Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: John Koerner on March 26, 2016, 10:47:23 am
-
Since switching systems, it seems like there are some real Nikon fanatics/historians about the system and its history ... particularly the lenses ... and it's hard not to get caught up in it.
For those interested, I found a site where a fellow has pretty much kept a tally of every camera + lens ever made by this company:
Roland's Nikon Pages (http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/index.html)
Some of you may have seen this, but it is pretty useful. The page dedicated to lenses, for example, shows the origin of each, serial # sequence, focus throw, magnification, length, weight, number of blades, etc.
Thought some might be interested,
Jack
-
Nikon Lens Database (http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html)
-
One can't deny that Nikon's history is a shining one among major makers... Nikon is the maker that redefined the reporter's camera during the 60's wars, made lenses that could rival the German ones, pioneered AF (with the F3AF) and brought "pro" functioning & creativity down to consumers with the most sold camera body in the world for film (the FE/FM/2/3) which lasted ...30 years (!!!) in production... Unfortunately, they screwed up continuously after they first joined the mass production AF systems by creating confusion when renamed the poor quality E-series lenses to Nikkors, they messed up with the designs of both their AF cameras and lenses functioning for a decade until the F100/F5 appeared (which was too late) and they where late to introduce AF-S lenses...
A major mistake is that they abandoned the aperture ring with the G-series lenses (which shouldn't have been introduced at all) and even now that they can bring the aperture back with their new E-series lenses (which should have been introduced back to the 90s), they keep not including it with their lenses other than the PC-E series... IMO, if Nikon converts all lenses they have in production to the new E-series and include the (now electronic) aperture ring (like with the PC-E lenses) with them, it will be a major step back to continue on their history path... A major advantage for their marketing too...
Nikon has done so many mistakes, that if it wasn't the company with most fanatic supporters out of all Japan makers, it would have vanished... It's about time to listen and respect all those people that have been forgiving the mistakes and where supporting the company for decades now....
-
Encrypting the white balance data on the D2x annoyed me to the point of skipping new generations of Nikon DSLR's until the Df.
All is forgiven.
-
There are a wide range of databases for every manufacturer (yes, there are webpages listing SNs for obscure and not-obscure large format lenses! A site for the short-lived Mamiya 35mm film SLR cameras and lenses (my first camera), and so on), but I must say that the Nikon ones are particularly good. Here's one that addresses the rarities and industrial lenses as well:
http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/redbook-e/
-
I sent a picture of an old Nikon auto-collimator to the person that runs that site, they had never seen one and could not tell me anything about it.
The fun of collecting.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1602/24523822321_92b4d4ea7a_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Dn5ZYM)nikkor_zeiss (https://flic.kr/p/Dn5ZYM) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
I looked for a Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.5 for a long time. I'd like to find one in S-Mount, but it's not on the bucket list.
-
Nikon has done so many mistakes, that if it wasn't the company with most fanatic supporters out of all Japan makers, it would have vanished... It's about time to listen and respect all those people that have been forgiving the mistakes and where supporting the company for decades now....
We've all made mistakes, but I think one of the reasons Nikonians have such fanatic loyalty is Nikon listens and is "loyal back."
For example, one of the things that surprised me was the fact Nikon still makes "fundamentalist" lenses (fully-manual, aperture, focus, everything 100% manual). Not only are they fundamentalist lenses, but (to this day) they remain superior to 99% of the "AF/VR" equivalents of the same lens, and for just a few hundred bucks to boot.
I was even more surprised to learn you can still buy 40-year-old Nikon lenses and place them on your new camera ... lenses that are as good as modern equivalents (in many cases better) and they remain collector's items. I had never heard of this with Canon ... and it was then that I learned why: when Canon switched to the EF-Mount, it basically rendered all its own elder lenses useless for new Canon cameras. (Can anyone imagine how pi$$ed off that would make you? To have your entire lens collection rendered obsolete by your own camera manufacturer changing mounts? >:()
The reason why Nikon has such a history, I am now learning, is because its followers have been able to accumulate Nikon lenses for decades and they still work on modern cameras. Canon folks can't enjoy that same experience because Canon essentially obliterated its own history, by changing mounts.
I am right now experimenting with some of these all-manual lenses, using them for macro (mostly), through reverse-mounting them.
The all-manual aperture is a great thing to have because I can still control the aperture when the lens is reversed, whereas AF, internally-aperture-controlled lenses lose aperture control when reversed.
Here is a focus-stacked crab spider with the 28mm reversed, which creates 2.1x lifesize magnification.
Jack
-
I was even more surprised to learn you can still buy 40-year-old Nikon lenses and place them on your new camera ... lenses that are as good as modern equivalents (in many cases better) and they remain collector's items. I had never heard of this with Canon ... and it was then that I learned why: when Canon switched to the EF-Mount, it basically rendered all its own elder lenses useless for new Canon cameras. (Can anyone imagine how pi$$ed off that would make you? To have your entire lens collection rendered obsolete by your own camera manufacturer changing mounts? >:()
The reason why Nikon has such a history, I am now learning, is because its followers have been able to accumulate Nikon lenses for decades and they still work on modern cameras. Canon folks can't enjoy that same experience because Canon essentially obliterated its own history, by changing mounts.
I actually switched to Nikon from Canon when my lenses went obsolete by the FD to EF mount change. I preferred Nikon already at that point and liked the lens line up and rendering of their lenses. But it was the switch of mounts that provided the opportunity and I'm glad. Nikon's flash system had always been better too.
Things like still making the AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8. That is a lens I used for 17 years and it is around half the price of the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II.
I think both makers have a big core of fanatic buyers. Let's face it, when the D500 comes out, what would attract a new user to a Canon body. The 7DmkII is the only Canon without a Nikon better...until next month. The lens line sure, but not the camera bodies. Even the 5Ds 50MP is only marginally more than 36MP D810 and is unneeded by most. And most of those bailing from Canon are going to Sony and not Nikon, some for Sony capabilities, but a lot because they just can't bring themselves to buy Nikon.
-
Can't mention Nikon historians without mentioning mir... http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/photography.htm
Yes, I just bookmarked this aspect 2 days ago: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/michaeliu/cameras/nikonf/index.htm
-
And most of those bailing from Canon are going to Sony and not Nikon, some for Sony capabilities, but a lot because they just can't bring themselves to buy Nikon.
I wouldn't say that.
Sony has a neat thing going as they're the ones making the key sensors + they can adapt to many makers' lenses.
Yet, while that is intriguing, they don't have the fully-capable (or ergonomically-friendly) bodies that many people need.
Their own lens line is limited, and buying "adapters" for your body is as much a pain in the @$$ as it is a "convenience."
I think mostly "static shooters" are gravitating to Sony, but sports/nature photographers ... not so much.
Jack
-
Things like still making the AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8. That is a lens I used for 17 years and it is around half the price of the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II.
Exactly.
You can still get some very nice, capable lenses on eBay.
The 15mm f/3.5s (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/ultrawides/15mm.htm) is next on my list, as is the 600mm f/4.0s ED-IF (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/telephotos/600mm.htm).
These are great lenses available for dirt cheap, they fit on modern bodies, and yet are comparable to today's best lenses.
I am actually glad they're all-manual, because I believe they will stand the test of time better as such.
-
(http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/ultrawides/15mmAISf35c.JPG) (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/ultrawides/15mmAISf35b.JPG) (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/ultrawides/15mmAISf35d.JPG)
I love the all-manual simplicity ...
-
Nikkor AI-S 600mm F4 ED IF Lens, can still be bought for ~$2K
(stole the image off of eBay)
-
I think we all agree here that what caused Nikon as to shine out from competition, was the 60s, 70s & 80s decades where the company concentrated in lenses that stood out and body design that where concentrated into offering a platform so that one would take the most out of his lenses...
I think it's most important if one concentrates to discuss the mistakes of the company, since this is what should prove most useful to them...
1. I still remember the awful 43-86 f3.5 lens... It was supposed to be a Nikkor lens... It damaged Nikon's reputation for for building lenses that could compete directly with the German glass at the days...
2. The F3's viewfinder info... I never understood why Nikon damped the excellent FE/FE-2 VF info (which was then used again on the FM-3/a) which allowed the user to judge EXACTLY the exposure he was going to use with respect to the camera's (excellent) metering even in complete darkness, for an inferior minimal LCD finder that lucked the difference between set and proposed by the metering exposure...
3. The renaming of the inferior E-series lenses to ...Nikkors with the introduction of the (stupid) axle driven AF system...
4. The focusing ring of the first axle driven AF lenses...
5. The axle driven AF system itself... This is strange, since Nikon was first (with the F3AF) to have AF motors in the lenses... Clearly Nikon should have delayed the introduction of the F-501 (their first axle driven AF camera) and follow Canon into using AF motors in the lens...
6. All the stupid camera designs that lasted for a decade after the FA and until the F5/F100 introduction (the design/ergonomics of which lasts up to now...)
7. The abandon of the aperture ring in the G series... Clearly the G series should have never existed... The D-lenses where as good as the AI/AI-S series on the older bodies (but the AF of course)...
8. The F-6.... A Nikon PRO body without interchangeable finders? ...that's heresy!
9. The 5 year delay as to present an FF sensor....
10. The luck of a D-800S with the introduction of the D8xx series... They left the (fabulous) D700 - the camera that established them back into a competitive company - without a replacement.... There was millions of users left without a replacement for their D700... The strange thing is that there was no investment needed as to develop the camera either, since the electronics processor and sensor was already used on the D4 (at the same production plant too)...
11. The luck of aperture ring with the new E-lenses... Very strange indeed... especially as the PC-E lenses have it and if one prefers the ergonomics of the non-aperture ring lenses, he can move the aperture ring in the "lock" position and control aperture from the camera... Additionally, the DF would be much more "complete" if the E-series lenses had an aperture ring...
12. The 8 year delay for the introduction of the E-series lenses... The interface is build in on all cameras after the D3...
13. The DF camera... No metal body? No second card slot? No 51 point AF system? ...why? It could have been the replacement of the D700 if it had the function mentioned... Especially so if one of the card slots was of the XF type and if the new E-series lenses where announced with it...
14. The naming of E-series for the new series of lenses... The E-series name is the same as the cheap line of lenses back to the eighties... It reminds of the "bad" days...
15. The confusing naming of the whole line of DSLRs... A new mistake of their stupid marketing decisions... Especially as they got it perfect for 18 continious models after the D90... It was four digits starting odd number for the APs-c models and three digit starting even number for the FF line... Clearly the D-500 should have been named D-9000 and the D-750 D-6xx (something)... then the replacement of the current D-610 should be named D-400 and thus keep the non confusing naming that was decided with the introduction of the D-3000 (and lasted for 18 continous models)... Instead, they tried to fool consumers that the D750 is a ...replacement for the ...D700 only by using a relative name and therefore messed up the perfect naming policy they where keeping for 8 years... The confusing naming is not to be taken lightly... New comers to photography, youngsters that know little about Nikons history, could clearly see what is APS-c and what is FF, as well as recognise how the line advances for build quality... Now they have a D-500 that is ...better build than both D-6xx and D-750, but it is ...APS-c (although three digit)... it's back to mess!
Can they really be back in line with their history tradition, increase sales and recover their past glory? ...easy! Here is what they should do (IMO):
1. Convert all G-series lenses to the new E-series lenses and include an (electronic) aperture ring with them... Older D-lenses still in production can wait... A renaming of the E-lenses to something else is also recommended.
2. Introduce a 16mp D-811 (or D810S) with the sensor, processor and electronics of the DF... (it will cost them nothing to do so...)
3. Rename the D-500 to D-9000... (now that it is just before introduction), It will make a clear D3xxx , D5xxx, D7xxx, D9xxx APS-c series...
4. Name the replacement of the D-610, as D-400.... Name the replacement of the D-750 as D-620... It will make a clear D4xx, D6xx, D8xx FF series...
5. Remove all colour (gold or whatever) from the lenses and just name the metal body ones to Nikkors and the plastic ones to Nikon... Nikon should keep marking on their lenses modest, just like in past...
That's all... (IMO).
-
If you want to make naming work really well, you can name cameras as DX6 or DX8000 for the crop cameras, and FX6 or FX900 for the full frame ones. This will also save them the DX/FX logo on the camera body.
-
Now your 'dirt cheap' may be different from my 'dirt cheap', but that lens was recently on sale on an eBay store for $1800.
Mint and all, but still...
I decided to step back and am right now awaiting reviews/tests of the new Irix 15mm.
Agreed, a bit steep for the age of the tech, especially when the Samyang, 14mm F 2.8 is such an excellent performer, even at F 2.8. it's not just my opinion, as the 14mm Samyang has always been one of the great deals for either platform.
Low flare, no coma wide open, excellent DOF, and very sharp even wide open, for a margin price of around 319.00. The Nikon version is chipped to show aperture. Fully manual focus.
I also am interested in the new 15mm Irix, can't wait to see edge performance, and coma performance.
Paul C
-
Now your 'dirt cheap' may be different from my 'dirt cheap', but that lens was recently on sale on an eBay store for $1800.
Mint and all, but still...
I decided to step back and am right now awaiting reviews/tests of the new Irix 15mm.
You must have searched hard for an inflated price.
I see about 8 copies available, right now, from $600-$900.
Jack
-
I think we all agree blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah ...
I think we don't agree on much, actually.
-
I was a diehard Nikon guy from the 70's until the advent of digital when Nikon really dropped the ball. Canon introduced the 1Ds with the full frame 11mp sensor and Nikon had no response for years. Most of us waited while using the 5MP cropped sensor D1x as long as we could and Nikon just ignored it's pro user base with no word on a full frame body for at least a year. So myself and thousands of other pros reluctantly decided to switch to Canon as the full frame 11MP sensor quickly became the standard.
I also remember the anger when Canon switched lens mounts but looking back it was a smart thing for them to do. Their AF EOS system was excellent and it's probably when Canon took the lead from Nikon for sports photography. Just look on the sidelines at any sporting event for all the white lenses ;-).
-
I was even more surprised to learn you can still buy 40-year-old Nikon lenses and place them on your new camera ... lenses that are as good as modern equivalents (in many cases better) and they remain collector's items. I had never heard of this with Canon ... and it was then that I learned why: when Canon switched to the EF-Mount, it basically rendered all its own elder lenses useless for new Canon cameras. (Can anyone imagine how pi$$ed off that would make you? To have your entire lens collection rendered obsolete by your own camera manufacturer changing mounts? >:()
Jack
I believe on the older pre-1977 lenses there is a need to convert them so they can be "safely" mounted onto DSLRs. John White describes the situation ( http://www.aiconversions.com/compatibilitytable.htm ) and will do the necessary modification for a reasonable price. I have three legacy lenses bought in the early 1970s that were modified and worked very well on my D300 and now D810. You simply set them up via the lens menu; they don't auto-focus or set the aperture but that's a minor inconvenience for most of the work I do.
-
I think we don't agree on much, actually.
I think you don't mention where you disagree... Also, I suppose that you also disagree that not responding is much better than posting bold.... or blah, blah, blah irrelevant for that matter... (IMO).
-
I believe on the older pre-1977 lenses there is a need to convert them so they can be "safely" mounted onto DSLRs. John White describes the situation ( http://www.aiconversions.com/compatibilitytable.htm ) and will do the necessary modification for a reasonable price. I have three legacy lenses bought in the early 1970s that were modified and worked very well on my D300 and now D810. You simply set them up via the lens menu; they don't auto-focus or set the aperture but that's a minor inconvenience for most of the work I do.
They need a simple replacement of the aperture ring with one that "grabs" the different mechanism of (mechanical) aperture coupling on the AI compatible cameras... Alternatively, one can take the original aperture ring off the lens, (very easy to do) and save a part of it off... the info of the amount and the position that may be saved off can be easily found on web... then the lens becomes an AI-compatible one that work with full metering even with todays FF cameras and the higher models of the APS-c cameras...
-
I was a diehard Nikon guy from the 70's until the advent of digital when Nikon really dropped the ball. Canon introduced the 1Ds with the full frame 11mp sensor and Nikon had no response for years. Most of us waited while using the 5MP cropped sensor D1x as long as we could and Nikon just ignored it's pro user base with no word on a full frame body for at least a year. So myself and thousands of other pros reluctantly decided to switch to Canon as the full frame 11MP sensor quickly became the standard.
I also remember the anger when Canon switched lens mounts but looking back it was a smart thing for them to do. Their AF EOS system was excellent and it's probably when Canon took the lead from Nikon for sports photography. Just look on the sidelines at any sporting event for all the white lenses ;-).
Spot on... The delay to introduce a FF sensor was a fatal marketing mistake for Nikon that established them as followers than being leaders... Also... Nikon should have followed Canon in having in lens motors for AF and aperture control from day 1... Instead, they where 10 years late to make the AF-S lenses (which do focus by using an internal AF motor) and they first introduced an electronic aperture lens with the 24mm PC-E lens introduction which was ...20 years later!
The strange thing is that all the changes didn't require a different CPU pin layout than the one introduced with the axle driven AF lenses (and lasts until today)... Needles to say that the G series of lenses was the most stupid thing a maker could ever do... the G series operates the aperture mechanically exactly like if it was a D series lens... but drops the aperture ring (for no reason whatsoever) which makes them incompatible with all the (superb) cameras that where introduced before the axle driven AF models...
-
The 43~86/3.5 was one of the most popular and useful lenses made. PJ's loved it, despite Nikon's apologies for performance.
Not everyone judges a lens by shooting brick walls.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8727/17237634191_1421442893_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/sgeo6v)lees2a (https://flic.kr/p/sgeo6v) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
non-Ai 43~86 Zoom-Nikkor, wide-open on the Nikon F.
The 11-element Ai version was better, but several 100K of the 9-element version sold- a good indication of success. The 36~82/2.8 Zoomar with the leaf shutter Bessamatic was no where near as successful.
An early one that I picked up for $25,
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5662/21836131522_eb8e798c3e_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/zgzT9f)nikkor43_86_early (https://flic.kr/p/zgzT9f) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
on an equally early Nikon F2.
-
I believe on the older pre-1977 lenses there is a need to convert them so they can be "safely" mounted onto DSLRs. John White describes the situation ( http://www.aiconversions.com/compatibilitytable.htm ) and will do the necessary modification for a reasonable price. I have three legacy lenses bought in the early 1970s that were modified and worked very well on my D300 and now D810. You simply set them up via the lens menu; they don't auto-focus or set the aperture but that's a minor inconvenience for most of the work I do.
Nikon charged $18.50 to factory convert non-Ai lenses to Ai, replaced the aperture ring and basically gave the lens a CLA. They did this for several years, I had some done in the early 90s. After that- you can "slice and dice" if you cannot find the original parts to replace the aperture ring.
I use Nikon and Leica digital cameras as I can use them with my collection of lenses. The Leica- I've used lenses over 80 years old; the Nikon- 1952 25cm F4 Nikkor-Q with an N-F adapter.
Nikon is still around, makes gear, sells gear- has a different philosophy than Canon. Canon never looks back, Nikon remembers their heritage. So do I.
https://www.leicaplace.com/resources/nikkor-sc-5cm-f1-5-the-lens-that-got-the-attention-of-the-world.4/
-
Nikon charged $18.50 to factory convert non-Ai lenses to Ai, replaced the aperture ring and basically gave the lens a CLA. They did this for several years, I had some done in the early 90s. After that- you can "slice and dice" if you cannot find the original parts to replace the aperture ring.
I use Nikon and Leica digital cameras as I can use them with my collection of lenses. The Leica- I've used lenses over 80 years old; the Nikon- 1952 25cm F4 Nikkor-Q with an N-F adapter.
Nikon is still around, makes gear, sells gear- has a different philosophy than Canon. Canon never looks back, Nikon remembers their heritage. So do I.
https://www.leicaplace.com/resources/nikkor-sc-5cm-f1-5-the-lens-that-got-the-attention-of-the-world.4/
Nicely said, and great article.
Appreciate the share, thanks :)
-
There was a time when Nikon made lenses for Canon (http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/canon/hansa/hansa2.jpg). :P
-
My Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.5 (1949) was originally bought with a Canon III, also an early one. I popped the top off the Canon II, cleaned all the haze from the viewfinder/rangefinder, and put a Serenar 50/1.9 on it.
-
There's even one at $100... ::)
You're of course right. My search was done a month or two back, where none were to be found.
Or at least anyone, that I would care to get, were around.
A mint 1982 Ai-s version complete with filter set, box, papers etc. is very hard to find. Closest today is $1500 and that's without box...
Sorry to offend you, I'm not here to pick up a fight. Bye...
You sound offended ...
Me, I was just surprised.
I am not necessarily looking for a "mint" lens, with box, though it would be nice.
Just an excellent, fully-functional tool.
Here are a few:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/331805533047?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Near-Mint-Nikon-Ai-S-AIS-NIKKOR-15mm-F-3-5-Ultra-Wide-Angle-MF-Lens-F-S-/231898876083?hash=item35fe4008b3:g:6~cAAOSwr7ZW5A3h
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Nikkor-AI-S-15mm-F-3-5-Ai-S-Lens-/281950491873?hash=item41a58f14e1:g:LDYAAOSwezVW1WJ3
All priced pretty reasonably.
Jack
-
https://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-15mm-f-3-5-ais-manual-focus-lens-rear-bayonet.html
KEH, EX+, caps and L1BC filter.
NIKON 15MM F/3.5 AIS MANUAL FOCUS LENS
A little over $1K, comes with warranty.
-
I am still using my dad's circa 1970 AIS 105 f/2.5 (with adapter) on my Canon 6D. The old lenses were not as "perfect" in terms of aberrations, but had nice rendering.
-
Here you go,
More old Nikon that you could ever want. Entire collection 60K
http://www.ebay.com/itm/301913998860?rmvSB=true
Paul C
-
There was a time when Nikon made lenses for Canon (http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/canon/hansa/hansa2.jpg). :P
;D
I am wanting to get into photomicroscopy, actually, and Nikkor makes oodles of these as well.
-
https://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-15mm-f-3-5-ais-manual-focus-lens-rear-bayonet.html
KEH, EX+, caps and L1BC filter.
NIKON 15MM F/3.5 AIS MANUAL FOCUS LENS
A little over $1K, comes with warranty.
I actually think some of the eBay lenses look a little nicer, for less.
I suppose "how much to spend" becomes a question of purpose.
I recently bought a "mint" version of an older macro lens ... and then felt nervous using it.
It's like, "Do I really want to bang-up this vintage lens on mountain/desert hikes?"
If a person is looking to "collect" and "feel pride in" a particular lens, then go for mint.
But if you're looking to use a lens, have it in your bag, and lug it all over the place where it may be dinged-up ... why buy mint at all?
Let a collector get the mint version, and just buy a clean/workable lens (with a few dings) for yourself, and just get out there and enjoy it.
-
Ebay is always something of a risk, especially if getting a lens from overseas. KEH- a known entity. I've bought a lot of lenses from Ebay, but I do my own repair work. If it is cheap, or extremely rare- I'll take a gamble. With KEH, it's a sure bet- they have a no nonsense return and a warranty backed up by an inhouse repair facility that I used to fix a broken Leica CL.
-
I was a diehard Nikon guy from the 70's until the advent of digital when Nikon really dropped the ball. Canon introduced the 1Ds with the full frame 11mp sensor and Nikon had no response for years. Most of us waited while using the 5MP cropped sensor D1x as long as we could and Nikon just ignored it's pro user base with no word on a full frame body for at least a year. So myself and thousands of other pros reluctantly decided to switch to Canon as the full frame 11MP sensor quickly became the standard.
I also remember the anger when Canon switched lens mounts but looking back it was a smart thing for them to do. Their AF EOS system was excellent and it's probably when Canon took the lead from Nikon for sports photography. Just look on the sidelines at any sporting event for all the white lenses ;-).
Yes, the tech lead flip flops. Nikon basically created the DSLR and then couldn't follow up. Canon introduced the CMOS sensor and owned the best imaging and then couldn't follow it up. Nikon (with help from Sony and Toshiba) now has the lead.
And I agree that the change from FD to EF mount was a good thing overall for Canon. But it did present an opportunity for switching. And as an owner of a D810 and having a preorder for a D500, I am very very glad I switched back then and even more glad now.
-
Yes, the tech lead flip flops. Nikon basically created the DSLR and then couldn't follow up. Canon introduced the CMOS sensor and owned the best imaging and then couldn't follow it up. Nikon (with help from Sony and Toshiba) now has the lead.
And I agree that the change from FD to EF mount was a good thing overall for Canon. But it did present an opportunity for switching. And as an owner of a D810 and having a preorder for a D500, I am very very glad I switched back then and even more glad now.
Yes, I think lots of Canon users would have loved to switch back when the D3x was released, (and many did). The D800 series was a total reversal as Canon was now the one who couldn't respond quickly enough and many Canon users did move back to Nikon or just started to shoot with both systems, (as I did), in order to reap the benefits of that amazing sensor.
-
I used a very good Nikon diagnostic light microscope for 20 years. The university then decided to go with Olympus, so my replacement current diagnostic light microscope is an Olympus, also wonderful quality optics. Our university's "better" confocal microscopes are Olympus also. The US used to make quite decent but not stellar microscopes (American Optical - these were sturdy, inexpensive, and what I used throughout my residency - for many years these were top sellers for clinical laboratories and for pathologists.).
The major camera companies make many medical instruments: pathologists' light microscopes, optometry refraction set-ups and slit lamp microscopes for opthalmology, endoscopes (long tubes with optics and glass fiber-optics) for anywhere you might want to view, dissecting microscopes (low power, long-working-distance microscopes) for operating rooms and for bench use.
-
Yes, I think lots of Canon users would have loved to switch back when the D3x was released, (and many did). The D800 series was a total reversal as Canon was now the one who couldn't respond quickly enough and many Canon users did move back to Nikon or just started to shoot with both systems, (as I did), in order to reap the benefits of that amazing sensor.
Canon and Nikon are both great systems. The mainstays. The rest of them are either "also-rans" (or, in some cases, up-n-comers, but not "there" yet. Really, not even close).
The big difference, though, to me, is Nikon has stayed connected to its past.
Thus the history, the roots, the sense of connectedness seems to be deeper amongst Nikon users than Canon users.
(And rightfully-so.)
I love some of Canon's newer lenses, I really do, and I think their 1DxII is probably the better buy between it and the D5 ... with FAR better 4K capabilities (although, I suspect, it will not be in the same league as the D5 in either single-image quality or in low-light performance).
However, I am lukewarm about Canon's low-to-mid-level cameras.
For most consumers, Canon's midrange is simply weak compared to (virtually) everyone else.
The way I see it, since the 5DS-r already isn't as good as the D810, overall, I can only imagine that the soon-to-be-released D900 will blow make the Canon 5D away as an embarrassment, in the same way that the D500 will immediately render the 7DII anemic and sickly by comparison.
That said, this thread topic wasn't intended to start a "brand debate," but to tip my hat to the fact Nikon remains connected to its elder lenses (many of which are quite remarkable, and useful) which, because many are so inexpensive to get a copy of, makes it kind of fun to plan and experiment with.
Jack
-
Canon and Nikon are both great systems. The mainstays. The rest of them are either "also-rans" (or, in some cases, up-n-comers, but not "there" yet. Really, not even close).
The big difference, though, to me, is Nikon has stayed connected to its past.
Thus the history, the roots, the sense of connectedness seems to be deeper amongst Nikon users than Canon users.
(And rightfully-so.)
I love some of Canon's newer lenses, I really do, and I think their 1DxII is probably the better buy between it and the D5 ... with FAR better 4K capabilities (although, I suspect, it will not be in the same league as the D5 in either single-image quality or in low-light performance).
However, I am lukewarm about Canon's low-to-mid-level cameras.
For most consumers, Canon's midrange is simply weak compared to (virtually) everyone else.
The way I see it, since the 5DS-r already isn't as good as the D810, overall, I can only imagine that the soon-to-be-released D900 will blow make the Canon 5D away as an embarrassment, in the same way that the D500 will immediately render the 7DII anemic and sickly by comparison.
That said, this thread topic wasn't intended to start a "brand debate," but to tip my hat to the fact Nikon remains connected to its elder lenses (many of which are quite remarkable, and useful) which, because many are so inexpensive to get a copy of, makes it kind of fun to plan and experiment with.
Jack
First, as I Nikon shooter, I am at least glad to see Canon making progress.
I believe the 1DxII and D5 comparable. The D810 and 5Ds are also comparable, but with slightly different strengths and weaknesses depending on your shooting needs. From there on though, and when the D500 is released, there really isn't a Canon body I would recommend over the comparable Nikon for someone not already invested in the Canon system.
For quite some time I only recommended Canon to friends that asked, now it is Nikon. And the whole while I was a Nikon shooter.
-
All that being said, the mid-level Canon 6D is a very functional camera for what I tend to shoot with it (landscapes and macros, not needing elaborate autofocus and auto-everything else, because I tend to use manual focus and manual exposure). Every once in a while, I reflect that ALL current DSLRs are amazing miracles compared with the significantly older digital cameras and compared to the very primitive all manual film SLR I started with in 1968.
-
Yes, the tech lead flip flops. Nikon basically created the DSLR and then couldn't follow up. Canon introduced the CMOS sensor and owned the best imaging and then couldn't follow it up. Nikon (with help from Sony and Toshiba) now has the lead.
"Credette Cimabue ne la pittura
tener lo campo, e ora ha Giotto il grido,
sì che la fama di colui è scura.
Così ha tolto l'uno a l'altro Guido
la gloria de la lingua; e forse è nato
chi l'uno e l'altro caccerà del nido.
Non è il mondan romore altro ch'un fiato
di vento, ch'or vien quinci e or vien quindi,
e muta nome perché muta lato."
Dante Alighieri, Purgatorio XI, 94-102
-
You say this stuff as if Nikon had a choice. Heck, I remember my N90s supposedly couldn't offer leader out film rewind because Canon had a patent on it, and that's why I needed a film leader retriever if I ever wanted to mid roll rewind. I imagine Canon had some USM patents that were problematic. I also assume that Nikon would have gone full frame much earlier were it commercially and technically feasible for them at the time. It is interesting how they've seemed to leapfrog Canon in still photography in the last 5 or so years, basically since the D3 the gap started closing fast.
Spot on... The delay to introduce a FF sensor was a fatal marketing mistake for Nikon that established them as followers than being leaders... Also... Nikon should have followed Canon in having in lens motors for AF and aperture control from day 1... Instead, they where 10 years late to make the AF-S lenses (which do focus by using an internal AF motor) and they first introduced an electronic aperture lens with the 24mm PC-E lens introduction which was ...20 years later!
The strange thing is that all the changes didn't require a different CPU pin layout than the one introduced with the axle driven AF lenses (and lasts until today)... Needles to say that the G series of lenses was the most stupid thing a maker could ever do... the G series operates the aperture mechanically exactly like if it was a D series lens... but drops the aperture ring (for no reason whatsoever) which makes them incompatible with all the (superb) cameras that where introduced before the axle driven AF models...
-
The F3 had the MF-6B back which implements leader-out when used with the MD-4. I wonder what the Canon patent covered, as the idea goes way back. The MF-18 (looked it up) was the Data Back version which implements this feature.
-
If you believe ancient internet scuttlebut (http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?topic_id=23&msg_id=0009b1&start=0), it appears the patent was a Minolta patent that covered the user selectability of having the leader left out on rewind. Apparently Nikon could reprogram N90s, F100 and F5 cameras to leave the leader out, but there was no custom function for it.
-
Why on Earth would anyone want to run a film more than twice through the cassette's light-traps? Once is risk enough!
From my brief life with Nikon's so-called self-loading F4s, which never did the job first time - the less automation the better, especially when it's unnecessary.
I had a couple of Exaktas for a while; they let you cut the film, which was, I suppose, a sop to the days of extreme photographer poverty.
I still think the best Nikon (film) was the F2.
Rob C
-
The automated loading is nice, but on some cameras it wastes so much film simply because the roll has to end at 36. Was this done because some labs expose too much film while loading the machines?
-
Curious how many folks still shoot film.
Other than nostalgia, there appears to be no practical reason to do so.
The cost of darkroom equipment, materials, etc. seems to favor "Lightroom" (with limitless digital potential) over darkroom (with costly consumables).
Does film produce even "one" advantage over digital at this point?
-
I still shoot it because it's fun and I can use the same cameras I started photography on. The best part has to be developing and printing in the darkroom with friends and beers.
That is for black and white. Color (negative and positive) are too much a pain in the ass without expensive equipment. Scanning film is also a mess. Basically if you don't already have the equipment necessary and a honed down workflow for it, don't bother shooting film except to have fun every once in a while.
-
I still shoot it because it's fun and I can use the same cameras I started photography on. The best part has to be developing and printing in the darkroom with friends and beers.
That is for black and white. Color (negative and positive) are too much a pain in the ass without expensive equipment. Scanning film is also a mess. Basically if you don't already have the equipment necessary and a honed down workflow for it, don't bother shooting film except to have fun every once in a while.
Makes perfect sense, thanks.
If you already have the equipment, then keep using it (for fun).
If not, digital.
-
Some lenses cannot be used with Digital cameras, the Nikkor 2.1cm F4 is an example. I can use it on the F and F2. The Nikon SP is a camera that I use with Film simply for the pure joy of it. Some people still use paint and brushes to make pictures. Others use film. I've been shooting less film after getting the M Monochrom.
-
I still have a perfect Nikon F3, but donated all the darkroom stuff to a local school when I gave up trying to have a darkroom here on Mallorca. Too difficult to filter/clean the hard, dirty water; water too scarce and expensive to run a print wash for an hour, starting from when the first print hits the wash, ending an hour after the last one does. I tried those multigrade plastic papers here for the first - and last - time and hated them: I couldn't get what I could with real, graded papers, and the plastic was only used for the brief wash times it offered.
I would go back to film if I got back to Britain and close to doing any pro work again - but probably on 120 film ¡f it would still exist...
To me, the single benefit of digital is this: I can play, and it doesn't cost me any more money than the camera, lenses and computer stuff. Film would still require scanning (I have that already) and computers, so, adding film cost, it would end up being expensive for a hobby. But, becase of that, I'd probably be a damned sight more careful of what I shoot!
I think film looks better on a print or even on a monitor. Hell, I seem to be tying to noise up and artificially beat the emptiness of digital capture with every picture I do. It has no "medium-beauty" of its own; it's just colour suspended there in a frame of nothingness. Maybe that's why so many modern guys feel a need for canvas: something to relieve the emptiness. I detest the look of canvas. I love a very highly glazed black/white print; rather than add a texture of its own, it allows the nature of film to shine through and out. Not the same thing at all.
I simply don't subscribe to the theory that something new is automatically better. My eyes prove to my satisfaction that it ain't necessarily so with photography.
Rob C
-
Curious how many folks still shoot film.
Other than nostalgia, there appears to be no practical reason to do so.
The cost of darkroom equipment, materials, etc. seems to favor "Lightroom" (with limitless digital potential) over darkroom (with costly consumables).
Does film produce even "one" advantage over digital at this point?
Donated all my film bodies and equipment to my local high school. Not worth the effort and expense given I already have digital bodies.
Some people like the look (grain) of film, I'm not necessarily one of them. Reminds me of the album vs CD debate early on. I really think it is the lost exclusivity film gave over digital. Because it was harder and more expensive, less people could print really well versus with digital where you can tweak endlessly till you get it right. I just wish I was better at post processing. Every time I finish an image, I go back to it and think of 9 million things I wish I'd changed in some way. The difference is that you can or at least you can reasonable tweak digital so much more and easier than film.
-
I am digging these old school Nikon lenses for nature photography.
I can take the 50mm f/1.2 Ai-S and take a "normal" bokeh shot of a flower:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001297_medium.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/JohnKoerner/657/1297/medium)
Then slap a reverse-ring on the filter mount, flip the lens over, and take a super-close 1:1 shot of that same flower:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001295_medium.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/JohnKoerner/657/1295/medium)
Same flower, both hand-held, both natural light.
The ability to do this is even more dramatic with the 28mm f/2.8 Ai-S ... doubling the width perspective as a wide-angle ... then being able to go 2:1 lifesize as a macro. (Tripod is needed this close.)
The flexibility, small-size, and high-quality of these all-manual lenses is pretty nice :D
-
Yep, small size and relatively light weight make the little AIS lenses a good fit for a hiking kit, even on a Canon. I have a few that I inherited from my dad, and I bought the 50 1.2 cheap on fleaBay. The only problem is that live view needs some fiddling with to get usable exposure for 10x focusing.
-
Yep, small size and relatively light weight make the little AIS lenses a good fit for a hiking kit, even on a Canon. I have a few that I inherited from my dad, and I bought the 50 1.2 cheap on fleaBay. The only problem is that live view needs some fiddling with to get usable exposure for 10x focusing.
I have no problem getting my live view to work with these old school lenses.
Here is an example of the great range in what can be done with one 28mm f/2.8 Ai-S on a hike:
I can use the "infinity" end of the wide-angle lens and document the entire area where I hiked:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001307_medium.jpg)
I can use the mid-range end of the lens and document the plant/flower upon which I found a spider:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001308_medium.jpg)
And I can flip the lens around, with a simple $35 adapter, and take this 2:1 macro shot of the spider that was on the flower:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001298_large.jpg)
This is closer than any 1:1 macro lens can get, wider than any 1:1 macro lens can get, and for about half the price of any decent macro lens.
(You can fit 4 of these little spiders on your pinky fingernail :o)
All from a 9oz, $539 lens ;D
Jack
PS: Here is the Encounter (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/image_encounter_view.php?encounter_id=81)
-
John, I like your web site, and the emphasis on organism and its environment.
The fiddling is minor. Since the Nikon lens plus adapter doesn't talk to the Canon body, if shooting live view in dim light one has to up the ISO a lot to brighten up the live view sufficiently to check focus at f/5.6 or 8, then dial the ISO back to where you want it. I have been pleasantly surprised by the fine optical quality of the AIS 55mm f/3.5 Micro Nikkor in the few-feet to 1:2 range. There is a little chromatic aberration, but this is a 40 year old lens with 40 year old coatings that sat around in my dad's closet for years. I have to say every once in a while I like to get nostalgic and use the old MF/manual aperture lenses. I really feel nostalgic for the split prism viewfinder ;D
-
John, I like your web site, and the emphasis on organism and its environment.
The fiddling is minor. Since the Nikon lens plus adapter doesn't talk to the Canon body, if shooting live view in dim light one has to up the ISO a lot to brighten up the live view sufficiently to check focus at f/5.6 or 8, then dial the ISO back to where you want it. I have been pleasantly surprised by the fine optical quality of the AIS 55mm f/3.5 Micro Nikkor in the few-feet to 1:2 range. There is a little chromatic aberration, but this is a 40 year old lens with 40 year old coatings that sat around in my dad's closet for years. I have to say every once in a while I like to get nostalgic and use the old MF/manual aperture lenses. I really feel nostalgic for the split prism viewfinder ;D
Thank you for the comments (it took a lot of work!)
That's true about the viewfinder; it gets tough focusing with these aging eyes :o
Here is another example:
Wide-angle view of plants and ecosystem in which the spider is found:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001316_medium.jpg)
Close-up of flower type on which it was found (normal lens mounting):
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001315_medium.jpg)
Ultra-close 2:1 macro shot with reverse-mount shot of spider on the end of a flower bud (stacked image, natural light, macro rail):
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001314_large.jpg)
(This is no crop--it filled the frame--and it looks awesome at full-size!)
That is a pretty wide gamut of uses for 1 simple, inexpensive lens ;D
Jack
PS: Here (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/image_encounter_view.php?encounter_id=82) is the Encounter.