Just mildly upset because I got the R2880 for $425 after rebate (I knew the replacement was comin but I didn’t think it was that soon…and I simply couldn’t pass up the deal!). And while the new features are great (larger ink capacity, slightly larger gamut, WiFi/Ethernet, auto Photo- and Matte-black selection, better paper handling and an LCD display) I don’t really print that often to appreciate them.

In the end, it’s all about the prints: With the Epson Exhibition Fiber Paper, Ilford Pearl or Epson’s Ultra Premium Lustre, it’s hard to imagine how much better the R3000′s going to be (it uses the same ink technology albeit smaller droplets) in terms of printouts.

Now I have about 824 images to sort out…

Go watch it.  NAO.

Update: Wait…it turns out to be a rip-off of this one:

Both videos are great in their own right, nonetheless.

A lens with built-in shutter AND sensor?  What were you guys thinking?  I mean, most seasoned photographers find it a challenge to create the most optimal image with just ONE sensor, and you came up with this?  Not only that, the sensor are of varying technology among lenses they came with: the 50/2.5 macro has a CMOS APC sensor, then the zoom has a 1/1.7″ CCD.  Great, two different sensors, not only do I need to switch mindset due to the change in DOF, I need to switch mindset on the light-capturing capabilities.

Never mind the fact that the lens contraption will cost a LOT.

Ricoh, did you even ask yourselves who would be the target market for this Frankenstein before you green-lighted the production?

Right now, I’m just installing the thing on my Snow Leopard. Upon double-clicking on the installer, OS X prompted me to install Rosetta Stone…

…OMGWTFBBQ!

Nikon, your installer is still written for PowerPC? Is it that difficult to re-compile that thing in Universal Binary?

I have the feeling this is just part one of the endless list of crap that I will have to go through with this software.

All in the name of better NEF conversion.

Update 1: OK, here we go.  Apparently, Version 2.2.2 does NOT work with Snow Leopard.  Worse, there is no ETA from Nikon and/or Nik Software on when it would be fixed!  Whoever wrote this piece of crap at Nik Software, you better not identify yourselves in the “About Capture NX” dialog box because you will get lots of hate mail…maybe even death threats.

Here is my first conversion with Capture NX2.  It’s almost…ALMOST…worthwhile to endure the software’s crappiness.

One advise, Nikon: just create a plugin for Aperture or Lightroom…ditch this UI.

Mike Johnston ended up apologizing for the action. Michael Reichmann “accepted” the apology, while Sean Reid is now threatening to sue

Wow, it’s like watching a bunch of first graders fight over a popsicle. Being sued for a differing OPINION (which is what a “featured comment” basically boils down to) can only happen in America.

I don’t particularly like Mike Johnston and his pretentious “articles,” but his actions IMO will not really help his credibility. He has essentially done two things wrong:

• He had the balls to make some guy’s comment as a featured comment which caused controversy, he should stuck with his guns. By back-pedalling, it tarnishes his credibility as an “editor” (using the word loosely).
• He should have NOT apologized. Why the hell apologize for something that he didn’t write?  Sure, he could have opted not to publish it–let alone feature it, but he would be branded an editor not showing two sides of a story.

As for Sean Reid and Michael Reichmann: if your egos are hurt that easily, you shouldn’t be doing what you’re doing. Especially to you Sean Reid…I don’t know you, but to sue somebody over an OPINION says a lot about your character, which is not very good. We are living in a country enjoying free speech; if you have a problem with that, maybe you should move to a communist country.

Update: Upon reading this thread, one can finally see how stupid (yeah, I used the word “stupid,” Sean.  What are you going to do?  Sue me?) Sean Reid is.  Clearly he has a beef with French (the person who posted the comment on MJ’s site), but he’s planning to sue (drumroll, plz)…Mike Johnston!  I mean, what the hell is this?

And if you read the thread, you can just help but roll over your eyes to his incessant whining…what a crybaby…for all I care, Sean Reid should be a spokesperson for Kleenex.  What’s worse is the people who are giving him a pat on the back for his whining!  Holy crap.  People just suck.  Seriously.

One commenter on that thread, however, is using his brain as intended when he wrote this:

Really can’t figure out what Sean is upset about here – or why he is choosing to make it a topic on the forum. Someone who spends a fair amount of time reviewing products needs to develop a thicker skin. The reviewer is simply being reviewed here.  Regardless, being upset really doesn’t offer much in the way of grounds for any sort of lawsuit. The courts in the U.S. generally offer considerable protection to those who criticize others – particularly public officials and public figures. And given Sean’s efforts at self promotion, I’d have to guess he qualifies as a public figure.

Sean Reid should STFU and grow a pair.

Update 2: SR and MJ kissed and made up.  MJ said that he “misunderstood” SR about the whole lawsuit thing–that [SR] never really said that he would sue TOP.  Um, yeah, OK.  Whatever.

I still think Sean Reid is a douchebag.  He should have not made a big fuss over this in the first place.  That’s all water under the bridge, I guess.

I felt like I just watched an episode of “General Hospital.”  Pft.

Update 3: Oh my gawd.  Sean Reid is like the Energizer bunny: he just goes on…and on…and on…instead of letting this issue die.  It’s getting more and more difficult to regain respect from the internets if you continue this endless yapping…especially this post you did:

That, at least, gets to the question generally. It doesn’t impugn anyone. If Howard had written something like that it could have been the start of an interesting discussion.

In a nutshell, my feelings on this are as I mentioned a little earlier today. As an individual, a reviewer has to decide whether or not he/she is going to report truthfully or not. The Leica press trip was nothing particularly glamorous and most of it was spent meeting with people at Leica. Press trips like that are common all over the place and, frankly, if a reviewer is influenced by something as simple as that then he or she is suspect to all kinds of influence.

In the end, people will use the cameras and lenses we write about. And either they’ll see that we gave a fairly good description of them or we didn’t. That’s the litmus test. A reviewer can’t cover everything but what he or she does cover should be basically on the money (and preferably backed up with picture examples when possible).

On the web, I often see these reviews that are mostly negative and people praise the writer for “telling the truth”. But a writer who talks about, for example, “the M9′s long shutter lag” isn’t giving an accurate description of the camera. I’ve seen several cameras bashed by information that, in my experience, wasn’t quite true. A reviewer who fails to describe a cameras strengths is, in my mind, as problematic as one who fails to describe its weaknesses.

I think the decision to trust or not trust a reviewer largely comes down to how accurately they’ve told the story. Once one gets the actual camera or lens in hand, is it as the reviewer said – more or less? That’s the main thing.

That, I think, matters much more than all the factors that *might* influence a reviewer. The proof really is in the pudding.

No, Sean, it’s doesn’t largely come down to how accurately they’ve told the story.  THAT’S THE THING: there is NO way your readers would know; it’s like saying that putting an “I tell the truth!  Seriously.” sign on your back is enough for ME to believe that you’ve accurately told the story (hint: it’s not)!  You cannot deny the fact that coming to this company-sponsored trip WILL influence the way you review the product, and that takes a hit in your credibility no matter how you think it doesn’t!  It’s this thing called “you-cannot-piss-on-the-well-you-drink-from” kind of thing.

Enough of that, though.  This is the last time I’m going to make updates on this.  Life is too short.

I think I should really start saving up.  My next camera will be the just-announced Leica M9.  Retirement funds?  Who needs that?

Update: OMYGOODNEZ…The M9 will have a suggested list price of almost $7000!  Even if I win the lottery I still won’t be able to afford to buy one.

…and the answer: you haven’t.  Still using a 1/1.7″ sensor.  I applaud the efforts of bumping up the maximum aperture to f/1.9.  But, guys, you can only bend the laws of physics to an extent…and two facts remain:

• There is only so much pixel you can cram in a small sensor without sacrificing (native) dynamic range and noise suppression capabilities.
• You cannot achieve shallow DOF with a small sensor, even with a lens of wide aperture.

Yes, I know, larger sensors are more expensive, and you will have to come up with a different lens design to match a larger sensor, which will make the camera even more expensive.  However, you there’s no way you can convince me that it’s going to be that much more expensive.

I’m not sure if you lost touch with your core users, or just a one-hit wonder with the original GR-D.

You will have to listen to what I’m saying this time, though.

Why?  Simple: the advent of Olympus EP-1.  If Olympus can design a small camera with interchangeable lenses, i can just imagine how much smaller it can get with a fixed lens.

Your turn, Ricoh.  Your batting average is getting dangerously low.  Get it right with GR-D IV, and I will max out all my credit cards to get one.