Just one company or a sign of a general downward spiral in the photographic industry?

[a._t._burke]

<p>**The cameraphone is just not designed to be a camera enough. It contains too much phone to really replace a camera. </p>

<p>Only for now, I think. </p>

<p>**For your "issue",</p>

<p>I have “issues?” </p>

<p>Didn’t know that. Are they like crabs and lice or perhaps something saleable? Saleable would be good. </p>

<p>**Michael already phrased it fine: "The corporate giants do realize that "none of the above" is a choice. It's just a choice that too few seem to make for them to worry about.". That's how it goes. </p>

<p>The corporate giants do not realize that "none of the above" is a choice that is being made more and more often. Don’t believe me? Ask Borders. </p>

<p>**Loosing one customer over flash compatibility on an old, cheap filmcamera is not going to disturb Canon all that much.</p>

<p>Of course! That was not the point. </p>

<p>**So, you jump ship to Nikon only to find the same issues (the exact same, since Nikon just made a similar move for flashes).</p>

<p>Nope, not me. 1. I am more and more tending to choose none of the above. 2. I hope I never get so desperate that I choose Nikon. </p>

<p>**And some discontented Nikon owners jump to Canon. And they both continue to sell millions of DSLRs and lenses for some time to come. </p>

<p>I think the time is shorter than the industry wants to admit, even to themselves. </p>

<p>**Personally, I check things like compatibility before I buy something. That saves a lot of headaches. </p>

<p>My, what an original idea. Where do you keep getting these gems? Actually, I usually to do test compatibility for that type of purchase. Trouble is that I was picking up the camera for some quick and simple use while in Florida. The flashes were at home in Montana. I thought I might jog home to fetch a flash for a try. Then I thought better of it because it was already late in the afternoon. I was afraid it would be dark by the time I passed through Kansas. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke </p>

<p>P.S. I just went to your website. It has a .nl in the web address. My home and place of purchase are almost the entire diagonal distance of my country, USA, and about 4400 km apart. Kansas is about ½ way in between. </p>

<p>P.P.S. Despite seeing you’re post as hostile and off the point (as evidenced in parts of my reply) I do thank you for being a contributor to Photonet. </p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Spirer...<br /><br />I had Googled. I had done the reading in the articles I could find.</p>

<p>On the Rangefinder forum I found information about the difference in flash between digital and film was about how the self contained auto-thyristor flashes designed in the film camera days, sometimes have problems properly lighting for digital camera use. Those flashes are only triggered by the camera and use their own built in sensor for measuring the flash output.</p>

<p>That is not what we are talking about. Could you direct me to a better source?</p>

<p>I still do not see why the last in a long line of Canon EOS film camera bodies cannot be made to trigger existing film camera flashes. Perhaps your source will explain that?</p>

<p>Yes, I also saw the:</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Through-the-lens_metering">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Through-the-lens_metering</a></p>

<p>information. That is where the Canon E-TTL was noted that measured off the film. Obviously the new Canon digital SLRs cannot measure off the film because there is a chip where the film would otherwise sit. I understand that. But, the K2 is a film camera. My older Canon 540EZ works on my later Canon EOS higher end film camera bodies through E-TTL, A-TTL (off the film sensor) and the older 630 era EOS film bodies in the TTL mode off the pentaprism sensor.</p>

<p>I understand that many digital cameras use a sensor in the mirror box that does not take the reading off of the film plane but rather directly and with the mirror down.</p>

<p>Prior to Googling I was already aware of all the material I read including the two cited above. I could not find the answer that you are hinting is out there.</p>

<p>Now. My misunderstanding is that mighty Canon company could not program their latest film camera to take their own branded film camera flashes like the 540EZ? Furthermore, If they wanted to be also able to sell their new flashes to the very few K2 buyers, they could not also program the K2 to sense that it was a E-TTL II digital compatible flash (that works on EOS digital flash like the 5D as well as the EOS film camera the 7NE) without destroying the K2 ability to use the 540EZ?</p>

<p>You write articles. You must be good with words. Can you tell me what I’m missing here or point me to a specific source that even someone like myself can understand?</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/</p>

[Ken Katz]

It appears as if the Rebel K2 is compatible with TTL, A-TTL, and E-TTL flash units (including your 540EZ).

 

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/2001-/2003_eos-kiss_lite.html?lang=us&categ=srs&page=eos&p=2

 

The Rebel T2 (released in 2004 - the last film Rebel) appears to be E-TTL only (probably to save a few bucks by excluding the off the film sensors)

 

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/2001-/2004_eos-kiss7.html?lang=us&categ=srs&page=eos&p=2

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Spirer…</p>

<p>Thank you for the cite. I have read that in the past. I re-read it just now. I found nothing in it that would indicate that the film K2 could not have been programmed to use the film flash, 540EZ. It would take additional in-camera programming to have it also use the EX series flash. But… That is doable from an electrical engineering standpoint. </p>

<p>From reading the material and applying my basic EE and computer programming knowledge, I would think that engineering difficulty for inclusion of a hot shoe flash would, from easiest to hardest be: 1. 540ez. 2. ex series only (as it is). 3. Ability to use both types. They choose option 2. </p>

<p>Mr. Katz posted a web address after your last post. It appears to be a digitized copy of a factory spec sheet, probably from a catalog or brochure. From his post it seems he was led to believe that the K2 would work with some ez flashes. I presume he thought so because it mentioned the E-TTL ability, which is included in 540ez specs. The K2 specs did not give a list of acceptable flashes (on purpose?). </p>

<p>If one looks under the unlikely area Exposure Control, the sub area called Light Metering, then number 2 says “E-TTL: 7-point, 35-zone pre-flash metering using Speedlite 550EX, 420EX, or 220EX.” Number 3 says “A-TTL, TTL Flash Metering: off-the-film, 3-zone A-TTL autoflash linked to focusing points, 3-zone TTL autoflash metering, but does not mention any shoe flash and I make the presumption that they are talking about the built-in flash. </p>

<p>Despite your initial post back to me, I have appreciated your continued discourse and the cite. I also note that you are contributing member and as a fellow Photonetter appreciate that also. May I suggest that we end this on that high note? </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Katz….</p>

<p>Thank you for the web address. Please see my comments to Mr. Spirer above concerning my reading of the material you kindly pointed out. I had not seen it and was glad to do so. I find it misleading and incomplete, perhaps purposely so. I can certainly see why you thought the K2 would accept a 540ez. I would have too if I had not been looking for the flaw. It adds to my feeling that Canon uses predatory marketing practices. </p>

<p>I e-mailed Canon customer support and they replied that the 540ez will NOT work and that only the ex series flashes are compatible. </p>

<p>I am now back home where all my Canon EOS speedlights are. Not the most trusting soul, particularly of the official Canon corporate marketing weenies, I am going to waste a roll and try both my 540ez (film) and my 430ex II (digital) flashes, “side by side”, with the K2. I had only bought the K2 for a one-time use and had intended to leave it in Florida. Curiosity overcame me so I brought it back and, after the flash test, will probably never use it or the lower end lens that came with it again as I have much better stuff here at home. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Willemse…</p>

<p>I had attempted to reply to your post dated August 30, 11:43am. Somehow only a part of my replying post shows up on Aug 31, 10:14pm. The top half has gone missing. I will make another try here hoping to rebuild the lost portion. Although the second part will be repetitive I intend to post it in its entirety for continuity.</p>

<p>Here goes:</p>

<p>**Are you looking for other points of view?</p>

<p>Yes and no. I was actually looking for an answer to a question.</p>

<p>** All your replies are just to contradict whatever somebody said who seems to disagree with you (and hence confirm yourself how right you are).</p>

<p>Are you saying that I contradicted Mr. Goulet when I said, “ You make a good point…?”</p>

<p>Are you saying that I contradicted Mr. Ellingson when I said “Good points?”</p>

<p>Are you saying that I contradicted Mr. Linn when I said “1. Yes, even before 1919?”</p>

<p>**If you just want to put up a statement, do not put a question mark at the end of your posting.</p>

<p>I did not so I did not.</p>

<p>**Now, instead, it seemed an open question, but it isn't.</p>

<p>Hmmm… (Quoting from the old Rowan and Martin show) “I didn’t know that!”</p>

<p>**Your mind is made up already.</p>

<p>Thank you. I’m getting too old to know my own mind. I should be grateful for that bit of wit and wisdom (but I’m not.)</p>

<p>**What, then, is the question?</p>

<p>As stated in the beginning, <strong>Just one company or a sign of a general downward spiral in the photographic industry?</strong></p>

<p>**Your pivotal bit of reasoning seems this:</p>

<p>At my age I can no longer pivot. I can shuffle slowly in a circle. Will that suffice?</p>

<p>**<em>As photo enthusiasts accept the trend toward prints done at 8X10 and smaller, they will soon realize all they need is a cell phone. </em>Well, being a photo enthusiast, I simply cannot accept the incredibly lousy handling of a cellphone, the lack of lenses available nor the rather huge depth of field with its tiny sensor. And I guess I am not the only enthusiast that prefers a camera-designed-to-be-camera for such reasons.</p>

<p>I simply cannot accept using a cell phone type of device either. My reasons may be a little different from yours as stated, but in the same spirit.</p>

<p>**Sure the ongoing improvements in cell phones will change the market, especially the compact camera market.</p>

<p>Surprise! I agree.</p>

<p>**But to think it will stop a DSLR market for the real enthusiasts as well, I think that's stretching it a whole lot. Enthusiasts want the right tools for the job, and are willing to pay for it.</p>

<p>Right or wrong I’m sure it will stop the DSLR market, as we know it. Manufacturers will drop out one by one over a period of time. My reasoning is that the major players in the DSLR market, Canon, Sony, Pentax, Nikon, Olympus, etc., need the compact market to keep the corporate structure going. After the compact market dwindles, the majors will no longer be able to stay in business. Also, I know quite a few professionals and SLR type enthusiasts who are no longer shooting with SLR type equipment digital or not. The economy has already lessened the ability to pay and the social trends are lessening the willingness to pay.</p>

<p>**The cameraphone is just not designed to be a camera enough. It contains too much phone to really replace a camera.</p>

<p>Only for now, I think.</p>

<p>**For your "issue",</p>

<p>I have “issues?” Didn’t know that. Are they like crabs and lice or perhaps something saleable? Saleable would be good.</p>

<p>**Michael already phrased it fine: "The corporate giants do realize that "none of the above" is a choice. It's just a choice that too few seem to make for them to worry about.". That's how it goes.</p>

<p>The corporate giants do not realize that "none of the above" is a choice that is being made more and more often. Don’t believe me? Ask Borders.</p>

<p>**Loosing one customer over flash compatibility on an old, cheap filmcamera is not going to disturb Canon all that much.</p>

<p>Of course! That was not the point.</p>

<p>**So, you jump ship to Nikon only to find the same issues (the exact same, since Nikon just made a similar move for flashes).</p>

<p>Nope, not me. 1. I am more and more tending to choose none of the above. 2. I hope I never get so desperate that I choose Nikon.</p>

<p>**And some discontented Nikon owners jump to Canon. And they both continue to sell millions of DSLRs and lenses for some time to come.</p>

<p>I think the time is shorter than the industry wants to admit, even to themselves.</p>

<p>**Personally, I check things like compatibility before I buy something. That saves a lot of headaches.</p>

<p>My, what an original idea. Where do you keep getting these gems? Actually, I usually to do test compatibility for that type of purchase. Trouble is that I was picking up the camera for some quick and simple use while in Florida. The flashes were at home in Montana. I thought I might jog home to fetch a flash for a try. Then I thought better of it because it was already late in the afternoon. I was afraid it would be dark by the time I passed through Kansas.</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>P.S. I just went to your website. It has a .nl in the web address. My home and place of purchase are almost the entire diagonal distance of my country, USA, and about 4400 km apart. Kansas is about ½ way in between.</p>

<p>P.P.S. Despite seeing you’re post as hostile and off the point (as evidenced in parts of my reply) I do thank you for being a contributor to Photonet.</p>

<p>**********************************************</p>

<p>After re-doing this I had yet another thought in rebuttal. Nothing you said addressed the original question, which was:</p>

<p>Just one company or a sign of a general downward spiral in the photographic industry?</p>

<p>s/s ATB</p>

<p> </p>

[Matt Laur]

<blockquote>

<p>Nothing you said addressed the original question, which was:<br>

Just one company or a sign of a general downward spiral in the photographic industry?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's been addressed at length by multiple people. Your rhetorical question (which clearly <em>is</em> a statement, and you did indeed end it in a question mark, as you've just shown again in quoting yourself) is based on a false premise (that Canon is an obvious villain, deliberately trying to cause you harm, and that perhaps the whole industry is, too). You present your readers with a false dichotomy, from which launching point you're now just having an ongoing, and somewhat petulant-sounding fit of pique. You're not asking if something is true, you're looking for people to agree with you. And you give them the illusion of a question to answer, your pre-defined answer options being mererly two flavors of your own thesis. It's a clever ploy at the high school debate level, but pretty transparent to a bunch of jaded <br /><br />The third option you've left off of your rhetorical question - which would have made it an <em>actual </em>question - was, "... or am I reading far too much into a minor personal inconvenience that results from buying inexpensive consumer electronics during yet another transitional phase in a rapidly, and always-changing marketplace?" And <em>that</em> would have given the people here a chance to actually answer your question (with a "yes," obviously). Of course they <em>have</em> answered the question you deliberately didn't ask, and you just don't like that they were so cheeky as to bypass your rules. You're not doing anything to elevate the discourse by conveying that millions of your fellow photographers, fools that they are, are using equipment that you'd never be so desperate as to use. Are you even listening to yourself, here?</p>

[DickArnold]

So the question in my mind as I stated earlier is that if I am someone who wants a small digital camera like my Canon ELPH do I buy it separately or buy a future I pad with the same capability as the ELPH? I am almost always going to carry the I pad so why bother with a pocket sized camera? So what does a market driven organization like Canon do to compete with Apple or Android driven devices on the low end of the market? How do they compete with ever more capable photo technology on the mass side of the their markets? I don't see the innovation that I do in individual miniatirized personal computing and the cell phone side of the equation. Photgraphy is not Canon's only line of business, but I do not think it is viable for Canon to support product lines that have ever decreasing market share. What do they do? I don't see it at this point although I am sure Canon is planning something. As you mentioned look what happened to GM and Chrysler and Ford when the Japanese slowly took away much of their markets in the US. Although this month there are increases in US domestic product sales while Toyota is down accoding to today's news. I don't know whether I see a general downward spiral amongst the major camera manufacturers but I do envision a change in this market driven industry. I frankly have no idea what that change will be, however. I hope the camera OEMs do. The issues that seem to influence the coming change are the maturity of the high end digital markets in the current form; the functions of digital cameras, i.e. heavy bodies interconnected with heavy lenses, the marketability of increasingly more expensive digital photo technology, the size and reactivity of the large manufacturers to change and of course as I said massive and burgeoning low end competition. This Mr. Burke is my somewhat flawed and under informed idea of what is going on in the industry. It is also a reply to your original question before the thread got off course on EZ and EX flashes. When I shifted to digital in 2002 I traded three EZs for one EX. Nine years later the EX is still working fine. I will hang on to my heavy bodies and lenses and my complex processing software because I still regret giving up my selection of Bronica gear. Sadly, on my part, the world as led by Apple is headed toward miniaturization and I think the Camera OEMs will surely have to follow to compete.

[DickArnold]

One note. As one who managed through a significant technology change in the FAA from ground based to space based technologies backward compatability cannot survive that significant change in many cases. Example. All new avionics had to be designed and certified for all aircraft using GPS which is now universal. Also a whole new ground network had to be installed and certified to support on board accuracy, reliability and integrity to enable aircraft to land and navigate with GPS. Draw your own conclusions. Backward compatibility is great if you want to preserve the past but is unavoidable in rapidly changing technologies and don't want to deny the benefits of new ideas. The benefits of GPS really have outweighed the expense. 4000 new instrument approaches and the eventual gradual shutdown of a couple of thousand ground based navaids. Every thing in life is a trade off, IMO

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Since I can find myself very well in what Matt replied, I will keep my answer short(ish). Thanks for replying to me at great length and in depth, and thanks for taking the time to visit my website.<br>

I feel I did address the original question, though possibly not directly so. I do regret my post sounded aggressive, since that actually wasn't the tone I wanted to set out. It's a pity I failed in that, but too late to undo it. Clearly our views on this matter differ, and that's OK. Even if Kansas is 4400 kilometers away from the Netherlands, both are free countries. So we can freely agree to disagree.</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Willemse....</p>

<p>First of all, the gracious tone of your Sept 2, 04:52 p.m. post certainly puts the truth to your statement that you did not intend to sound aggressive. I am much older than you and live in a different culture. I grew up in a different culture than my country has today. Times have left me behind. I could certainly understand the difference that the above would cause, as well as figuring that English is a second language for you. You write it so well, one would hardly know. </p>

<p>Yes, of course, we can agree to disagree. Photonet has always been a place to exchange ideas and present different points of view. That's what makes it good. </p>

<p>The reason I put the distance (4400 km) between my home in Montana and where I bought the camera in Florida is because I was making a joke about jogging home to pick up my flash for a quick test. Kansas is about halfway between those two places. Obviously, it would be nightfall, not when I reached Kansas, but by the time I hit the edge of town. I did not want to presume you knew the geography of my country, so I wanted to be explanatory. I say again, tongue in cheek, and with good humor, Kansas is only half of the 4400 km so perhaps I could get there by nightfall. </p>

<p>Thank you for your most kind and gentlemanly response. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke </p>

<p> </p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Laur….</p>

<p>You’re at least the second person who knows my mind far better than I do. Do you read minds and predict the future? If so, you might consider investing. </p>

<p>You’ve made a lot of assumptions as to what I was really wanting to do or was thinking, etc. I may be old and not in full control of my faculties, but even if what I’m thinking is warped, out of touch, or old-fashioned, it’s still what I’m thinking. </p>

<p>**That's been addressed at length by multiple people.</p>

<p>I watch the Canon forum pretty carefully, along with the one this is posted in. I don’t remember my particular question coming up. However, it may well have, if not with Canon, perhaps with another product, and has been discussed prior to my posting the question. Things change. What might have been true the last time this type of discussion took place and what is true today could be totally different. Plus, if I had a dollar for every duplicate question that has been posted at some time in the past, I would probably do better financially than you could in the stock market, if you truly have the ability to look into the future. </p>

<p> **Your rhetorical question (which clearly <em>is</em> a statement, and you did indeed end it in a question mark, as you've just shown again in quoting yourself) is based on a false premise (that Canon is an obvious villain, deliberately trying to cause you harm, and that perhaps the whole industry is, too).</p>

<p>No, it was not meant to be a rhetorical question, no matter how it was perceived by you. No, it was not a statement, no matter how it was perceived by you. It did indeed end in a question mark. I think I correctly answered what I think you are referring to (of course, I’m handicapped without your ability to read minds, so I can only make this an assumption) that would cause you to say that I did indeed end it in a question mark. </p>

<p>You further say Canon being a villain is a false premise. Whether Canon is a villain or not is in the mind of the beholder. Bernie Madoff still has friends. I actually don’t think Canon is a villain. I asked the sub question as to whether this was predatory marketing "Subject: Canon predatory sales practice, Rebel k2?". Many people thought all of the major camera manufacturers were using predatory marketing when they had to buy new flashes for their digital cameras. Others thought it was just good business and wonder why Bernie Madoff’s actions would ever be questioned. People see different things different ways. </p>

<p>**You present your readers with a false dichotomy, from which launching point you're now just having an ongoing, and somewhat petulant-sounding fit of pique.</p>

<p>I don’t see myself as presenting readers with a false dichotomy. Many people may disagree and think Canon is a wonderful company and part of a totally honorable industry. Our opinions would differ. Of course, a very acceptable answer would be someone with that opinion who would choose the “none of the above” option that is always out there. Were they to make a good argument on their behalf, they might change a few minds, maybe even my own. That happens on Photonet and is part of the value of being a member here. </p>

<p>Petulant and pique are some mighty fancy words. I felt burned by Canon. I defended my opinion straightforwardly with some and somewhat sarcastic with others, where I felt sarcasm was warranted. I also attempted a dry-humored response to some that was taken more harshly than I meant. For instance, I was using humor to Mr. Willemse when I mentioned jogging from Florida to Montana to fetch my flash for a try on the camera before I bought it. </p>

<p>**You're not asking if something is true, you're looking for people to agree with you.</p>

<p>I’m afraid you need to go back to mind reading school. My intention was to ask a question. If one did not agree with the premise, I repeat the thought that “neither” would be a most acceptable answer. </p>

<p>**And you give them the illusion of a question to answer, your pre-defined answer options being mererly two flavors of your own thesis. It's a clever ploy at the high school debate level, but pretty transparent to a bunch of jaded</p>

<p>I was not trying to be illusionary. I asked the question that was on my mind. Although the scope would seem to limit the answers to “yes” or “no” on the surface, “neither” is always an option. Most of the discussion on this thread has been about the technical issues of flash compatibility. Much of the rest has been about whether Canon was acting in good faith or not. All of that is good. A lot of information about things photographic was exchanged. I meant no ploy. I can answer no further, as it seem as though part of your post did not make it on the board. That happened to me in this same thread, which is why I had to redo my answer to Mr. Willemse. <br>

<br /><br />**The third option you've left off of your rhetorical question - which would have made it an <em>actual </em>question - was, "... or am I reading far too much into a minor personal inconvenience that results from buying inexpensive consumer electronics during yet another transitional phase in a rapidly, and always-changing marketplace?"</p>

<p>Perhaps overly assumptive, I presumed “none of the above” was an acceptable answer. Still, it was a question. In a roundabout way, you’ve taken that option and explained it from your viewpoint that I was reading too much into a minor transaction. That’s the type of answer and reason that one might logically give. Your opinion as to whether I was reading too much into the transaction or not is certainly your opinion with good reason to be expressed. I may or may not disagree, upon reading an answer like that, but I think most people would have thought it a proper counterpoint from a different perspective. That also would be a lot different than attempting to read my mind and state me as being disingenuous. </p>

<p>**And <em>that</em> would have given the people here a chance to actually answer your question (with a "yes," obviously). </p>

<p>“Yes” of course, as a difference of opinion. “Obviously”? I don’t see that. Obviously you do. </p>

<p>**Of course they <em>have</em> answered the question you deliberately didn't ask, and you just don't like that they were so cheeky as to bypass your rules.</p>

<p>Again, you’re presumptuous that I deliberately did not ask the question. But on the other hand, you’re one of the people who directly addressed the question, taking an implied additional premise, and explained it by saying that I put too much meaning in that one transaction. It’s a logical point of view that I will consider before making a judgment out of a first impression. I do things like that. That is why I ended the sub-subject with a question mark. </p>

<p>Most of the discussion was about the technical issues about flash compatibility, and mostly that it could not be done. I argued the point that it could be done. One thing I did not say in the debate above is that it had already been done years ago by what was then a somewhat major player in the camera industry. They, like most of the other majors, moved from the film manual focus to the film auto focus marketplace and offered several flashes for their new line of auto focus film bodies. Later, they offered a digital camera that, lo and behold, was compatible with their former line of film camera flashes. Additionally, I believe both Canon’s and Nikon’s very first high end digital SLRs (with a then-amazing one to two megapixel capture) did in fact continue to use the same flash as their auto focus film bodies did. Notice that when referring to Canon and Nikon, I said “believe”, not “I’m sure” because I am not. It’s just my recollection. </p>

<p>**You're not doing anything to elevate the discourse by conveying that millions of your fellow photographers, fools that they are, are using equipment that you'd never be so desperate as to use.</p>

<p>Again, I have to guess (not having your mind reading talents) that the above is referring to my saying something about hoping never to be desperate enough to buy Nikon. I can see where people, especially Nikon enthusiasts, would strongly disagree. My reason for saying that is not because I am in the Canon-is-better-than-Nikon, Nikon-is-better-than-Sony, and Sony-is-better-than-Canon circle of reasoning. It’s just that some years ago, I bought a Nikon 9000 scanner, which was DOA. A call to Nikon produced assurance that it would be corrected or replaced. After several months, I started calling. Nobody seemed to know anything, even after being given the return authorization details. Over a year went by, during which numerous calls were made by both myself and my local retail dealer. Mostly Nikon claimed the unit could not be fixed and they needed to send me a new one as soon as the next production run was made. Making a long, frustrating story short, many production runs were made, but it seems Nikon was filling new orders with them, but not fulfilling their obligation to purchasers unlucky enough, like myself, to have bought one of a batch of bad units. It was 2 ½ years before I got a working unit. </p>

<p>During that 2 ½ years, one of our local camera dealers, that had been Nikon enthusiasts, although they carried all of the big four, dropped Nikon because Nikon was pulling the same stuff on them with the cameras they sent back under warranty and/or DOA. </p>

<p>I just won’t do business with Nikon. They have some great products, but I won’t buy them. I have different standards than most people. I realize that. Still, it is my right to boycott purchase from a company I think deals in bad faith. </p>

<p>**Are you even listening to yourself, here?</p>

<p>No, I was listening to the many people who took the time to respond to my query, even though many of those responses were not directed toward answering the question. Some of those posts raised some good issues, and I’m glad for it. Nobody is obligated to post. Nobody is obligated to stay within the intent of the original post that starts any thread. This would be especially so in Casual Photo Conversations where just about anything camera related is appropriate. This would be as opposed to, say, the Film and Processing Forum, where it would probably be considered off topic. </p>

<p>May I end on a high note? I thought about your answer, that I am essentially making too much over nothing. My answer is, I can see why you would say that. I think the difference in our perceptions is due to a different set of values and expectations. To that, I would not say either of us was right or wrong, per se, just different. I would suspect your expressed opinion in that regard would be a much more average approach in today’s world than it was in mine. It’s only a guess, but still my guess is that a lot more people would agree with you than would agree with me. I think a lot more people would be willing to do business with companies that do the type of thing I was complaining about and think nothing of it, than those like me who feel it is another step away from what we considered, in days long ago, to be ethical business practices. </p>

<p>I will fully concede that my opinions are out of step with the new today. They don’t fit in. Still, they are my opinions and my intention was to ask a legitimate question. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>P.S. Thank you for being a contributing member both financially and otherwise. </p>

 

[a._t._burke]

<p>Gentlepersons….</p>

<p>Thank you all for your many responses. I felt that I should be responsible and respond to them (rather than just post a question and disappear). I also was interested in some of the other issues and posters and wanted to respond to them on their own. </p>

<p> I am no longer able to type much. I must dictate to a typist. Still my energies are more and more limited. Even what would have seemed like very little energy output used in responding, were it to have happened 20-30 years ago, has worn me down, a lot. Please do not be offended if I “lay low” for a bit. I’m not ignoring your efforts, just getting old. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

[randy_cooprider1]

<p>Mr. Burke,<br>

No response to this is necessary. Loved Rowan and Martin. Maybe able to shuffle slightly faster than you but not the average population. The Canon flash that works on my old AE-1 will not work (other than in manual mode) on my 2ti. My Minolta flash that works on my Dynax 7000 will not work automatically on my Sony A100. Yes the photographic manufacturers are predatory but it is not limited to Canon. The effort to stay alive in the competitive marketplace leaves little room for any thing that costs additional dollars. </p>

<p>In the words of <em>Frank L. Stanton "keep a goin' ".<br /></em></p>

[zlight_b]

<p>i doubt that the sky is falling...mainly because it has always been falling but continues to be there</p>