll start being hyperaware of the weaknesses of my by-then-old last-gen camera that I will claim only emerged after months or years of use when, actually, said weaknesses were listed right there in early non-ambassador reviews. And I shall duly begin talking myself into needing that as-yet unspecified newer camera at that time, as the cycle repeats.
Isn't honesty refreshing?
Mission
Spoilsport Ed.'s fingerwagging admonition: Work is what cures GAS. Nota bene. Print this page and clip this out and tape it to your monitor (Bruce Bordner cautions: but not on your monitor at work, or people will walk past very fast!):
Work cures GAS
I got this from the late Mark L. Power, one of my teachers and a wise man. It was late one night and we were working in the darkroom at the old Corcoran School of Art, since dismantled and dispersed; I might have been helping him set the colorpack for some of his pictures while he was printing in the school's color darkroom (he was red-green colorblind, and mostly worked in B&W but occasionally printed color). There had to be some reason he was working at school; his B&W darkroom was back at his Virginia farm. I mentioned that certain students seemed to be complaining a lot. He told me he had noticed over the years that when students get restless and bored and start to complain, it's because they're not working. They don't have a project. He said that as soon as they get a project and it takes off and they're energized by it and excited by pictures, the complaints come to a screeching halt. They only focus their attention on the shortcomings of their tools when they're not using them enough.
So if someone you know is ever feeling bored with his or her camera, you know what their real mission should be. The solution is work, not new gear.
Mike
*George, as you might remember, is a made-up person. I try never to ridicule real persons. The internet has a long memory, and nobody needs negative energy.
P.S. Johnston's Corollary: You should only take people seriously when they declare a camera to be their "endgame" camera and the last one they'll ever buy if two conditions pertain: 1.) it's already been superseded by a newer iteration, and 2.) they've already had it for long enough for all the NTS to wear off.
Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)
Featured Comments from:
J. Paul Thomas: "Many years ago I worked for a subsidiary of a major sewing machine company. This enabled me to purchase a new machine at a pretty good discount. My wife loved to sew, so this sounded like a good deal. An executive of the parent company advised me to always buy the top-of-the-line model of the previous generation. His reasoning was that all of the bugs had been worked out, and it would still probably do everything my wife needed. He was 100% correct. Over the years I have applied this advice many times to many purchases and have never come up wanting."
]]>