Troll Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 http://luminous-landscape.com/whatsnew/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphoto Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Bill, good one. Now, who was the one individual who had no trouble with the M8? Sounds like Mr. Reichmann did not give the M8 a chance. Who needs a lens shade anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron_h__portland_ Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Lesson #1 Don't cross thread your filter threads. This should be a simple fix. Lesson #2 carry a backup MECHANICAL camera. Even with mist and rain etc, it will likely still fire. Good grief, what a bunch of duds! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic_. Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 <i>" There were 5 Nikon users on the trip, with various bodies - mostly D200's. There were no reports of any Nikon problems or failures. "</i> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Why would anybody expect a Nikon to fail? They have no charm at all, they're just like those boring Toyotas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fourfa Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 " There were 5 Nikon users on the trip, with various bodies - mostly D200's. There were no reports of any Nikon problems or failures. " you forgot to include the other relevant quote: "As for why the majority of the camera failures seen on this trip were Canon, the answer is because 85% of the trip's members were shooting Canon. Simple statistics." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjords Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 <a href="http://schewephoto.com/Icebergs/HppyBrthdyLghtrm_2.mov">An interesting video of the expedition</a>:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul hart Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 The problem was caused by a rubber O ring in cold conditions. Don't I recall that even NASA had problems of this sort? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_Es Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Wonderful story. At least they had a ship where they could recharge their batteries. There is a good lesson here. A mechanical camera and film are good to have. It is a good lesson for me when shoots lectures and theatrical performances. In the middle of one of those you might as well be in Antarctica if the electronics blow and you have no backup. Film is a royal pain in the backside to edit, scan and Photoshop. But the only ways you can blow film is if you don't wind it properly or if something screws up in development. Interesting about the M8 suddenly stopping dead. Mine has been just fine. It takes an important shot to make a camera go silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david k. Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 "In all, 90 minutes of wet shooting produced six 1Ds MKII cameras which stopped working for one reason or another. Three of them recovered after a night of drying out. Three remained hors de combat for the rest of the trip." So much for the sealed top-of-the-line Canon pro camera......maybe Leica's are better designed than people give them credit for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeroen dommisse Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Lovely photo of those rich nerds on the ship deck, by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 <i> "Why would anybody expect a Nikon to fail? They have no charm at all, they're just like those boring Toyotas" </i> <p> I guess if everyone on this expedition had only taken one camera and all had had paying clients for their photos, then the Nikon owners with their charmless hardware would have got paid. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_Es Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 "Shooting" not "shoots" in my last posting. I'm with David with regard to all that wonderful Canon equipment that couldn't take a light drizzle. The old FD Canon equipment could. If ever I get to go to the frozen bottom of the world, I am going to take a lot of slide film, my Nikon F3 and Nikon F2. Certainly I'll pack a digital Nikon (which I don't have--this is an imaginary journey, remember) , and maybe take my M8 (great when meeting the penguins face to face). I would certainly pack a good telephoto zoom that could reach to around 600mm (which I also don't have). My MacBook, big hanging hard drives, etc. I would leave at home. Maybe I'd take an M6 too. That's five cameras? Hmm. I'd also take my wife. She could carry the M6, plus offer intelligent advice when my equipment or someone else's went ka- plooie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinay_patel Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 I mentioned this on the other thread about this article--one guy had only 3 rolls of film for the entire trip because the rest was lost in his checked luggage at the airport. No mention of why a knowing photographer would've put any film in checked bags in the first place, the CT scanners fog it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbon_dragon Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 It's highly disturbing that the weather sealed Canons couldn't take the drizzle and that such a high percentage of the M8s failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinay_patel Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 To me what's disturbing is how a bunch of supposedly knowledgeable photographers would manage to screw up so much of their expensive gear, included in that group being the guy who writes reviews and expects people to accept his authority ;-) Didn't they know a 5D isn't weather-sealed? Why didn't they use EWA-marine housings or the like? Did they use non-L or older L lenses without the rear o-ring on their 1Ds bodies? Why didn't any of the Nikon D200s fail in the same conditions--are we asked to conclude that the cameras better...or would it be equally possible they were just carried by smarter people in this case? I guess it's true, nobody can make something totally foolproof because there's no limit to what fools will do ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 VP, It is entirely possible that Nikon asked the reviewer not to disclose anything about any particular flaw that they were already well aware of. If someone exposes that, the whole thing would be easily turned around with a simple footnote. Stay tuned. My concern is why do they allow overloaded tourist snappers on Antartica? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cebes_johnson Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 All I can say is I love film and mechanical cameras upon reading this article. With something that is very rarely said on this forum board, "Thank you for posting." I enjoyed reading the article nonetheless. That would be a very enjoyable trip no doubt.... Best regards C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david k. Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 "It is entirely possible that Nikon asked the reviewer not to disclose anything about any particular flaw that they were already well aware of. If someone exposes that, the whole thing would be easily turned around with a simple footnote. Stay tuned." LOL.........who would ever do such a thing!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 "My concern is why do they allow overloaded tourist snappers on Antartica?" Same reason they let them all over the Galapagos.... http://www.discovergalapagos.com/ Money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_long Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 From the Luminous Landscape website: "In addition to internationally renowned photographer, educator and author Michael Reichmann, five other world-class photographers and digital imaging experts will be onboard to act as your guides, consultants and teachers." Mr. Reichmann then goes on to say that he shot 7024 frames resulting in 92 images that were worth printing and 6 images that were portfolio material. That translates to a 1.3% and 0.09% success rate for a three week trip. With numbers like that, the camera failure rate would be the least of my concerns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nels Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Who cares if the Nikons kept working. The images people captured with them are still Nikon images, which don't really count. I'm sure it was the crap factor....I mean...the crop factor of Nikons that had something to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_wisniewski Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Andy - It's not "simple statistics". Ignore the M8 failures (not the primary cameras of anyone on the trip). There were 15% non-Canon shooters on the trip (10% were Nikon, 5% Blad). The simple statistics are that 100% of the 11 failures (6 1Ds II, 3 5D, 2 rebel) were Canon, and 0% (not 15%) were Nikon and Blad. Of course, less simple statistics would tell us that the sample sizes are two small. Hey Nels, it's Leica shooters like you that give all of us a bad name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmarfudd Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 My bad name is entirely my fault, not Nels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now