Slashdot Mirror

I could see that too.

I can see that. My 8 year old camera has that feature: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineu...

Unfortunately it was also cracked.

The Nikkor 1200mm-1700mm supertelephoto was designed for photojournalists. It costs $60 grand.

The price has nothing to do with the lack of leverage for the fab. In semiconductors, there has been a massive consolidation of vendors as tools become more and more specialized (and thus far more expensive to design).

For example if you want to buy an immersion ArF lithography tool, you have exactly two vendors to choose from. Both 1 2 of these vendors will charge you tens of millions of dollars for a single tool, and both will make no promises about software upgrades, unless you pay for a service contract.

At the next generation if you want to buy an EUV lithography tool, you have exactly one vendor, with a nice long waiting list (of your competitors) to get a tool. So good luck trying to negotiate on the software patches for the PC attached to it. Also the last quote I heard about for one of these tools was actually over 100 Million USD.

Yikes, I didn't think it was that much. So how about a Nikon Coolscan 9000 instead - around $2K (or less?) from memory.

> the more space on the sensor is dedicated to overhead instead of picking up light.

Not a big problem if you build stuff in 3D.

Some modern sensors have microlenses in front of the actual detectors.

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/d-technology/imagingsensor/iso/img/cp_02.gif

http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=246

NASA has been thoroughly Nikon for quite a while. Given the press Nikon gets for this, I suspect that they heavily subsidize anything needed to update NASA's gear. Recent news about the D3s: http://www.nikon.com/about/news/2009/1221_NASA-D3S_01.htm I'm skeptical that the incremental upgrade from the D2x required millions of NASA dollars.

Except for changes in lubrication oil to meet NASA specifications and the adoption of a specialized firmware, the D2XS cameras used aboard the Space Shuttle and in the ISS were basically the same as commercial models. The D2XS, released in June 2006, is a high-end Nikon digital SLR camera.

(Source)

Almost completely stock.... They are brutes of a camera (I have one). You could use it to pound nails in a pinch.

Well, projectors are shrinking and making their way into devices like digital cameras. When someone figures out how to make green laser diodes consistently and with efficiency to match blue and red diodes, I expect projectors may replace LCD screens entirely in devices for which size is such a big factor.

As for functionality, there's no reason why your cell phone shouldn't be able to do everything your computer can (in the future), and costs of old technology will continue to fall as new technology becomes available.

I was surprised that Nikon killed the F6 so quickly [..] and the F100 endures.

I thought it *was* the high-end F6 that was the only other remaining Nikon. According to Wikipedia, the F100 was discontinued and the F6 remains in production; it's listed here, although the FM10 isn't.

Personally, I'd assumed that the FM3A would remain marketed as an "affordable aspirational classic" status for a certain niche of serious amateurs.

Then again, because that would be a less poser-oriented market, those types would probably be less bothered by buying second-hand and take advantage of the glut; and maybe Nikon realised that.

I'm not sure that the F6 or F100 are "classic" enough for "I'm using an expensive film camera" posters. Anyone who liked their techie modernness would probably go digital and I suspect that the people they're still being sold to are actually serious film users.

A make and model would be appreciated, it's the kind of information that is useful to know.

Agreed. It's up to users to complain if they have a problem with support. Slashdot is a huge resource, read by millions of people. If some hardware vendor refuses to release a 64-bit driver, hold their feet to the fire.

For example, NIKON -- Nikon has had more than five years to come out with a 64-bit driver for their dedicated film scanners like the LS-9000 or LS-5000.

Those are Nikon's top-of-the-line film scanners. They're being manufactured and sold around the world as you read this. Yet Nikon's "solution" to being too goddamned lazy to write 64-bit drivers? Just use this third-party's driver.

Awesome job, guys, thanks. Because after shelling out $1,000 for a film scanner, the one thing I really appreciate is having to spend another $400 just to be able to use your fucking product.

"By providing a less secure, but computationally and administratively cheaper, method of encryption, we might be able to..." give people a false sense of security.

Remember, weak encryption can be worse than none as Mary Queen of Scots found out at the cost of her life (see http://www.nikon.com/about/feelnikon/light/chap04/sec01.htm).

You should try out Universcale by Nikon: http://www.nikon.com/about/feelnikon/universcale/index.htm Truly an awesome application.

Jacco (to e-mail me, please remove all yourclothes)
---
# cd /var/log

The Nikon Coolpix has a viewfinder that rotates independent of the lens/body. And the Coolpix (now up to the 990, 3MegaPix) is pretty consistently rated one of the best by digicam users. See DCResource for more info.

As a serious scuba diver, I can tell you that there are NO fully waterproof digital cameras on the market right now. By waterproof, I'm talking something waterproof to at least 100 ft (30m). Your best bet if you're wanting a waterproof camera for this depth is to go with a Nikonos camera from Nikon or a digital camera with a waterproof case from Ikelite. Just be warned, a new Nikonos camera will run you $500+ (It's a 35mm, not digital - I know...) and a decent digital camera with a U/W housing will run about $500-$1000 for the camera and another $750 for the housing.

Finally, sand-proof and waterproof do not go together very well. In order to make them waterproof, cameras use O-rings to keep the water out. Sand is very hard on the O-rings and can cause them to leak if you get sand on them. If you're going to have your waterproof camera in the sand, make sure you clean all of the seals to remove any pieces of sand from the seals...

Well, I'm sure I've probably given you too much info because it sounds like you're only using it in shallow water. As I said, I haven't heard of any watertight digital cameras, but keep your eyes out in the future...

kwsNI