From: Noons <>
Subject: Re: Ah well...
Full headers:
From: Noons <>
Subject: Re: Ah well...
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 18:58:48 +1100
Organization: NOYB
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <otrp3r$9q9$>
References: <otqt5l$l8u$>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:58:52 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info:; posting-host="0e6ab9f5d5ace0f70a875d8b2f540f33";
logging-data="10057"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19eax6ZLNr7vIbk6T/p1ORv"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Language: en-US
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hw/cgk70pceOvVzsEtsRVqlB0xs=
Print Article
Forward Article
On 7/11/2017 2:41 @wiz, Davoud wrote:
> Noons:
>> Buh-bye, Nikon. You were once good, but...
> Are you saying that Nikon no longer builds good cameras?

No.  They build the same boring old cameras that were great news 55
years ago: slrs.  The "D" in front is just for marketing.

The 850 is soooo expensive it might have been useful at another time 
when folks were suckers enough to waste $$$ on the "mine has more 
megapixels than yours" nonsense.
Nowadays?  No way!

And there is a little bit more about photography than just the cameras.
Lenses come to mind...

> I find that rather to be very unlikely. So what's the real reason for
Nikon's decline?

Aww, let me see...
Lack of modern products at a reasonable price, capable of keeping them 
afloat while other companies sell a better product and stay on the market?