Jump to content

Nikon Z5 below $1000 in the US


ShunCheung

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As I thought, you're living in the dark ages.

 

In this case, modern usage trumps historical terminology.

 

You're just being difficult and unhelpful, as usual.

You mean consumeristic ignorance trumps true understanding.

Yes, that is indeed the thing in this enlightened age.

Thanks for pointing that out. Not really helpful, though. As if we didn't know...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nikon USA uses the term "prime" to describe their fixed focal length lenses. Are you all old enough to remember the "micro" vs "macro" debate when Nikon named their close up lens the "Micro-Nikkor"?

Yes... that's another thing. What we know as Macrophotography is properly called Photomacrography: creating enlarged images (of smaller things). Macrophotography means making large photos, or photos, even, of large things. Microphotography means making small photos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, just using the terminology used by our beloved Nikon....Oh, and all current camera and lens manufacturers.

 

Are you actually in tune with the modern World?

No. I'm glad to report that i am not 'in tune with' consumeristic ignorance, but rather remain old fashioned 'in tune with' (f)actual knowledge based on understanding.

 

A respected PN contributor mentioned (in another thread some time ago) the Humpty Dumpty school of Lexicography. "The modern World", 'ey?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I'm glad to report that i am not 'in tune with' consumeristic ignorance, but rather remain old fashioned 'in tune with' (f)actual knowledge based on understanding.

And a reply to the first paragraph?

 

When you believe everyone else is wrong in their use of a term, and you're right, do you think maybe you can just accept it rather than live in, and preach from, the past?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And a reply to the first paragraph?

 

When you believe everyone else is wrong in their use of a term, and you're right, do you think maybe you can just accept it rather than live in, and preach from, the past?

Do you know why your beloved Nikon and other manufacturers followed that consumeristic usage?

Indeed, because it sells, whether correct or not, and despite that they do know better (not so long ago, you could by both ffl and variable focal length 'primes' from those companies that now follow their customers).

They would sell lenses labelled "turbo" if they thought it would boost sales. And you would buy them and believe the label would make sense too.

 

Meanwhile, all that has changed is consumer's (obviously ignorant) perception and the marketing geared to profit most of whatever lives in consumer's confused minds. Not the factual reason why things were and still are called what they are.

 

You do understand the underlying epistemic, the distinction? If you really think it is a matter of moving along with the times, you probably do not. Ah well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do understand that the term is derived from lens nomenclature in the past. It doesn't mean the original meaning is wrong, far from it, but that definition lives in the past. Current parlance supersedes that.

 

However, your bizarre assumption that a manufacturer calls a lens a Prime, rather than the overly wordy Lens of Fixed Focal Length, to 'boost sales' is truly deluded.

 

They would sell lenses labelled "turbo" if they thought it would boost sales. And you would buy them and believe the label would make sense too.

No I wouldn't....

 

and I'm pretty sure most photographers here on Photo.net wouldn't either. You're just making that up.

 

___________________________________________

 

Anyway, back to the original thread...:D

 

Why would anyone buy a Z5 rather than a Z6 or indeed, now a Z6ii?

 

It's still not really cheap enough to be Entry Level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe read this book to know about how the English language has changed over centuries: http://docenti.unimc.it/carla.cucina/teaching/2017/17413/files/baugh-cable-a-history-of-the-english-language

 

I thought it was fascinating. It gives a sense of how strong the forces that change the meaning of words and phases are and at least my interpretation is that the change is basically unstoppable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do understand that the term is derived from lens nomenclature in the past. It doesn't mean the original meaning is wrong, far from it, but that definition lives in the past. Current parlance supersedes that.

 

However, your bizarre assumption that a manufacturer calls a lens a Prime, rather than the overly wordy Lens of Fixed Focal Length, to 'boost sales' is truly deluded.

 

Well... if you say so.

 

Why, would you say, put some manufacturers the word PRIME in big letters prominently on their products? Have you ever seen "fixed focal length lens" on a lens, ever?

Of course not.

You would buy (probably have) products advertised as TURBO too. That silliness works quite well.

If you believe it doesn't, and that manufacturers do not use this to their advantage, and that you wouldn't fall for it, we should have a good talk about what is absurd and who is delusional.

 

Yes, the usage is changing. We can have a look at how language changes, and also notice how some changes do not succeed or last, and why that is.

Do that before giving such a lame and ill informed excuse for that apptly named Humpty Dumpty approach to language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Nikon's aim was to create a buzz with their sub-$1000 camera, they certainly accomplished that, here at least. I think they wanted to match Canon & Sony with a low price entry into full-frame. Anyone have any experience with 7artisans "prime" lenses?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Language does change. Here is a rough transcript of some English from ca. 1246 CE. I personally like ulen better than nichtengalen.

lch was in one sumere dale,

In one swithe dichele hale,

I-herde ich holde grete tale

An ule and one nichtingale.

 

Which reminds me, I have a prime rib-eye steak in the fridge.:rolleyes:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course not.

You would buy (probably have) products advertised as TURBO too. That silliness works quite well.

If you believe it doesn't, and that manufacturers do not use this to their advantage, and that you wouldn't fall for it, we should have a good talk about what is absurd and who is delusional.

Stop broadening a very specific term to describe which type of modern camera lens a manufacture is selling to cover the tricks that advertisers use.

 

Now adding the word MACRO to a lens is a much more grey area because there's no accepted single definition of what macro actually means, and yes some manufacturers do add it to the name to make it sound more attractive.

 

I don't deny they do. But to think that lens manufacturers use the term PRIME to sell more lenses is, quite frankly, crackers.

 

Manufacturers make and sell prime lenses and zoom lenses. A very simple either/or division that everyone understands.

 

They also make secondary lenses. A TC is one of the many types you can get, but no-one uses the term because it's very broad and non-specific. No-one in their right mind is going to go into a camera shop and ask for a Secondary lens please.

 

You would buy (probably have) products advertised as TURBO too.

Nope, sorry, I wouldn't. Wrong again.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop broadening a very specific term to describe which type of modern camera lens a manufacture is selling to cover the tricks that advertisers use.

 

I can't stop what i am not doing. I'm not broadening anything.

 

That manufacturers use the term today (while they only did to distinguish between the primary and secondary - in their true and only correct meaning - before) was brought up in defence of the wrong usage, and was not introduced into the discussion by me.

And to understand that and why they do, you must know that it indeed is marketing, and definitley not because they do not know what prime really means nor that they would not know that this usage is wrong. They do so, put (some of them) the word prominently on their lenses, and not to make their lenses work better.

Consider that in all the of the decades of making and selling lenses, these manufacturers never needed nor used that term to sell anything. It's new (hence you're not-being-stuck-in-the-dark-ages reasoning. Forgot about that?).

If you cannot see that, cannot see why the term prime is used in marketing, you should stay away from marketing. If you do have a job in that field, i bet you're not very succesful.

 

Manufacturers do not use the broad term secondary lenses, because noone would know what you are asking for without calling the thing by its proper name.

Prime just to be much the same, covering both fixed focal length and variable focal length lenses (and yes, you indeed find mention of variable focal length prime lenses in manufacturer's catalogues). The term was not used in photography at all, is borrowed from cinematography, where camera lenses (both fixed and variable...) were called prime lenses.

 

What macro means is well defined, yes. That does not prevent some manufacturers use the word to claim something their lenses cannot deliver. They can use that word for marketing purposes precisely because we do know what we should expect from something labeled such.

Again: do not confuse usage with being correct, factual or accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some 'changes' do not take.

Completely unlike Prime and Zoom them?

 

Which have.

 

If you still think makers use and have used Prime strictly as a marketing term, as opposed to a term to differentiate between a lens of fixed focal length and one with a variable one, then I guess that's that.

 

Maybe...

 

Prime should be specific to a lens of fixed focal length and...

 

Primary should be specific to the first lens in a combination lens arrangement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely unlike Prime and Zoom them?

 

Which have.

 

If you still think makers use and have used Prime strictly as a marketing term, as opposed to a term to differentiate between a lens of fixed focal length and one with a variable one, then I guess that's that.

 

Maybe...

 

Prime should be specific to a lens of fixed focal length and...

 

Primary should be specific to the first lens in a combination lens arrangement?

 

My primary lens is (say) the 24-70, my prime lens is whatever non-zoom lens I pick out of my bag. The English language is a fickle beast.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...