Nikon D2x: Are You Going to Get One?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mqGdnb1eDIuWOHvcRVn-3g@wavecable.com...
> Now that Nikon has finally told us the release date and price of the D2x
> (Feb 25, MAP of $4,999) are you going to get one? Personally, I think the
> price is a little high, but still competitive. I would have liked to have
> seen more aggressive pricing for this one.
>
> --
> Christopher J. Campbell
> World Famous Flight Instructor
> Port Orchard, WA
>

Am I going to get one? No, I don't have $5K laying around.

Would I get one if I could? Probably. I think it is a good value when
compared to its competitors from Kodak and Canon. But this all assumes that
the color rendition and speed are all as claimed. That has yet to be
determined.

Walt

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

No, I think I'll stick with Canon ;-)

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Dave1 <vx1345@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> No, I think I'll stick with Canon ;-)

Well, duh, you Canon guys already *have* the one you were waiting for.

Our Nikon dates are always fashionably late.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:10ueh4lthcamv96@corp.supernews.com...
> Dave1 <vx1345@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > No, I think I'll stick with Canon ;-)
>
> Well, duh, you Canon guys already *have* the one you were waiting for.
>
> Our Nikon dates are always fashionably late.

Nikon seems content to play Apple Mac to Canon's Windows. :-)

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mqGdnb1eDIuWOHvcRVn-3g@wavecable.com...
>> Now that Nikon has finally told us the release date and price of the D2x
>> (Feb 25, MAP of $4,999) are you going to get one? Personally, I think the
>> price is a little high, but still competitive. I would have liked to have
>> seen more aggressive pricing for this one.

Well, I guess I'd like everything to be cheaper, but the D2x price
seems okay. The price in the US is a little high, but that's to a
large extent to do with the slide in the value of the dollar.

> Not that I'm going to run out and buy one, I have too much invested
> in Canon stuff, but compare it to the Kodak DCS Pro/n.

> 12.5 mp vs. 13.5 for the Kodak, 5fps vs. 1.7 for the Kodak, a more
> robust pro body instead of one based on the F80. I'd say they've
> got the price right. And up against the 16 mp Canon 1D mkII, saves
> you $3000. Put it up against the Canon 1Ds mkII,

The 1D mk II, I guess.

> it loses a little in the fps race, but makes up for it in the
> megapixel count, for roughly the same price. And you do have the 4
> mp 8fps option, if need be.

That's a 6.8 Mp 8fps option. I really like this idea: you don't have
to choose a fast camera or a high resolution camera: you can have
both.

Andrew.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Darrell" <dev/null> wrote in message
news:KcedndCFToN31XrcRVn-hQ@rogers.com...
>>
>> Am I going to get one? No, I don't have $5K laying around.
>>
>> Would I get one if I could? Probably. I think it is a good value when
>> compared to its competitors from Kodak and Canon. But this all assumes
> that
>> the color rendition and speed are all as claimed. That has yet to be
>> determined.
>>
>> Walt
>>
> What is Kodak's competition? The Kodak dSLR is a 24x36mm full-frame
> sensor.
>

I'm a little simple I guess Darrell. I just care about the output, and the
sensor size is just one issue affecting the output. To me, the Kodak dSLR
is a clear competitor in that it is the high end pro-level camera built for
high volume production, and it is nearly the same in price.

Walt

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

C J Campbell <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Now that Nikon has finally told us the release date and price of the D2x
>> (Feb 25, MAP of $4,999) are you going to get one?
>

It may be my next camera at some point in the future, but for the time being
my D2H is an excellent camera and more than adequate for my needs. Certainly
the extra resolution is not worth what I'd have to spend to make the modest
upgrade to my end results.

HMc

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jim Redelfs <jim.redelfs@redelfs.com> wrote:

> And the ANALOGY is the only thing that DOESN'T work for THIS Mac user and his
> Canon 20D. I bought the Camera Dec 9 and have had nothing but success with
> Canon software and updates.

Well, it's a lousy analogy in that Canon is number 1 because they make great
stuff (and do it first).

> Did you see Apple Computer CEO Steve Job's keynote presentation recently? I
> only got to see a part of it but I'm pretty jazzed. I'm gonna "need" a G5
> sooner than I planned.

I'm still using G4s and they're just fine. In fact, my newest Mac is over
three years old now, and doesn't need an upgrade. That's one thing I really
like about them.

And each release of OS X runs *faster* on the old hardware than the previous
one. Microsoft would never make that happen.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <10ug8kldk97v267@corp.supernews.com>, Jeremy Nixon
<jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:

> Jim Redelfs <jim.redelfs@redelfs.com> wrote:
>
> > And the ANALOGY is the only thing that DOESN'T work for THIS Mac user and
> > his
> > Canon 20D. I bought the Camera Dec 9 and have had nothing but success with
> > Canon software and updates.
>
> Well, it's a lousy analogy in that Canon is number 1 because they make great
> stuff (and do it first).
>
> > Did you see Apple Computer CEO Steve Job's keynote presentation recently?
> > I
> > only got to see a part of it but I'm pretty jazzed. I'm gonna "need" a G5
> > sooner than I planned.
>
> I'm still using G4s and they're just fine. In fact, my newest Mac is over
> three years old now, and doesn't need an upgrade. That's one thing I really
> like about them.
>
> And each release of OS X runs *faster* on the old hardware than the previous
> one. Microsoft would never make that happen.

I've got a 1.8 G5 dualie and a Pismo G3 400 both running 10.3.7. So
I've seen OS X from the top and bottom of the hardware range. The
Pismo runs Photoshop CS just fine. And Dreamweaver. The G5 screams.

I've also got two ancient Macs that my kids use, a Powermac 7100 with a
G3 card (circa 1994/98) and a Beige G3 266 (circa 1997). Both are
running OS 9 and running very well. What PCs are of similar vitage?
386?

I am seriously considering replacing them with a pair of Mac Minis,
though... Reuse the existing 17" CRT monitors, get a couple of cheap
USB keyboards and rodents... I'll have two excellent G4 machines for
about $1300.

ObDigitalSLRContent:

Just used my new 300D for the first time at a volleyball toournament.
I loved it. A great tool. And iPhoto is an excellent tool for
sorting, cropping and publishing the results:

http://www.pearlandjrs.com/team/re [...] SQ14m.html

http://www.pearlandjrs.com/team/re [...] SQ15b.html

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Howard McCollister" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:41e82d16$0$33205$45beb828@newscene.com...
>
> "Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:qNqdnT6rkYAqUHrcRVn-ig@comcast.com...
> >
>
> > I'm a little simple I guess Darrell. I just care about the output, and
> > the sensor size is just one issue affecting the output. To me, the
Kodak
> > dSLR is a clear competitor in that it is the high end pro-level camera
> > built for high volume production, and it is nearly the same in price.
> >
>
>
> As a studio camera, or tightly controlled lighting situations, the Kodak
can
> do very well and would be a viable alternative within those limitations.
> OTOH, the D2X body is exceptionally well-made (based on my experience with
> the D2H), its AF module and metering accuracy far better than the Kodak.
The
> D2X would be a better choice if one actually wanted to take the camera
> outside, or shoot something that's moving.
>
The Fuji Finepix S3Pro also does really well in the studio. We have sold a
good number of S3Pros, and have a waiting list for the D2X.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:10ug8kldk97v267@corp.supernews.com...
> Jim Redelfs <jim.redelfs@redelfs.com> wrote:
>
> > And the ANALOGY is the only thing that DOESN'T work for THIS Mac user
and his
> > Canon 20D. I bought the Camera Dec 9 and have had nothing but success
with
> > Canon software and updates.
>
> Well, it's a lousy analogy in that Canon is number 1 because they make
great
> stuff (and do it first).
>

It is a great analogy because Canon is number 1. They make great stuff and
do it first, then Nikon introduces one that is slightly better.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:NuiGd.11213$_56.10272@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>
>
> I think its not worth the money. For $5K, you dont even get a full frame
> sensor.

While it is true that the Canon 1D Mk II has a bigger sensor, I think it is
high time to bust the myth of the "full frame sensor."

There is no such thing as a "full frame sensor."

To a film photographer, 35mm is a "compact camera." I would not consider
anything less than a 2x2 sensor to be "full frame."

I also wonder how you know that the 1D Mk II has less noise than the D2x
when no one has even seen the D2x.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> "Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:NuiGd.11213$_56.10272@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> >
> >
> > I think its not worth the money. For $5K, you dont even get a full frame
> > sensor.
>
> While it is true that the Canon 1D Mk II has a bigger sensor, I think it is
> high time to bust the myth of the "full frame sensor."
>
> There is no such thing as a "full frame sensor."

full frame is a sensor the same size as the film format.
24x36mm, 70mm, 4x", 8x10".
take your choice. all are equally valid.

>
> To a film photographer, 35mm is a "compact camera." I would not consider
> anything less than a 2x2 sensor to be "full frame."

small format still.
since it is not 4x5 inches, or 8x10 inches, or...,
obviously it does not meet your own definition.

> I also wonder how you know that the 1D Mk II has less noise than the D2x
> when no one has even seen the D2x.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:_WjGd.12335$_56.2544@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> >
> > There is no such thing as a "full frame sensor."
> >
>
> I am referring to the SLR world. I am aware of other format cameras - but
> this is a DSLR group and I am comparing available sensor sizes for DSLR.
>

Compared to the Hasselblad H1D DSLR, the Canon is not full frame.

>
> It will be interesting to see a detailed review of the D2X in respect to
> noise against a larger sensor camera.

I certainly concur with that. It is not just noise, either, but other issues
such as moiré, sharpness, sensitivity, bleed, etc.

All I want to do is cut the hype from Canon's marketing department about
'full frame' sensors. The term is an insult to our intelligence and, truth
to tell, if bigger is better then Canon is at best third rate.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:j86dncWvqKd6mHfcRVn-rQ@wavecable.com...
>
> "Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:_WjGd.12335$_56.2544@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>> >
>> > There is no such thing as a "full frame sensor."
>> >
>>
>> I am referring to the SLR world. I am aware of other format cameras - but
>> this is a DSLR group and I am comparing available sensor sizes for DSLR.
>>
>
> Compared to the Hasselblad H1D DSLR, the Canon is not full frame.
>
>>
>> It will be interesting to see a detailed review of the D2X in respect to
>> noise against a larger sensor camera.
>
> I certainly concur with that. It is not just noise, either, but other
> issues
> such as moiré, sharpness, sensitivity, bleed, etc.
>
> All I want to do is cut the hype from Canon's marketing department about
> 'full frame' sensors. The term is an insult to our intelligence and, truth
> to tell, if bigger is better then Canon is at best third rate.
>
>
Sure it is. And the Hassy isn't. Since the 1Ds mk II is a 35mm style
camera, and it's sensor mimics the dimensions of 35mm film, it is a full
frame sensor. Also, it utilizes the available lenses in the same manner as
a 1v. The Hassy's sensor is also close to the size of 35mm film, somewhat
short of the 6cm x 6cm film that a 500 series uses, so I'd have to say that,
while it has a larger sensor, it isn't "full frame." And it will have the
same type of limitations with its lenses that the smaller sensored 35mm
style digitals have, like the D70 Nikon and 20D Canon. Same with the new
Mamiya ZD-1.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:8AuGd.8106$ru.8023@fed1read07...
> >
> Why draw the line at 2"x2"?

Why indeed? As Musty pointed out, this is the DSLR forum. But I would love
to take a look at a digital view camera.

Why not make full frame an 8x10? Or at leas 2
> 1/4x3 1/4? 35mm hasn't been considered "compact" since the 50s.

Both Nikon and Canon still refer to 35mm as their "compact" camera line.
There was a news item just a couple months ago talking about how the
manufacturers were discontinuing the manufacture of "compact," meaning 35mm,
cameras.

Remember
> "MiniCam" was the original name of Popular Photography? That was over 40
> years ago that they changed their name.

Well, I was around back then.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I have no doubt that Nikon will be bringing out at full-frame dSLR in the
next 12-18 months - the D3 has been rumored for a year or more and it is
known that they have already prototyped at least a couple of full-frame
cameras. Whether or not having an $8000 full frame dSLR in the lineup
provides enough of a marketing advantage to divert resources from the far
more important market sweet spots (D70, D2H, D2X) is a question that I'm
sure Nikon wrestles with - not to mention the question of manufacturing
capacity. If they are selling every dSLR that they can make, why would they
cannabalize that manufacturing capacity to make a camera whose price will
put it into a very low-volume category?

Well, the answer is prestige, I'm sure. But personally, I think full-frame
is a hugely overhyped concept and definitely not cost-effective for about
99% of photographers.

HMc

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jim Redelfs" <jim.redelfs@redelfs.com> wrote in message
news:jim.redelfs-443D07.10021216012005@news.central.cox.net...
>
> APS. IIRC, that stands for "Advanced Photo System". Kodak invented APS.
I
> am surprised to learn that the photo giant got that far into emerging
digital
> technology as to get "their name" on a measurement standard.
>
>

Heck, Kodak invented all the other sizes of film, too. :-)

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Howard McCollister wrote:


> Well, the answer is prestige, I'm sure. But personally, I think full-frame
> is a hugely overhyped concept and definitely not cost-effective for about
> 99% of photographers.

Full frame sensors, such as the Canon 1Ds II have very low pixel densities for
their high number of pixels. This equates to low noise. Further, it allows the
use of wide angle lenses to their full FOV.

Full frame sensor cameras such as the 1Ds Mk II are rarely bought by non
-professionals. They are bought by newspapers, magazines and pro studios for
their revenue bearing work. When you consider that at 16.6 Mpix, the 1Ds Mk II
is encroaching on the 22 Mpix backs of the MF digital systems, the "cost
effectiveness" is pretty clear.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Darrell wrote:

> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:csgk92$d1j$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
>>Howard McCollister wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Well, the answer is prestige, I'm sure. But personally, I think
>
> full-frame
>
>>>is a hugely overhyped concept and definitely not cost-effective for
>
> about
>
>>>99% of photographers.
>>
>>Full frame sensors, such as the Canon 1Ds II have very low pixel densities
>
> for
>
>>their high number of pixels. This equates to low noise. Further, it
>
> allows the
>
>>use of wide angle lenses to their full FOV.
>>
>>Full frame sensor cameras such as the 1Ds Mk II are rarely bought by non
>>-professionals. They are bought by newspapers, magazines and pro studios
>
> for
>
>>their revenue bearing work. When you consider that at 16.6 Mpix, the 1Ds
>
> Mk II
>
>>is encroaching on the 22 Mpix backs of the MF digital systems, the "cost
>>effectiveness" is pretty clear.
>>
>
> The local papers here are still using Canon 1D, and a few shooters have
> upgraded to the 1D mk.II. There is no reason to shoot with a 16+ megapixel
> camera for printing on newsprint...

Newspapers don't require the res for their daily articles and stories, but they
also maintain large archives and sell images as well. Higher res is a benefit
in that case. Magazines can get by on less than 10 Mpix too, but they prefer as
much as possible.

As to 'local papers', yes, of course they use the cameras as long as they
provide reliable service. But next time they need to replace them, they will
look for more quality/higher-res if it fits their business plan.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:50:08 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Darrell wrote:
>
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:csgk92$d1j$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>>
<snip>
>Newspapers don't require the res for their daily articles and stories, but they
>also maintain large archives and sell images as well. Higher res is a benefit
>in that case. Magazines can get by on less than 10 Mpix too, but they prefer as
>much as possible.
>
>As to 'local papers', yes, of course they use the cameras as long as they
>provide reliable service. But next time they need to replace them, they will
>look for more quality/higher-res if it fits their business plan.
I think the major newspapers in this area have all gone to the higher
speed, lower pixel count. They want speed and sensitivity and aven a
3 megapixel is good for a big print at newspaper res.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Steve Cutchen <maxfaq@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I've also got two ancient Macs that my kids use, a Powermac 7100 with a
> G3 card (circa 1994/98) and a Beige G3 266 (circa 1997). Both are
> running OS 9 and running very well. What PCs are of similar vitage?
> 386?

Nope.

Contemporariess of 1994: 486DX2, Pentium 66 MHZ
Top-of-the-line of 1994: 486DX4, Pentium 100 MHZ

For the G3: Pentium Pro 200 MHz , Pentium 200 MHz,
Pentium MMX 233 MHz, Pentium II 300 MHz.
For the G3-Card: Pentium Pro 200 MHz, Pentium MMX 233 MHz,
Celeron 333 MHz, Pentium II/II XEON 450 MHz.
(and the PII just being round the corner)

============================================================


* Internet invented, 1961
* Internet build , 1969 (3 nodes, 50Kbps)
Intel 4004, 0,108 MHz, 1971 (4k program memory, 640 Bytes RAM,
first integrated chip CPU!)
* '@' in email addresses, 1972
* TCP/IP , 1973
Intel 8080, 2 MHz , 1974 (used in cruise missiles!)
* Microsoft founded , 1975
Intel 8086, 10 MHz , 1976
* BSD Unix (first version) , 1977
Intel 8088, 8 MHz , 1979
* Mailing lists, emoticons , 1979 ( :-) )
Intel 80286, 12 MHz , 1982 (3-6x faster per than 8086)
* Domain Name System (DNS) , 1983
Intel 80386DX, 33 MHz , 1985
* The morris worm , 1989 (Internet severely affected)
Intel 80486DX, 50 MHz , 1989 (3x faster than 80386DX, due to cache
in CPU)
Intel 80386SX, 33 MHz , 1989 (80386DX without math coprocessor)
Intel 80486SX, 33 MHz , 1991 (80486DX without math coprocessor)
Intel 80486DX2, 100/50 MHz, 1992 (2x internal clock speed)
Intel Pentium, 66 MHz , 1993 (average 2 instructions per clock cycle)
Intel 80486DX4, 150/50 MHz, 1994 (3x internal clock speed)
Intel Pentium, 100 MHz , 1994
Intel Pentium Pro, 200 MHz , 1995 (dual CPU capable, extremely fast in
32 bit & 3d processing)
Intel Pentium, 200 MHz , 1996
Intel Pentium MMX, 233 MHz , 1997 (3rd generation)
Intel Pentium II 300 MHz , 1997
Intel Celeron 333 MHz , 1998 (Pentium II minus L2 cache)
Intel Pentium II 450 MHz , 1998
Intel P. II XEON 450 MHz , 1998
Intel Pentium III 800 MHz , 1999
Intel P. III XEON 733 MHz , 1999
Intel Pentium 4 1500 MHz , 2000
(sources:
http://www.computerhope.com/help/cpu.htm
http://www.extonpccouncil.org/Reso [...] 001cpu.htm
http://support.kdupg.edu.my/SUPPORT/tips/tips_89.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/encycl [...] processors
)

-Wolfgang

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message
news:10vcq8fh94o5l9c@news.supernews.com...
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> > Full frame sensors, such as the Canon 1Ds II have very low pixel
> > densities for their high number of pixels. This equates to low
> > noise. Further, it allows the use of wide angle lenses to their
> > full FOV.
>
> > Full frame sensor cameras such as the 1Ds Mk II are rarely bought by
> > non -professionals. They are bought by newspapers, magazines and
> > pro studios for their revenue bearing work.
>
> Newspapers? The 1Ds Mk II? I think not... :-)
>
Oddly enough I have been selling Canon 20D's to the local press
photographers. None use the 1Ds or the 1Ds mk.II, some are using the Canon
1D mk.II, although most are still using 1D with a D30 or D60 backup.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <58qdnW5MNNz9XWvcRVn-oQ@comcast.com>,
Walt Hanks <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>On the Nikon side, the speed of the D1X is still going to be a major issue
>when compared to the new D2X, at least for press photography. Only being
>able to shoot 3fpm during a breaking event could be costly.


I'd say so :-) Even 3fps would be a problem ...

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:54OdneNfRIJYEHfcRVn-hA@wavecable.com...
>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:8AuGd.8106$ru.8023@fed1read07...
>> >
>> Why draw the line at 2"x2"?
>
> Why indeed? As Musty pointed out, this is the DSLR forum. But I would love
> to take a look at a digital view camera.
>
> Why not make full frame an 8x10? Or at leas 2
>> 1/4x3 1/4? 35mm hasn't been considered "compact" since the 50s.
>
> Both Nikon and Canon still refer to 35mm as their "compact" camera line.
> There was a news item just a couple months ago talking about how the
> manufacturers were discontinuing the manufacture of "compact," meaning
> 35mm,
> cameras.
>
> Remember
>> "MiniCam" was the original name of Popular Photography? That was over 40
>> years ago that they changed their name.
>
> Well, I was around back then.
>
>
>
In this frame of reference, "compact" means 35mm P&S, not SLR, cameras.
Neither Nikon nor Canon have discontinued production of their 35mm SLR
bodies, Nikon just introduced the F6, and Canon recently did the same with
the Elan 7n and 7ne. It would be odd if Canon and Nikon referred to their
35mm SLR bodies as compacts, they make nothing in a larger format. Like I
said, 35mm SLRs haven't been referred to as "compact" or "mini" since the
early '60s.
BTW, so was I.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com