There is something big going on at Nikon. I can't say, but if you hunt you can find the same sources and possibilities.

The fact is that the D700, in all it's glory, is only the beginning of the show. The main event is yet to come...

All other cameras, of all types, from all other manufacturers, are about to get OWNED, in one way or another.

Just sit tight...

=Matt=

PS: Nikon just announced a buffer upgrade for the D3 today, BTW. Double the buffer, so you can shoot up to thirty six 14-bit lossless RAW files. At 9 FPS, that's 4 solid seconds of machine-gun fire. And most sports shooters shoot JPG anyway; the buffer puts JPGs up at around 120. And by then the dynamic buffer is dumping images so it's basically bottomless. Yowza! (But like I said, the SHOCKER is yet to come!)

Seriously, is there ANYTHING more frustrating like trying to get your POP and SMTP stuff set up correctly for a bunch of different email addresses?

I love the convenience of being able to just have one application collect all my email addresses. I love having my address book on my computer, iTouch... (and someday my iPhone)

But I absolutely cannot stand the retardedness that is POP / SMTP. I mean seriously, could it work any worse? Is it just that Mac Mail is a piece of crap? Or is it an issue with servers and things?

I really don't know a thing when it comes to trouble-shooting my email. All I know is that for some stupid reason I can NOT set all my outgoing smtp servers to their respective email addresses; for some reason it ONLY works if I have ALL my email addresses use just ONE smtp. And every now and then, in fact on a regular basis, it just STOPS WORKING. I can recieve emails fine, but can't send them. Not from any address, not to any address.

I have an @ juno.com email address that uses authsmtp, an @ mydomain.com email hosted through yahoo so I have smtp.bizmail.yahoo, an email @blueshoephoto for my work with eric which has NEVER had it's own working SMTP, and a RTS gaming team email that uses dgdnnet.ipower as it's SMTP.

Tell me my friends, is there a better way? Do I dump this mac and use MS Outlook? Do I get Entourage? Do I get gmail? I have a gmail account, I just never used it because I'm too lazy to try and switch main email addresses for the 2nd / 3rd time in my life...

AFQEW@%#%WSDF!!%#^RQRQRQRQWER~~!!!!!1!!!!!

=Matt=

Okay, that was fun. The theory is, with a bunch of these little 5.8 deals, we'll avoid the big, bad 8.0 or something... Hope that's the case!

Anyway, Adobe just finalized their Lightroom 2.0 program. You should try it out, it's got a lot of improvements, namely the localized (brush) tools, for burning / dodging, and a couple other things.

(I REALLY hope they include this feature in Bridge CS4, cause I still can't acclimate my brain to the way Lightroom works...)

Take care,
=Matt=

So, Ken Rockwell and Chuck Norris were at a bar. Ken said to Chuck, hey I bet you can't break my D3!

Chuck Norris roundhouse kicked the D3 and it turned into a D700.

(Contrary to the slanderous claims that a D3 and D300 slept together ~9 months ago...)

=Matt=

There has been a lull in "real" leaks and rumors from Canon / Nikon lately, so people are going wild with all sorts of weird rumors.

Some nonsense about Nikon's D700 only being a "distraction" and the main event is yet to come, some even crazier nonsense about Nikon making a digital rangefinder, or a "replace-able sensor" DSLR, hahahaha!!!

The rumors have died down that Canon will make TWO new full-frame DSLR's in the mid price range... Personally I still think it's highly likely, just because I can't imagine that the giant, Canon, could be THIS asleep at the wheel...

So, I do expect great things from Canon in the remainder of this year. The amazing 40D's price has plummeted to less than what I originally paid for my 1st Nikon D70 a mere ~4 years ago. Some can argue that that's not a good sign for Canon, that it's a sign the 40D is selling terribly, but I'm sure they're selling more than enough, and are just putting downward pressure on the market while trying to diversify from the D300. The D300 is so much camera that it CAN'T go much lower than $1600-1700 new, EVER, so Canon has the advantage here.

The only downfall of Canon is that there is still no chance they'll release a fully professional, 1-series quality 1.6x crop camera. With 1.3x and 1.0x sensors remaining as expensive as they are, I still see a lot of market potential for a Canon pro 1.6x camera body at $1900 or so. A 1.6x, 1Dmk3 lite, so to speak. A 40D with pro-series AF and weather sealing, etc... But like I said, there's still no sign of that ever happening, as Canon pushes more in the direction of pro / advanced amateur full-frame DSLR's and bottom-of-the-barrel beginner DSLR's...

So, before I head out to a lunch meeting, let's review the HARD FACTS:

Sony will have a 24 megapixel full-frame camera within three months. Price estimate $3500.

Nikon will have a 24 megapixel full-frame camera befoe 2009. Price estimate $5000-$6000.

Canon will have AT LEAST ONE 5D mk2 within three months. Price estimate $2500-$3500.

Nikon will have a P&S equivalent of the Canon G9, with RAW capture & manual control, etc. etc. (The P6000 I think?) within three months. No price estimate.

Take care,
=Matt=

One thing that I have pondered from time to time is the historic $8000 introductory price tag of all Canon's 1Ds series bodies.

As THE best digital camera in the world, I guess any price whatsoever is justified. However, a couple of rough facts can be real eye-openers... One fact in particular is the cost of actually making a full-frame sensor. Contrary to what the price tag might imply, making a 21 megapixel full-frame CMOS sensor does not cost thousands of dollars per sensor; it is hundreds at the very most. True, full-frame sensors do cost many times more to make than a cropped-frame sensor, but still does not mean that a full-frame sensor is worth thousands...

But then, juxtapose the likes of the Canon 1D mk3 with the 1Ds mk3. The 1D mk3 costs $3500 less than the 1Ds mk3. The sensor size is the ONLY difference so theoretically, the sensor alone accounts for a $3500 price hike.

Right about now you are thinking to yourself, gosh, I wonder what the profit margin is on the 1Ds mk3? Could it be like, 50%+???

Next question, and this is where the little disaster warning light comes on: what if another company comes along and is massive enough to survive on substantially smaller profit margins? Like, THOUSANDS less?

*cough*Sony*cough*

Conclusion: Full-frame, high-resolution cameras are on the horizon, and a storm is coming for $8000 camera bodies. Sony and Nikon will both be coming out with 24 megapixel full-frame bodies in a month or two, and they will cost as little as $3500 and $5500, respectively.

It will be very, VERY interesting to see what happens in the "Canon pro camp" in the next 6 months...

Alright, just my daily two cents!

Take care,
=Matt=

Soooo... How about that D700? Apparently Nikon has stuck to their July 25th ship date, and reports are coming in that it is "hitting shelves" today... Wow! I wonder if the SB900 is shipping on time today, too.

Not that I'll be able to afford either any time soon, but progress is good for us all.

I STILL consider the D2Hs to be a very powerful "alternative"... Yep you heard me, I'm NOT selling my D200 to fund a D700. I'm selling it to fund a D2Hs. Why? Well I've been over this before, so you probably already know...

I know the D700 has amazing high ISO performance with a virtually clean ISO 6400. But what it does NOT do is solve the TWO BIGGEST issues I have with FX and current DSLR's in general...

1.) There is NO way to shoot lower res RAW images. For MUCH of my photojournalism work and for ALL my children's theater work, 12 megapixels is just total overkill. But RAW itself is still desirable, because of the super-tricky white balance issues. I was hoping the D700 would have a ~4-6 megapixel RAW capture mode, but it does not. Strike one.

2.) AF point coverage: Not just for autofocusing, but also for spot metering, I find the D300's AF coverage to be invaluable. It extends to the far reaches of the frame, with zero loss of effectiveness, especially at telephoto focal lengths when the light is coming in at such straight angles. Strike two. And the fact that neither did they change up the AF system to have more cross-type AF points to the left and right of the frame, that is strike three.

Maybe the NEXT generation of FX DSLR's will improve the focus point coverage... (And please, spread out the cross-type AF points more!!!)

Likewise, maybe the next generation of DSLR's in general will have a "small RAW" capture format. In fact they BETTER if Nikon tries to go higher than 12 megapixels. I'm simply going to stop buying "new" DSLR's if they don't reslove these issues. Sure, I'd welcome a 24 megapixel D700X or D800 if I were nothing but a high-fashion portrait photographer, or a landscape / adventure photographer. And hey, maybe I can just change careers to suit which cameras are manufactured? I dunno, I just LOVE shooting weddings and children's theater!

The bottom line is that the high ISO performance of DX, especially in the D2Hs and the D300, is more than good enough for the work I do. And trust me, I shoot in PITCH BLACK sometimes... No, it's not SO good that I couldn't put a D700 to good use, but still, the D300 has already made me thousands of dollars in print sales from images shot at ISO 1600 and 3200. End of discussion.

With the D2Hs' used price falling to $1300, (in excellent condition) this camera makes FAR more sense to me than a D700. A D2Hs + D300 setup is perfect- I have high-res when I want it, and I have low-res when I want it, and BOTH cameras have high-speed shooting, high ISO prowess, and great AF point spread with spot metering associated w/ each focus point...

I'm not trying to disqualify any camera or photographer, I'm just trying to make a point about how different equipment "GETS THE JOB DONE"...

With the D700 arriving and the 5D mk2 up Canon's sleeve, at the very least I want people to think long and hard about how many megapixels they REALLY need to get their work done, or how many they really need to shoot their friend & family events, etc. And how much high ISO performance do you really need, too?

Chances are, you could get away with a camera that is WAY cheaper than the one you're considering.

So, I'm considering selling my D200 in favor of a D2Hs. Anybody want a lightly used D200 for about $750 OBO? I paid $1100 for it almost a year ago, and I haven't even "rolled it" yet! (That means the image numbering hasn't rolled over 10K images) How about if I throw in a D300 strap, to confuse other photographers?

Oh and, anybody interested in a used SB800? $250?

Take care,
=Matt=

Well, it would seem as if SOME camera companies are finally beginning to listen to the cries of discerning photographers everywhere: Wide angle is important!!!

For years, point-and-shoots (pocket digicams) have had the equivalent of a 35m, 36mm, or even 38mm lens on 35mm "full frame". This, as ANY and ALL of you advanced amateur and professional photographers should know, is HARDLY a passable excuse for true wide angle.

I've ranted about this for as long as I can remember. Lately though, I've been noticing more and more P&S cameras with at least a 28mm wide angle equivalent, and some more with 24/25mm even! Ricoh I believe has their ENTIRE lineup at least at 28mm. Panasonic just released some very decent P&S cameras, one that even has f/2.0 at the wide end and fully manual control... NICE!

They have also spoken of "limiting" the resolution. (albeit to 10 megapixels, which is still way too much for a P&S camera...) Hopefully we won't see MORE than 10 megapixels in these tiny size sensors, and eventually sensor technology will catch up and we'll be able to take good low-light pictures with P&S cameras someday... (Panasonic also has opted to use a slightly larger sensor, by the way...)

Now I can actually consider buying a P&S camera! I still have my eyes on the Olympus 1030 SW, just because it's "indestructible" so to speak...

Take care all, and thanks for reading!
=Matt=

So, what are people's opinions on desktop (tower) computer systems?

Is a Mac Pro REALLY worth the $5,000+ total price tag? Apple lists the starting price at an already eye-popping $2800, and that's only with 2 gigs of RAM, one 320 gig HD, and no display. etc. Every time I configure the machine that I feel would allow me to work comfortably, concerning both speed and capacity, I quickly pass five grand. (Then I quickly close that browser window in disgust...)

Multiple geek friends of mine have showed me how easy it is to build a custom PC system that is even FASTER, with more capacity, for less than half as much.

So, this forces me to asses WHY I have a Mac in the first place. The reasons that I come up with are surprisingly trivial...

1.) I like the way my macbook LOOKS. It is simply timeless. I don't understand why ALL other laptop makers feel the need to differentiate their product and add this or that little curve, line, shape, finish, etc. etc. It just doesn't work for me. By trying to stand out and change the way EVERY new laptop looks, they have created a sea in which any single laptop will be lost. Show me a PC laptop that looks better than a macbook, let alone a macbook pro... The only thing that comes to mind is the Thinkpad, and those still don't come close to looking sexier than a macbook...

2.) I like the simplistic interface. You see, I'm the exact opposite of brilliant when it comes to software interfaces. I like the simple Apple OS X interface. PC's may be capable of all the same things, like "time machine" and "spotlight" and the "dashboard", but Apple has simply IDIOT-PFOOFED these things, and that is what I need.

3.) I like fact that ALL hardware is hand-picked by Apple to work flawlessly together. I don't have the time to get into my PC nightmare experiences with "drivers", whatever the heck those are. Ugh.

4.) I like the safety. I'll be honest- I'm really dumb when it comes to things like firewalls, anti-virus, spyware-sweeping, etc. etc. This is the main reason I bought a Mac- again, no time for the stories, but suffice it to say I'm really ignorant and I've trashed my PC twice.

So anyways, I guess these reasons aren't THAT big. If it were a matter of saving thousands of dollars, I could live with a PC. Oh wait, it IS a matter of thousands.

So, I'm strongly considering just building a PC desktop tower, to take over the duties as my main imaging workhorse. (Yes, I currently do ALL my editing from a 13" laptop. And I somehow manage to deliver images on time, with proper color. I know, I'm ghetto...)

And I'm no slouch when it comes to building a machine. I know how to slap on my anti-static wristband and install a CPU / HD / RAM stick. Heck, I've even replaced the RAM and HD in my macbook! (I should probably replace the CPU "logic board" too, sooner or later.

I guess I COULD attempt the impossible, to custom-build a mac. You can buy towers, you can buy everything you need. But the available parts would be a lot more limited.

But then again, that's what I like about Apple products. All the hardware just goes together.

But then again, many many pros out there do just fine with PC machines, machines that could run circles around the average Mac Pro tower...

So, what's the vote? What would YOU do? "Burn" money on a mac pro tower? Or just bite the bullet, learn Vista, and build a PC?

Couple specs concerning my ideal machine:

~ Dual twenty-something inch monitors. Probably cost the same as a single Apple 30"! Samsung? Viewsonic?

~ One HD for OS and apps. 300 gigs probably fine.

~ Additional HD with a fully-bootable backup of OS / app HD.

~ SATA storage HD, 500 gigs. (For images and other files...)

~ SATA storage HD backup, 500 gigs. (Auto-backup of HD with images, exact duplicate)

~ SATA external HD backup, 1000 gigs. (For auto-backup of desktop AND Laptop, or is that a bad idea?)

~ 4 core CPU, preferably ~3 GHZ.

~ 4-8 gigs RAM.

~ BEST graphics card possible, without getting ridiculous. (I'll be doing imaging, RAW processing, but not anything like HD video, nor high-frame-rate gaming...)

~ Double optical drives.

...Surely this PC could be built for under $2,500?

Take care,
=Matt=

[EDIT]

Hate to say it guys, but having done a bunch of work on my PC lately, I am turned off yet again. I really don't like all the little apps and things that you have to deal with. There is just SO much third party stuff out there, and THAT seems to be what ends up giving me the most trouble. All these apps get themselves into the "open at startup" folder every time I download an update, they get into my taskbar and add all these useless little icons and buttons to the left AND right corners of the taskbar, it's just freaking annoying. Honestly, Logitec, do you REALLY have to install software and create a taskbar icon (or two) just so I can use your keyboard? (And seriously, the dang thing warns me that my mouse batteries are dead MONHTS before they actually are because I use rechargeables, it's really annoying...) And what the heck is RAR? ZIP wasn't good enough? Right when you FINALLY didn't have to open a stupid application just to unzip a file, you gotta use apps to compress / un-compress things again?

I'm sick of third parties trying to stick their fork in my tomato.

With my Mac, I have a grand total of maybe SIX different companies going into my computer: Apple, (who for all intents and purposes we're going to say "makes" ALL hardware...) Adobe, Mozilla, Showit, NeoOffice, and a couple "hardly ever use 'em" apps for recovering lost images, FTP, etc.

And that's more than enough already.

I dunno, I just don't know if I can ever put THAT much into a PC again. Too complicated. I know PC's are better, they can do more, they are more customizable, parts are easier to come by, etc. etc. But I really don't WANT that. I just want to edit images. I LOVE SIMPLICITY.

=Matt=

http://www.bythom.com/d700announce.htm

Thom Hogan, one of the more prominent names on the web as far as DSLR photography and (especially) Nikon are concerned, wrote an article on Nikon's current lineup of DSLR's, what he thinks Nikon's NEXT moves will be, and what impact / reaction this will result in with / from the competition.

Thom is a VERY good writer, thorough and level-headed. I recommend his articles, whether or not you shoot Nikon!

One thing I noticed is that Thom speaks of the D3X very liberally, calling it by name, but only speaks about the D80 replacement as just that, a D80 replacement. (As opposed to calling it like it is, the D90.) This leads me to believe that Thom is under NDA (non-disclosure agreement) concerning the D90, and therefore it's name, but not a D3X. This leads me to believe that we'll see the D90 before we'll see the D3X.

Hopefully though, we'll see BOTH by the end of the year. And even more hopefully, we'll see more pro / semi-pro lenses in 2009, maybe some f/4 VR lenses (zooms, primes) and some f/1.4 SWM primes. Nikon could REALLY use an answer to Sigma's apparently stunning new 50 1.4 HSM. Nikon could also really use an equivalent to Canon's pair of 70-200 f/4 IS lenses... In fact lenses like these are REQUIRED in my book before I begin considering the D700, period. Thom mentions this apparent "mixed signal" as well. And I quote, "It does seem strange to me that Nikon introduces a D700 and doesn't have the current lens set to go with it (either renewed primes or lower-specified normal/telephoto zooms or both). Until Nikon fixes that, the D700 isn't fully realized IMHO."

Exactly how I feel. However Thom points out that it's not as if Nikon can turn this situation around overnight. They can only come up with a few new lenses each year, a half-dozen max I'd say, and they have to serve ALL the different markets, from beginner DX to super exotic pro FX. This is one thing that makes me disagree when some Nikon fans cheer that "woohoo, Nikon is king again, Nikon is the best now!" ...because for some kinds of photography, especially shallow DOF portraiture and things, Canon still has an incredible edge. Canon has 24mm and 35mm f/1.4 L lenses, and a killer 28mm f/1.8 affordable alternative. They have 50mm and 85mm f/1.2 L lenses, and stellar f/1.4 or f/1.8 alternatives.

As I've said many times before on this blog, Nikon's situation faster than f/2 is abysmal. If I were to get a D700 right now, I'd be getting it with a Sigma 24/28mm f/1.8, a 50mm f/1.4, a Nikon 85 1.8, and my Sigma 150mm 2.8. Sigma three, Nikon one. Come on, Nikon! If only I could get my hands on a 2009 lens roadmap...

If it weren't for the fact that I know Nikon will EVENTUALLY come out with the lenses I'd want, and the fact that I know I TOTALLY prefer Nikon's controls and ergonomics, I would SERIOUSLY consider the 5D mk2 for professional weddings / portriats.

Take care,
=Matt=