The Nikon EM was FF
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Adams print sells for $722K
Next: Nikon D3 from space - Aurora Australis Observed from the International Space Station
From: Al Dykes on 23 Jun 2010 07:34 In article <mtGdnQT8T6KsxbzRnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Rich <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >So where is the equivalent-sized digital, huh Nikon? Is it that you figure >you HAVE to have a hulking body to justify the PRICE of those things??? Um, the EM is lovely (I have one) but it's a film camera. Take a look at the Leica CL and the Minolta-Leica CLE (both FF film cameras.) http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/cle.htm I owned a CL and I wish I'd held onto it instead of trading it in for a Nikormat FTN body. I currently use a Canon G9, being the closest thing I can afford to my ideal camera when I bought it. Today I might look at the Samsung TL500. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Samsung/samsung_tl500.asp -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: Paul Furman on 23 Jun 2010 13:59 RichA wrote: > On Jun 23, 2:37 am, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> Rich<n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >>> So where is the equivalent-sized digital, huh Nikon? Is it that you figure >>> you HAVE to have a hulking body to justify the PRICE of those things??? >> >> Hmmm. Slightly bigger than a new Canon T1i, lower resolution, no autofocus, >> no autoexposure, shutter speed only up to 1/1000 sec, motor drive extra, >> no preview, no video, but about the same (inflation adjusted) price. The EM has metering for aperture priority. I suspect the modern AF & metering sensors need more space than whatever the EM used. They take some light off a half silvered mirror & bounce around in there onto additional sensors off to the sides. The EM viewfinder looks huge but you've got to have your eye pressed to it, to see the whole thing. Doesn't work with glasses that well. Digital requires a somewhat thicker body for the sensor, filters, circuit board, vs a thin bit of film slipping behind the shutter. > If Sony can produce a slightly larger, full-on FF body and sell it for > $2k, then Nikon could produce a lesser (D90 body type) with a FF > sensor and sell it for $1500 easy. Sony was doing that at a loss though, no? FF Nikons have an AF motor in the body, though not Canon & not the entry level Nikons.
From: Michael Benveniste on 24 Jun 2010 09:46 "RichA" <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > So where is the equivalent-sized digital, huh Nikon? Is it > that you figure you HAVE to have a hulking body to justify > the PRICE of those things??? Note: I know I'm feeding the troll, but at least I find these calculations interesting. In 1979, the Nikon EM with a 50mm f/1.8 lens cost $250. In 2009 dollars, that works out to about $720. For that $720, you can buy a D3000, 35mm f/1.8 DX, and a decent sized memory card. In 1959, a Nikon F and 50mm f/2 lens would have set you back around $350. In 2009 dollars, that works out to about $2550. Today, you can buy a D700, 50mm f/1.8, and a memory card costs about $2650. Of course, it's barely possible that someone _might_ want to actually use a camera to produce actual _images. The dSLR prices listed above include the cost of the sensor -- the film cameras do not. A D3x, 50mm lens f/1.4 lens, 64 GB of memory cards, and 10 terabytes of disk space will cost one about $9000. Based on shutter rating, this will allow you to shoot and store 300,000 shots as 14-bit raw files using non-lossy compression. Let's compare that with the least expensive legal way to get positive images out of 35mm film. To accomplish this, one would buy "short ends" of B&W movie film and respool it into used (ie free) 35mm still cartridges, process it yourself, and then make a contact print. Just counting the cost of consumables, I can find no time in history when you could accomplish that for 3 cents per 35mm frame. -- Mike Benveniste -- mhb(a)murkyether.com (Clarification Required) Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain
From: David Ruether on 24 Jun 2010 09:57 "Michael Benveniste" <mhb(a)murkyether.com> wrote in message news:88h5tfFmqoU1(a)mid.individual.net... > In 1979, the Nikon EM with a 50mm f/1.8 lens cost $250. > In 2009 dollars, that works out to about $720. For that > $720, you can buy a D3000, 35mm f/1.8 DX, and a decent sized > memory card. > > In 1959, a Nikon F and 50mm f/2 lens would have set you > back around $350. In 2009 dollars, that works out to about > $2550. Today, you can buy a D700, 50mm f/1.8, and a memory > card costs about $2650. > > Of course, it's barely possible that someone _might_ want to > actually use a camera to produce actual _images. The dSLR > prices listed above include the cost of the sensor -- the > film cameras do not. > > A D3x, 50mm lens f/1.4 lens, 64 GB of memory cards, and 10 > terabytes of disk space will cost one about $9000. Based > on shutter rating, this will allow you to shoot and store > 300,000 shots as 14-bit raw files using non-lossy compression. > > Let's compare that with the least expensive legal way to get > positive images out of 35mm film. To accomplish this, one > would buy "short ends" of B&W movie film and respool it into > used (ie free) 35mm still cartridges, process it yourself, > and then make a contact print. > > Just counting the cost of consumables, I can find no time > in history when you could accomplish that for 3 cents > per 35mm frame. -- > Mike Benveniste YIKES! Thanks for this illuminating reality-check! BTW, I still have a few bulk film-loaders with old film in them, plus my old chemicals have long since turned to crystals in their containers and trays. Someday, I *MUST* clean out that darkroom, sigh......! ;-) --DR
From: Rich on 24 Jun 2010 10:11
On Jun 24, 9:46 am, "Michael Benveniste" <m...(a)murkyether.com> wrote: > "RichA" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > So where is the equivalent-sized digital, huh Nikon? Is it > > that you figure you HAVE to have a hulking body to justify > > the PRICE of those things??? > > Note: I know I'm feeding the troll, but at least I find > these calculations interesting. > > In 1979, the Nikon EM with a 50mm f/1.8 lens cost $250. > In 2009 dollars, that works out to about $720. For that > $720, you can buy a D3000, 35mm f/1.8 DX, and a decent sized > memory card. > Yes, we all know that what we get now is cheap, no doubt about it. Though electronics on a performance basis are cheap today, people are also spending almost 3 times more of their income on a percentage basis on electronics now than they did 25 years ago. But it's neither here nor there. My contention is that any of the mfg's could offer a FF camera in a cheaper, smaller, more convenient package today, but an artificial wall has been built to prevent this, to protect the profits provided by their pro gear. Sony at least tried to break it down, but even the A850 is $2000, putting it out of range for most buyers. The other problem is lens quality. Going after market with zooms (example, Tamron's new 70-300mm which supports FF) and with basic, inexpensive primes like Nikon's 35mm and 50mm are likely the only way people would be able to afford lenses for a stripped-down FF. Sad, when you consider an 80-200mm f4 FF (not crappy f4-5.6 like now) could be had for about $200 in the mid-1980s. |