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: Bob G on 24 Jun 2010 11:28 I'd love to own a small, light weight, full-frame DSLR, and I don't know why nobody offers one. I and many others, I'm sure, would gladly forgo thousands of useless, confusing options that come with most cameras and are there simply because you can cram them into the computer. This is what I need: Auto focus w/manual option Auto exposure with A, T, +/- button, plus manual settings Choice of average, center, or spot metering (don't need 3,543 segments) As high an ISO as is practical Image stabilizer in the body A good, sharp LCD, easy to view in daylight, supplied with screen protector Small, built-in flash for opening shadows in daylight I'm sure some other features, but I can't think of any. I don't need movies, 10 fps, etcetera, etcetera.
From: Michael Benveniste on 24 Jun 2010 13:47 "Rich" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. If true, that's simply because electronics do more now. If you look at entertainment expenditures other than fees and admissions, you will find that the average consumer household spends a slightly lower percentage of after-tax income on entertainment now than they did in 1985. (Source: http://www.bls.gov/cex/). > 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. Manufacturers are in business to make money. They will therefore attempt to maximize profits, including using whatever market power they have. But it's unclear to me that at the current level of technology, a full-frame camera has a significant advantage over a DX-format camera for the average consumer. Even wonder why inexpensive medium-format film cameras virtually disappeared by 1980? Same reason. It's particularly ironic that you chose the Nikon EM for your false analogy, as that marketing effort was the first time Nikon made a serious effort at increasing profits through market segmentation. Along with the EM, they introduced the E-series of lenses. While they had made consumer-grade lenses like the 43-86mm before, they were badged as Nikkors. The E-series didn't carry the Nikkor brand and Nikon actively discouraged pros and "prosumers" from buying and using them. So arguably, the EM was the first instance of exactly the behavior (protecting pro gear) you are now complaining about. > 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. I don't know of any 70-300mm offerings which don't cover 24x36mm. But you've hit upon _two_ of the reasons why the average consumer won't see a significant advantage of a 24x36mm dSLR. The first predates 1979 -- "glass first, body later." Since camera tech has been evolving faster than lens tech for decades, you get more for your money by buying good glass first and then upgrading the camera body rather than the other way around. The second reason is even simpler -- you don't need a 24x36mm dSLR to create the size of image the average consumer is looking for. > 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. Ever wonder why the 3rd party lens makers discontinued their 80-200 f/4's and none sell one today? After all, it's not like they had "pro gear" sales to protect. It wasn't any sort of conspiracy; simply the introduction of new products which better met the demands of the market. The f/2.8 telezooms took care of the high-end of the market, and the 70-300mm class of lenses covered those looking for something smaller and lighter. In fact, I own an 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D _and_ a 70-300mm f/4.5~5.6 AF-S for just that reason. The only company that sold enough lenses to make going after the "in- between" crowd worthwhile was (and is) Canon. If you were to take on of those $200 80-200mm f/4's today and stick it on a D700 or 5D, be prepared for a disappointment. In 2006, I spent $125 on a near-mint 80-200mm f/4 AI-s Zoom-Nikkor. Great deal, right? Not really. Especially at the long end, CA is high by modern standards, as one would expect from the lack of ED glass. And that was one of the _better_ tele-zooms of the 1980's. -- 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 15:13 "Michael Benveniste" <mhb(a)murkyether.com> wrote in message news:88hk1rFdq9U1(a)mid.individual.net... [...] > It's particularly ironic that you chose the Nikon EM for your > false analogy, as that marketing effort was the first time Nikon > made a serious effort at increasing profits through market > segmentation. Interestingly, though, Nikon followed the EM with the not-very- interesting FG-20, then the full-featured FG (TTL flash, M/A/S/P exposure choices, and a "real" black or "chrome" finish instead of unfinished plastic) based on the EM body. I still have one of the delightful compact FG bodies...;-) > Along with the EM, they introduced the E-series > of lenses. While they had made consumer-grade lenses like the > 43-86mm before, they were badged as Nikkors. This lens in its first incarnation was terrible as was the early 80-250mm zoom (but useful at the time to photojournalists who prised their zoom ability more than image quality). > The E-series didn't > carry the Nikkor brand and Nikon actively discouraged pros and > "prosumers" from buying and using them. The early E-Series were not well-finished, but were often optically good. The later redesign made them look more like Nikkors, although the optics were not changed. The 28mm f2.8 was variable, with good samples being quite good stopped down some; the 35mm f2.5 also varied a bit, but could be quite good stopped down some; the 50mm f1.8 was quite good (and had VERY low linear distortion, as did the longer non-zooms); the 100mm f2.8 was a gem I still have (sharp wide open, light, and compact); the 135mm f2.8 was also very good (but, oddly, it was much heavier than the 100mm); the 36-72mm f3.5 was surprisingly good, close-focusing, and constant-aperture; the 75-150mm f3.5 is a legend, being very sharp, compact, and constant- aperture; the 70-210mm f4 was good, but not as "snappy" as one might have wished (but it was constant-aperture). With heavy use, all of the non-zooms could show wear (but the resulting looseness still seems relatively "tight" compared with AF lenses...;-). The zoom barrels were made of metal. Not bad, for "cheap" gear at the time...;-) I suspect that Nikon simply wanted to expand into the lower-priced market by offering generally high-quality optics at good prices with compromises in finishings being made to cut costs. --DR
From: Rich on 24 Jun 2010 18:50 "Michael Benveniste" <mhb(a)murkyether.com> wrote in news:88hk1rFdq9U1 @mid.individual.net: > "Rich" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > If true, that's simply because electronics do more now. If you > look at entertainment expenditures other than fees and admissions, > you will find that the average consumer household spends a > slightly lower percentage of after-tax income on entertainment > now than they did in 1985. (Source: http://www.bls.gov/cex/). > >> 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. > > Manufacturers are in business to make money. They will therefore > attempt to maximize profits, including using whatever market power > they have. But it's unclear to me that at the current level > of technology, a full-frame camera has a significant advantage > over a DX-format camera for the average consumer. Even wonder > why inexpensive medium-format film cameras virtually disappeared > by 1980? Same reason. > > It's particularly ironic that you chose the Nikon EM for your > false analogy, as that marketing effort was the first time Nikon > made a serious effort at increasing profits through market > segmentation. Along with the EM, they introduced the E-series > of lenses. While they had made consumer-grade lenses like the > 43-86mm before, they were badged as Nikkors. The E-series didn't > carry the Nikkor brand and Nikon actively discouraged pros and > "prosumers" from buying and using them. > > So arguably, the EM was the first instance of exactly the > behavior (protecting pro gear) you are now complaining about. > >> 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. > > I don't know of any 70-300mm offerings which don't cover 24x36mm. > But you've hit upon _two_ of the reasons why the average consumer > won't see a significant advantage of a 24x36mm dSLR. The first > predates 1979 -- "glass first, body later." Since camera tech has > been evolving faster than lens tech for decades, you get more > for your money by buying good glass first and then upgrading the > camera body rather than the other way around. Good glass does nothing for high ISO noise. Besides, I'm not talking about Joe Public, because he never bought SLRs, enthusiasts did. And I'm not talking about pros, they're already taken care of with current lens offerings. Enthusiasts are short-changed. >> 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. > > Ever wonder why the 3rd party lens makers discontinued their > 80-200 f/4's and none sell one today? After all, it's not like > they had "pro gear" sales to protect. It wasn't any sort of > conspiracy; simply the introduction of new products which better > met the demands of the market. How about an f4.0 70-300mm that doesn't cost $2000? Honestly, most people don't need weatherproof, 3lb bodies. > The f/2.8 telezooms took care of the high-end of the market, and > the 70-300mm class of lenses covered those looking for something > smaller and lighter. In fact, I own an 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D > _and_ a 70-300mm f/4.5~5.6 AF-S for just that reason. The only > company that sold enough lenses to make going after the "in- > between" crowd worthwhile was (and is) Canon. Hardly. Everyone made them 20 years ago. There must have been a market. > If you were to take on of those $200 80-200mm f/4's today and > stick it on a D700 or 5D, be prepared for a disappointment. In > 2006, I spent $125 on a near-mint 80-200mm f/4 AI-s Zoom-Nikkor. > Great deal, right? Not really. Especially at the long end, > CA is high by modern standards, as one would expect from the > lack of ED glass. And that was one of the _better_ tele-zooms > of the 1980's. > True, but then Chinese ED glass is dirty cheap today so the idea that a lens made like they were in the 1980s, but with today's technology would be bad is wrong. They could do a reasonably priced 80-200mm f4.0 today, but they'd rather make highly priced pro 80-200mm f2.8's or slow 70-300mm f5.6 lenses.
From: David J. Littleboy on 24 Jun 2010 20:37
"Michael Benveniste" <mhb(a)murkyether.com> wrote: > "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. ROFL. But yes. <SNIP> > 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. There are several problems with your above calculation. 1. 35mm doesn't produce D3x quality images. 35mm film in real life is no better than 8MP digital. 2. The D3x produces image quality equivalent to 4000 ppi scanned 6x7 slide film such as Provia or Velvia. Which cost US$1.00 per frame to shoot and develop, and that's before scanning, which is seriously expensive. 3. Digerati shoot a lot more wasted frames than film shooters. A lot. You need to divide the life of the digital camera by a fudge factor to make up for that. For some slobs, that's an order of magnitude. But that doesn't make a difference, because the mechanical parts of a dSLR can be replaced cheaply; a few hundred dollars, and then you are back in business for another 100,000 (midrange users like me) or 300,000 shots. And so on. But you are, of course, exactly right. If you actually use your camera regularly, digital quickly becomes world's better than film in economics as well as image quality. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |