Pop Photo - Nikon F6 Review

[Tom Duffy]

Pop Photo arrived in the mail today. They do a full review of the new F6. Their reviews always have a quick synopsis, a "What's Hot", "What's Not" corner.

In the What's Not section one of the items is,

"Recording medium requires chemical processing before it can be read."

Isn't that the friggin' point?!?!

I'm really incensed by this. What a bunch of butt wipes!

 

[Jorge]

Pop Photo arrived in the mail today. They do a full review of the new F6. Their reviews always have a quick synopsis, a "What's Hot", "What's Not" corner.

In the What's Not section one of the items is,

"Recording medium requires chemical processing before it can be read."

Isn't that the friggin' point?!?!

I'm really incensed by this. What a bunch of butt wipes!

Write to them and tell them:
"chemically processed recording medium will last far longer than electronic recording media" That is HOT!

 

[mark]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA God that is funny.

 

[Sean]

In NZ they had the pop photo issue with a big headline "Cannon MKII Shoots Down Film!", then in the magazine they had the MKII shooting in high res mode, and a similar Cannon shooting 200speed print film. They showed a percentage enlargement with the caption "Digital Wins!". They gave no information such as why they chose to use 200 speed print film, or how they scanned it, etc. Why not use velvia 50 and drum scan it? It was extremely ridiculous. Anyway, let's see the MKII beat Jorge's 12x20

 

[John Bartley]

Well if Pop Photo has gone the same direction as Popular Electronics / Science / Mechanics etc. did, then they've become less of a "hands on" experimenters/DIY rag and more of a "let's review the latest gadget" rag.
It's called catering to the "me - first - NOW!" generation.
I no longer read the ones I mentioned, and when I was younger I used to buy every issue.

 

[Sean]

Totally John. I think every single page in some of these rags should have in small print at the top "This is a Paid Advertisement"

 

[Graeme Hird]

So Tom, why bother buying the rag? If you ignore it, it WILL go away. And did you really expect an in-depth review from a magazine with a name like that?

 

[Lee Shively]

The only reason to get "Pop Photo" is because it's so cheap by subscription. It's obvious that the magazine is supported solely by advertisements. They could give it away and still make money. To paraphrase Will Rogers, they never met an adverstising dollar they didn't like.

 

[Tom Duffy]

So Tom, why bother buying the rag? If you ignore it, it WILL go away. And did you really expect an in-depth review from a magazine with a name like that?

Hi Graeme,
I get Popular Photography for three reasons, primarily:
1. When they do a full test of hardware, particularly lenses, they are reasonably objective. For example, it allows me to drool over unobtainable lenses like the new Leica 50 Summilux ASPH.
2. I enjoy Herbert Keppler's monthly column on the SLR. He knows the history of the SLR (hell, he lived it!). Over the last year, he's had a lot to say about the advantages of film, pros reembracing film after moving to digital, and cautions against the follow the herd rush to digital. Considering the audience he reaches, he's a very influential voice of reason and deliberation.
3. Last Christmas, 5 people asked me which point and shoot digital camera they should buy. There was no dissuading them, based on the write ups in Pop Photo, I was able to give good recommendations based on the price range they were interested in. While they like the immediate feedback of digital, the day two second thoughts are predictable. The tiny digital sensor, combined with the harsh built in flash, make for very ugly people pictures.

Finally, it costs about a dollar a month.

I guess what burned me about the anti-film comment in the Nikon review (after searching for a tongue in check aspect to the comment (there was none)), was the unfairness of it. For every disadvantage that film has, digital certainly has offsetting problems. Nikon chose to do the R&D to produce a top of the line film camera for a dwindling niche market (remembering that photojournalism is now essentially digital). Nikon should be lauded for the decision, instead we get this pithy little put down from the photography magazine with the largest circulation in the world.
Still fuming,
Tom

 

[Andy K]

There was a comedy on TV here the other night called 'Nathan Barley'. It centred around a journalist who wrote a column called 'Rise Of The Idiots'. 'Idiots' being those in their twenties or thirties who work in publishing, who ride stupid little scooters or ridiculous miniature bicycles, say 'cool' a lot, work in an 'office' with no desks but with a 'chillout zone', who still ride skateboards, who promote their personal website with 'cool' little stickers they paste everywhere... it seems 'the idiots' now produce photography magazines.

 

[johnnywalker]

I haven't seen the magazine, but surely they are trying to be funny. It's a joke.

 

[Chuck_P]

That magazine lost all relevance with me a long time ago. It simply became a ugly, boring resource, not to mention, I could think of a lot of things to do with my $12 or so a year it cost, like buy some film.
Chuck

 

[Flotsam]

In the What's Not section one of the items is,

"Recording medium requires chemical processing before it can be read."

He was just upset because he had spent a half an hour trying to jam the 35mm cassette into the card reader on his PC before someone finally told him that he had to bring it to a lab.

Jackass!

 

[jd callow]

I think the editors are pissed that it won't be out of date and or discontinued in 18 months leaving them nothing to talk about. The sales dept is pissed because the bulk of their revenues are based upon products with a life expectancy of <18 months. HR is pissed off because if the F6 is a trend then they may need to hire writers who can do more than regurgitate product PR.

 

[rbarker]

Was it the April 1st issue?

 

[gchpaco]

Even when Pop Photo wasn't all woo-woo for digital they still didn't bother to hire writers that did more than regurgitate PR. Or occasionally get very confused; the Epson RD-1 review in that same issue struck me as really amazing in its ability to miss the point.

 

[Graeme Hird]

Hi Graeme,
I get Popular Photography for three reasons, primarily:
1. When they do a full test of hardware, ...

Fair enough - it's fun to drool. So, do you think they were not being objective any more? Or were you simply objecting to their objectivity?

2. I enjoy Herbert Keppler's monthly column on the SLR. He knows the history of the SLR (hell, he lived it!).

Again, fair enough.

3. Last Christmas, 5 people asked me which point and shoot digital camera they should buy.

Um, why not just say you don't really care for digital cameras and let them make their own way into the darkness? My first question for those people is "Why do you want a digital camera?" and then try to talk them into buying a film camera. I usually introduce enough doubt that they at least consider buying a new film camera.

Finally, it costs about a dollar a month. ....

Nikon should be lauded for the decision, instead we get this pithy little put down from the photography magazine with the largest circulation in the world.

It sounds to me like you might be paying too much ....

But I guess you got your dollar's worth, right?

 

[roteague]

FWIW, Photography Monthly (UK) did a review of the F6 in their January 2005 issue. It was a fair review, no negatives. The only comment they made was along the line of "in an increasingly digital world, we don't see how professionals can justify the cost of a film camera like the F6". Well, I have decided that if I ever replace my N80 it will be with an F6. What a beautiful camera!!

 

[Craig]

Well, I have decided that if I ever replace my N80 it will be with an F6. What a beautiful camera!!

I picked up an F6 soon after it came out, and I love it. I had and F4 previously, and the AF is light years ahead of the F4. I like that it is a smaller camera, as the F4 is a bit bulky and heavy with the 6 AA pack on it.

I think its kind of funny that people are calling it "so expensive", since here in Canada its about $2600, and the closest digital competitor in terms of being full frame and similar image quality is the Canon 1DS mk2, which sells for $9500. In that company, the F6 is a bargain and pays for a lot of film to even come close to the EOS's price.

 

[mfobrien]

Is it the April issue yet? They have been know to pull some legs in the past. My favorite was a review of some really awful photographs, that ended up being shown at a gallery and a reception to follow. The photographers was one of the editors' last names reversed, and the whole thing was a very elaborate prank. I really enjoyed it.