I was having a discussion with some ex-Nikonites who have switched to Canon, about how the build quality and innovation is waning at Nikon. Think about the plasticy DX lenses compared to AIS glass, even simple things like lens caps. Note I don't think this applies to the D2 series bodies, theyre still the most exquisuite exteriors.
I think what we are seeing is a change of the guard at Nikon. All the old guys who brought out some the most innovative products (many of which Canon or anyone has yet to match) are retiring. Theres just a few left from that era, and thats why Nikon still made an F6, the FM3a and the 45mm f/2.8P.
See below. Would Nikon ever make anything like these now days? Are there any old boys here who remember when Nikon was releasing these masterpieces?
Yes, but unfortunately, few people bought them. Canon pioneered the cheap, plastic camera, and stole a lot of business from Nikon by doing so.
There weren't enough people who were willing to pay for quality and reliability to sustain Nikon's earlier business model, so Nikon had to adapt. Leica and Hasselblad are in the same boat and struggling to survive.
As Ken Rockwell says: In spite of all my whining about plasticy parts, I find that gear works better than it ever has.
Really, I don't thinkk it's a big deal. As Molson said, both companies have ended up going "cheaper" (i mean, look at FD glass compared to EOS glass). So if you really don't like Nikon, no one is forcing you to buy any of it. Or conversely, you can go out and get all those old AIS lenses for a steal
First let me tell you a lot of the old guard didn't retire, they WERE retired, removed, asked to leave, demoted, early retirement, and so forth. About the beginning of the real digital market. I was a dealer then and many at Nikon were close friends of mine.
It was throughout the total Nikon Empire. I guess their marketing strategy had to go. Many of the Mom and Pop shops fell to the Wal-Marts, Wal-greens Sam. Beast Buy, Ritz and Wolfs chains took all the business away. Our town went from 7 camera stores to one and the name is RITZ, Elmer Fudd Ritz, Samual Jackson RITZ, Jimmy Carter Ritz, Ritz Carlton and Cracker Ritz. Thats all you see anymore. And their ordering is central, you don't need reps for that. You have buyers and any manufacturer calls when you ask for them. ( Like lap dances, make a request someone shows up)
Change of market
Change of buyer
Change of product
Severe Competiton on the high end from Canon
Things are different... at one time Nikon marketed from the top down..they built the Tank, the F series and everything else was based on it with just a few less features. Canon, Minolta, Pentaz and OLY built the consumer gear with features, used less expensive production methods and took market share, but not that much, we used them as alternate choices when folks balked at Nikons prices.
Digital leveled the playing field. You are no longer a camera manufacturer, you are an electronics manufacturer. Big difference. The later can be almost totally automated with a few end steps to put it all together.
There's the difference, and Nikon was forced to go for the market share or die. Basically they went from competing against one or two brands to about thirty other vendors selling some form of digital camera.
They also fell behind the competition in some areas of stabilization and long lens use. Patents protect some ideas.
But one of the real killers in the old days was the "Canon Sureshot". basically a sophisticated point and shoot. That was Nikons early wake up call and they hit the snooze alrm.....Canon just stated banging things out soon after. In droves...then Nikonhad to play catch-up.
Edited by ajacobs2 on Sep 28, 2005 at 12:09 AM GMT (Reason: speling, granma and fluctuation...)
Thankyou for your perspective, its really interesting! So when did the purge at Nikon occur? Did they disband Research Team 1 etc?
Its a shame no one has done a historical book on this end of an era at Nikon. Would be good to interview all the old guys before theyre gone. Some of them would be getting on a bit now surely.
Do you think we'll see a return to quality? Now that high resolution sensors are showing that they need it, and also since Canon has educated to pro market to now pay Medium format prices for their top end digital gear?
Good points Al, and I agree with you. Cameras are electronics now, and most people treat them that way. We want to replace our cameras as often as our PCs. Some of us far more often.
The attitude at Nikon may have changed, and they've clearly had some QA issues. But I think the equipment is still first rate. Look at the 70-200, the 200-400, and the 10.5 lenses. These are all excellent and innovative. (Ok, the 70-200 wasn't innovative, but it's still excellent.)
Do you ever post images ? I understand your concern about quality.......like the to your web page is broken. Can you get that fixed so we can see what type of photos you shoot? Do you ever whine about Canon? I'm not hung up on brand loyalty........I'm just tired about your constant whining. Or are you just Baiting people?....you seem to be a MASTER at BAITING
I pretty much agree with everything said above except for the lenscaps. Ironically, lens caps today are way better than before. Other than that, I think we will never again see the tank-like cameras of yesteryear. As DavidR pointed out, cameras are like computers nowadays, we need to upgrade as soon as something bigger/better/faster comes along. I just wish Nikon had made digital backs for their old camera bodies instead of these plastic toys they have been producing.
snegron wrote:
I pretty much agree with everything said above except for the lenscaps. Ironically, lens caps today are way better than before. Other than that, I think we will never again see the tank-like cameras of yesteryear. As DavidR pointed out, cameras are like computers nowadays, we need to upgrade as soon as something bigger/better/faster comes along. I just wish Nikon had made digital backs for their old camera bodies instead of these plastic toys they have been producing.
As You sad "I just wish Nikon had made digital backs for their old camera bodies instead of these plastic toys they have been producing"
This is what I like to see NIKON I will not replace each two or four years for new digital cameras,flashes and lenses.
My 20 years old F3HP still rocks will digital camera!
Obviously Snagg`s is either trolling again or totally ignorant of who makes what. Canon`s low and mid stuff isn`t any better built than Nikon`s are and that includes lenses .
Olympus might even have an edge .
Regardless, It`s of little concern to me what they make them out of as long as they work as intended.
Based on my experience I do know that I don`t require metal and I won`t be buying into anything thats overweight either. If I need a 3lb hammer I`ll reach in my tool box.
So if that mean a high impact plastic camera like the D70 or the Oly E-500, so be it.
John
I don't begrudge anyone liking metal or anything else in their cameras. But I could care less. I loved the way the D70 felt in my hands. I thought it was solid, had good balance, and amazing ergonomics. It could have been plastic, aluminum, or titanium under there - I don't know why I would care.
The whole plastic debate was the same with the changeover for automobiles. People thought that a tank made of steel would be safer than a little Honda Civic with all the plastic parts....but we all now know the truth. Plastic or not my stuff works just as well as the old stuff, so I don't care.
The times were different and the gear was different.
In the days of the Nikon F cameras and the Canon F-1 cameras, it was multiple cameras and prime lenses. Remember, 35mm was mostly for photojournalism in those days. Zooms were too slow, too heavy and not that sharp, so it was 2-3 bodies with primes swinging from you neck and shoulders. Cameras banged into everything when you were chasing a subject. The cameras had brass bodies and the finish wore off and the brass would just gleam through. There were more newspapers then, so more photogs were in the herd. "Photo ops" were not yet the norm, there was more hustle involved, the cameras had to be able to take lots of hard knocks and keep coming.
Studio shooters and those that weren't covering news events didn't use 35mm as much. Now, most pro digital shooters are using 35mm sized DSLRs. The manufactures still make some tough ones, but the D70s and 20Ds fill a larger part of the market. The needs for multi-camera shooting are becoming somewhat less so. The new zooms are much better, the need to carry lots of bodies with different prime lenses, isn't what it was. Lighter high-impact plastic bodies work just fine.
When cameras needed to be hockey pucks, they were. The need for armored personal cameras is less, those cameras are fewer. Many folks just don't need them.
People can argue the nuances and the details of this camera vs. that one. They can raise questions about whether this manufacturer made the right decision at that time all they want. It makes for good conversation. But each photographer goes with what he needs and can afford. New and different needs, new a different gear.
In the days of the Nikon F cameras and the Canon F-1 cameras, it was multiple cameras and prime lenses. Remember, 35mm was mostly for photojournalism in those days. Zooms were too slow, too heavy and not that sharp, so it was 2-3 bodies with primes swinging from you neck and shoulders.
Bravo, Mike took the words out from under me.. different time and space.
I covered the BUCS (3-0 this season and only three DUIs including the asst coach, the other Gruden)
NFL. football was three F2's with the Photomic T finder all nine versions of it, later F3's with motor drives (I think the MD4) a 35, 50, 105, 200mm, a 500 CADIOPTIC mirror lens and a real wide wide for the sideline.
Sometimes even a fourth body with a fast normal in the hang over your rear position.
And that Cadioptic lens meant you had to run to the other side of the field if you caught the sun, you might need ND filters and it played havoc with weird flare.
With forty rolls of Ectachrome 100-200 pushed and forty rolls of Tr1-X that bag weighed a ton...and there were six of us trying to get ten pictures and win the day.
I remember the big problem was rain, you got got here in Florida and a downburst drowned you. I carried ten garbage bags per game ( still do pack garbage bags out of habit) and they made fast cheap raincoats.
One fellow shot football using a Hasselblad with their 500 on it.
We also found out the Canon Tank the F1 had a shutter switch sensitivity failure in the rain. If they got wet they stopped. The Nikons were better insulated.
All in all it was work and the view from the field is not as good as with a cold one in the comfort of your home. ( That you didn't just pay EIGHT dollars for)
I will be the first to agree that technology has come a long way in the past twenty years. The images from a DSLR today are comparable, if not slightly better, than the old 35mm format. This is in part due to computerized, precision manufacturing of lenses and digital sensors, also the control we now have printing ourselves instead of being at the mercy of a photo lab. I think that what it all boils down to for many of us old timers weened on "hocky puck, tank-like" Nikons is that we find it difficult to comprehend how a lighter weight, plastic camera costing three times more than our old pro klunkers can stand up to the demand of everyday use. The flip side is that in the old days, when in doubt we'd bracket and hope for the best. Now if we don't like what we see on the LCD we just trash it and shoot again instead of spending a bunch of time and money on film developing. I have yet to take the $5000.00 plunge into the D2x world, but in the mean time I have replaced my 35mm for the D70s. Until I can afford to get the D2x, I will continue using medium format film for high quality images that require bigger enlargements/cropping and two D70s bodies for action shots. I figure that for the time being I can replace the two D70s bodies every year before their warranty expires...
snegron wrote:
...The images from a DSLR today are comparable, if not slightly better, than the old 35mm format.
Not to be argumentative , but I have 'old 35mm', 'new 35mm', 6x45, 6x6, and 6x7 from the last 30 years. The D2X bests all of them. I've taken my best drum scanned trannies, and viewing them at 100%, you just can't be in denial anymore. Of course, there are aesthetics in film that are endearing to me, and I still shoot film, but the print from the D2X blows away anything I can get from my 6x7. This is not scientific fact, just the clients choice
You are just too sensitive. It is very interesting to look at the history of Nikon, pickup an AIS lens, and btw, the link to my website is fine isn't it?
www.pbase.com/snaggs
I'm not whining, just pickup some AIS lenses, it was a hunch of mine that Nikon had cleared out some of the old guard, and my hunch has prooven correct already by a few of the more experienced members here.
And btw, I do post images, just not to often in the GEAR forums, because Mr Miranda and the moderators have spoken specifically about posting too many of them in these forums unless they are gear related.
I tihnk you'll find your the one who is at odds with the purpose of the forum.
Daniel.
rhyder wrote:
Do you ever post images ? I understand your concern about quality.......like the to your web page is broken. Can you get that fixed so we can see what type of photos you shoot? Do you ever whine about Canon? I'm not hung up on brand loyalty........I'm just tired about your constant whining. Or are you just Baiting people?....you seem to be a MASTER at BAITING
uccmmcpo wrote:
Obviously Snagg`s is either trolling again or totally ignorant of who makes what. Canon`s low and mid stuff isn`t any better built than Nikon`s are and that includes lenses .
Who was talking about Canon? I didn't even mention them? What on earth are you talking about? Pick up some AIS lenses (theyre made by Nikon btw), something like a 15mm f/3.5 and experience the wonder of the stuff they used to make.
Or if you ever have a chance, have a look at one of those old fisheyes. You obviously have no idea how far they have fallen.
Anyways, please dont turn this into a flame war, I was more interested in hearing stories and information from older members who were there. i.e. did they have photo expo's in the 70's? and things like that.
but the print from the D2X blows away anything I can get from my 6x7
Jack, you've probably said that before, and perhaps I've read it before. But that statement is huge. I was just considering dusting off some old MF or LF gear. Given what you say about the D2X it may make more sense to wait for used D2Xs to come down to my price range.
, but I have 'old 35mm', 'new 35mm', 6x45, 6x6, and 6x7 from the last 30 years. The D2X bests all of them. I've taken my best drum scanned trannies, and viewing them at 100%, you just can't be in denial anymore. Of course, there are aesthetics in film that are endearing to me, and I still shoot film, but the print from the D2X blows away anything I can get from my 6x7. This is not scientific fact, just the clients choice