From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Ah well...
Full headers:
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Ah well...
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 09:52:03 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <071120170952032256%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <otqt5l$l8u$> <> <otrp3r$9q9$>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info:; posting-host="ffe14b1fba3a6654180863c476976ed1";
logging-data="21673"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX182EuaiWEMtwoARJAh2Z7AW"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:67hHlGsZBxyMFZy4IRUa2l5bjoQ=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article <otrp3r$9q9$>, 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.

nonsense. the d is for digital. there weren't digital cameras 55 years

55 years ago, there was the nikon f, which was nice in its day, but
primitive compared to even the 1980s, nevermind now.

> 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!

considering what it can do, it's cheap.

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

nikon lenses are quite good.

> > 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?