From: Bruce on
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 08:56:43 -0800, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2010-01-30 08:30:51 -0800, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 08:08:35 -0800, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2010-01-30 02:19:17 -0800, "G Paleologopoulos"
>>> <gpaleo(a)ath.forthnet.gr> said:
>>>>
>>>> How do you spell D7000?
>>>> ;-))
>>>
>>> I will probably be wrong, but what I think is, Nikon would be foolish
>>> to throw away all the good PR and model name recognition the D90 has
>>> gained through its lifecycle.
>>>
>>> Like the D300/D300s and D3/D3x/D3s, I think any modifications or
>>> upgrades to the D90 or D700 would, or should be named with the addition
>>> of a postscript letter, rather than a totally new model designation.
>>
>>
>> I disagree. The D90 is at the top of Nikon's range of consumer DSLRs,
>> separate from the prosumer D300 and D700 and the pro D3s/x.
>>
>> Nikon has clearly decided to number its consumer DSLRs in the Dx000
>> series, so the logical successor to the D90 would be numbered in that
>> series, with a value of "x" that is greater than 5.
>
>Then why on Earth didn't they number it D9000 to start with?
>It seems the D90 was a progression from the D70, and a D90s seems far
>more logical, but we are probably all wrong, if it is consumers they
>are aiming at it will end up with some truly meaningless letters and
>numbers such as "GTHD180" .
>
>>
>> D7000 would therefore be quite logical.
>
>Why would there have to be anything logical about model designations
>and names of any camera?


There doesn't have to be, but it helps potential buyers if there is.

A D7000 would quite clearly sit at the top of a consumer hierarchy
with the D5000 and D3000 below it.


>Just look at what we have now with all the offerings from all the
>manufacturers, all with obligatory "F's", "X's", "D's", "I's", "E's",
>"K's", etc and attendant numbers.


True. There is only so much you can do to make model designations
distinctive with a limited selection of letters and digits. Look at
the problems Olympus had when they introduced their M-1 film SLR back
in 1973. Leica were quick to hit Olympus with lawsuits and the model
"name" was quickly changed to OM-1, but not until 5000 had been sold.

If you depart from that system, and start giving cameras model names,
you run into problems finding memorable names that have not already
been trade marked. So I think we are stuck with letters and numbers,
and the manufacturers will still have to find ways to make their model
ranges distinct from each other.

I think Nikon finally got this about right, but the D90 soldiers on as
the last vestige of the old system.

From: Neil Harrington on

"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rkp8m554lhjmhr2ugjpkld8oal7k6qfotv(a)4ax.com...
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 08:56:43 -0800, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2010-01-30 08:30:51 -0800, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 08:08:35 -0800, Savageduck
>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2010-01-30 02:19:17 -0800, "G Paleologopoulos"
>>>> <gpaleo(a)ath.forthnet.gr> said:
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you spell D7000?
>>>>> ;-))
>>>>
>>>> I will probably be wrong, but what I think is, Nikon would be foolish
>>>> to throw away all the good PR and model name recognition the D90 has
>>>> gained through its lifecycle.
>>>>
>>>> Like the D300/D300s and D3/D3x/D3s, I think any modifications or
>>>> upgrades to the D90 or D700 would, or should be named with the addition
>>>> of a postscript letter, rather than a totally new model designation.
>>>
>>>
>>> I disagree. The D90 is at the top of Nikon's range of consumer DSLRs,
>>> separate from the prosumer D300 and D700 and the pro D3s/x.
>>>
>>> Nikon has clearly decided to number its consumer DSLRs in the Dx000
>>> series, so the logical successor to the D90 would be numbered in that
>>> series, with a value of "x" that is greater than 5.
>>
>>Then why on Earth didn't they number it D9000 to start with?
>>It seems the D90 was a progression from the D70, and a D90s seems far
>>more logical, but we are probably all wrong, if it is consumers they
>>are aiming at it will end up with some truly meaningless letters and
>>numbers such as "GTHD180" .
>>
>>>
>>> D7000 would therefore be quite logical.
>>
>>Why would there have to be anything logical about model designations
>>and names of any camera?
>
>
> There doesn't have to be, but it helps potential buyers if there is.
>
> A D7000 would quite clearly sit at the top of a consumer hierarchy
> with the D5000 and D3000 below it.
>
>
>>Just look at what we have now with all the offerings from all the
>>manufacturers, all with obligatory "F's", "X's", "D's", "I's", "E's",
>>"K's", etc and attendant numbers.
>
>
> True. There is only so much you can do to make model designations
> distinctive with a limited selection of letters and digits. Look at
> the problems Olympus had when they introduced their M-1 film SLR back
> in 1973. Leica were quick to hit Olympus with lawsuits and the model
> "name" was quickly changed to OM-1, but not until 5000 had been sold.
>
> If you depart from that system, and start giving cameras model names,
> you run into problems finding memorable names that have not already
> been trade marked. So I think we are stuck with letters and numbers,
> and the manufacturers will still have to find ways to make their model
> ranges distinct from each other.
>
> I think Nikon finally got this about right, but the D90 soldiers on as
> the last vestige of the old system.

You may be right at that, but let's hope they don't make the same mistake as
when they advanced model numbers only by tens (the D70 etc. series) or
hundreds (the D200 etc. series), as that wastes a godawful lot of what could
have been useful model numbers. If they do the same thing now and advance
new model numbers only by thousands, they'll very soon be out of numbers
again.

In the Coolpix lines they had and still have more sensible progressions
(5200, 5600, 5900, 7900 etc. and later S500, S600, S610, S700 etc. and S50,
S51, S51c, S52 etc.) which allowed for easy identification of models within
distinct family lines with virtually no chance of ever running out of model
numbers. No reason they couldn't do something similar with low- and
mid-range DSLRs.


From: Peter on
"Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
news:gOCdnRylUsT8HPnWnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rkp8m554lhjmhr2ugjpkld8oal7k6qfotv(a)4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 08:56:43 -0800, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2010-01-30 08:30:51 -0800, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 08:08:35 -0800, Savageduck
>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2010-01-30 02:19:17 -0800, "G Paleologopoulos"
>>>>> <gpaleo(a)ath.forthnet.gr> said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you spell D7000?
>>>>>> ;-))
>>>>>
>>>>> I will probably be wrong, but what I think is, Nikon would be foolish
>>>>> to throw away all the good PR and model name recognition the D90 has
>>>>> gained through its lifecycle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like the D300/D300s and D3/D3x/D3s, I think any modifications or
>>>>> upgrades to the D90 or D700 would, or should be named with the
>>>>> addition
>>>>> of a postscript letter, rather than a totally new model designation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I disagree. The D90 is at the top of Nikon's range of consumer DSLRs,
>>>> separate from the prosumer D300 and D700 and the pro D3s/x.
>>>>
>>>> Nikon has clearly decided to number its consumer DSLRs in the Dx000
>>>> series, so the logical successor to the D90 would be numbered in that
>>>> series, with a value of "x" that is greater than 5.
>>>
>>>Then why on Earth didn't they number it D9000 to start with?
>>>It seems the D90 was a progression from the D70, and a D90s seems far
>>>more logical, but we are probably all wrong, if it is consumers they
>>>are aiming at it will end up with some truly meaningless letters and
>>>numbers such as "GTHD180" .
>>>
>>>>
>>>> D7000 would therefore be quite logical.
>>>
>>>Why would there have to be anything logical about model designations
>>>and names of any camera?
>>
>>
>> There doesn't have to be, but it helps potential buyers if there is.
>>
>> A D7000 would quite clearly sit at the top of a consumer hierarchy
>> with the D5000 and D3000 below it.
>>
>>
>>>Just look at what we have now with all the offerings from all the
>>>manufacturers, all with obligatory "F's", "X's", "D's", "I's", "E's",
>>>"K's", etc and attendant numbers.
>>
>>
>> True. There is only so much you can do to make model designations
>> distinctive with a limited selection of letters and digits. Look at
>> the problems Olympus had when they introduced their M-1 film SLR back
>> in 1973. Leica were quick to hit Olympus with lawsuits and the model
>> "name" was quickly changed to OM-1, but not until 5000 had been sold.
>>
>> If you depart from that system, and start giving cameras model names,
>> you run into problems finding memorable names that have not already
>> been trade marked. So I think we are stuck with letters and numbers,
>> and the manufacturers will still have to find ways to make their model
>> ranges distinct from each other.
>>
>> I think Nikon finally got this about right, but the D90 soldiers on as
>> the last vestige of the old system.
>
> You may be right at that, but let's hope they don't make the same mistake
> as when they advanced model numbers only by tens (the D70 etc. series) or
> hundreds (the D200 etc. series), as that wastes a godawful lot of what
> could have been useful model numbers. If they do the same thing now and
> advance new model numbers only by thousands, they'll very soon be out of
> numbers again.
>
> In the Coolpix lines they had and still have more sensible progressions
> (5200, 5600, 5900, 7900 etc. and later S500, S600, S610, S700 etc. and
> S50, S51, S51c, S52 etc.) which allowed for easy identification of models
> within distinct family lines with virtually no chance of ever running out
> of model numbers. No reason they couldn't do something similar with low-
> and mid-range DSLRs.
>

It's easier to remember in the hundreds and build model recognition than
with 302, 303, etc. the consumer will feel it is a larger step from 200 to
300, than from 200 to 201.

--
Peter

From: Neil Harrington on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b649892$1$31459$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
> news:gOCdnRylUsT8HPnWnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:rkp8m554lhjmhr2ugjpkld8oal7k6qfotv(a)4ax.com...

[ . . . ]

>>>
>>> I think Nikon finally got this about right, but the D90 soldiers on as
>>> the last vestige of the old system.
>>
>> You may be right at that, but let's hope they don't make the same mistake
>> as when they advanced model numbers only by tens (the D70 etc. series) or
>> hundreds (the D200 etc. series), as that wastes a godawful lot of what
>> could have been useful model numbers. If they do the same thing now and
>> advance new model numbers only by thousands, they'll very soon be out of
>> numbers again.
>>
>> In the Coolpix lines they had and still have more sensible progressions
>> (5200, 5600, 5900, 7900 etc. and later S500, S600, S610, S700 etc. and
>> S50, S51, S51c, S52 etc.) which allowed for easy identification of models
>> within distinct family lines with virtually no chance of ever running out
>> of model numbers. No reason they couldn't do something similar with low-
>> and mid-range DSLRs.
>>
>
> It's easier to remember in the hundreds and build model recognition than
> with 302, 303, etc. the consumer will feel it is a larger step from 200 to
> 300, than from 200 to 201.

That's true, but they wouldn't have to advance by ones either. The model to
follow the D3000 for example might be named the D3100. That would be similar
to the model numbering system that Nikon used in the Coolpix line a few
years ago, which worked quite well.


From: Neil Harrington on

"igotsaurus" <fac_187(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hk1ouc$thc$1(a)adenine.netfront.net...
> What fools these consumers be:
> If you do not offer "new" products then like a shark that stops swimming
> you die.
> The dSLR life cycle is shorter than ever.

Actually, Nikon's rate of model change at the enthusiast level has been
quite constant over the last decade. The D100 was introduced in 2002, the
D70 in 2004, the D80 in 2006, and the D90 in 2008. And it's a pretty sure
thing that we'll see the replacement for the D90 in 2010, so the two-year
cycle continues.

> How long did it take the D300/90 innards to show up in the D5000?
> D80/200 innards are still being repackaged in "new" dSLRs.

Sure, but that makes perfect sense. The newer technology appears first in
the higher-priced models and trickles down to the lower-priced lines. I
can't imagine a better way for them to do it.