"De-accessorizing" Nikon

Apologies in advance for the following crotchety rant.

 

I wonder whether any other users of Nikon equipment have noticed a

disturbing tendency at Nikon that I would very loosely describe

as �de-accessorizing�. What I am referring to can be seen to a degree

in historical perspective. For example, compare the accessories Nikon

released for its earlier Nikon professional cameras, the F-series,

with what is currently available for the F5 and the F100. Go back a

few decades and you will find an assortment of data backs, multi-

exposure film backs, remote and cordless power supplies and

viewfinders for each camera. The Nikon F alone had 22 interchangeable

focusing screens (according to B. Moose Peterson�s paean to Nikon,

the Nikon System Handbook). Little of this remains, and it needs to

be asked whether Nikon really thinks the F5 and F100 are all-singing,

all-dancing cameras without need for any additional functionality.

 

More examples of this trend and other lamentable omissions:

 

-- The apparent discontinuation of Nikon�s Photo Secretary

software (see http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?

msg_id=005FUL), an extremely useful learning tool that, in addition,

extended the capabilities of the F5

 

-- The failure to upgrade certain lenses, such as the 1981 28mm

PC and the 1974 (!) 35mm PC lenses, with a tilt mechanism (as in the

1999 85mm PC micro) or a �D� chip

 

-- Release of camera models, such as the N80, that do not meter

with AI/AIS lenses. Query whether this was a cost issue, since the

discontinued N70 did meter with these lenses

 

-- The introduction of �G� lenses without an aperture ring,

rendering them unusable in manual and aperture-priority modes on all

pre-1994 Nikon cameras

 

Some of these may be of concern solely for professional

photographers. Others might miff only the �luddites� who have not yet

traded up their F3 or FE2 for an F5, but who are experienced

photographers in their own right. Is the culprit market research that

indicates everyone switching to digital cameras in the next 10 years?

Is it a conscious neglect of older customers in favor of new ones? I

am interested to hear your views.

I think that these accessories were either incorporated into the camera design itself, such as motor drives, or otherwise dropped because of poor demand and sales. <p>

As for the new "G" lenses and older lens compatibility with some newer bodies, that's been beaten to death here. Consensus is that Nikon wants you to buy new lenses with your new body and vice versa.

This is really an industry-wide occurrence. Back in the late '60s-early '70s when I was a wee lad just getting the bug virtually everybody who was anybody had a system camera with all the trimmings. Nikon, Pentax, Canon, Minolta, Topcon, Miranda, Olympus, etc., all offered either interchangable finders or finder attachments for fixed prism bodies; data backs; etc., etc. The fad was to convince photographers to do it all with 35mm so the more toys available the more likely it seemed that medium and large format users would actually play along. Didn't really happen that way, tho'.

 

They've long since retrenched. Canon hasn't offered an interchangable prism camera since the last F1N and I haven't really noticed a great cry for one in the EOS lineup. And Pentax is barely a system 35mm SLR anymore, a faint shadow of the Spotmatic days. Miranda, gone. Topcon, gone.

 

Among my pet peeves is the fact that some obvious - to me, anyway - weaknesses in functionality of the Nikon F3 were never corrected either by Nikon or third parties. For example, that doofus AE lock button - almost totally useless as originally designed. How did a top shelf, pro camera that enjoyed such a long run never see a single significant improvement in essential functionality, such as a press on/press off AE lock button? Or selectable averaging/spot metering? Or metering in AE mode with mirror lockup? Or a more accessible method for EV compensation?

 

Nope, Nikon gave up on some things long ago and set their sights on the future, trying to anticipate the market directions.

 

OTOH, some things have improved. Features once available only to data backs are now offered as options for pretty basic cameras (as with the Nikon F80s).

 

I'm betting that reaccessorizing is afoot, at least for high end digital SLRs, if not from the OEMs then at least from third parties.

 

For example, I seem to recall recently seeing a Cambo or Cambron something or other doodad that allows full movements with Canon's high end digital SLR.

 

At least the F5 has retained a manual film rewind knob. When that feature disappears we'll know for certain they've given up on film and are just going through the motions.

<I>OTOH, some things have improved. Features once available only to data backs are now offered as options for pretty basic cameras (as with the Nikon F80s).</i><P>

 

Aside from the F4 and the F5, there have been only six AF bodies that could meter with AI lenses, and of these the only ones with DOF preview have been the next-to-the-top-of-the-line models*: F801(s), F90(S) and F100. Compare that to the current AF bodies: only one can meter AI lenses (the F100), but all bar the F55 have DOF preview. [Just taking Lex's point in spirit: it would take some ingenuity to relegate DOF preview to a databack...]<P>

 

 

* I don't know what to call these. I resist 'semipro'/'advanced amateur' even though everyone knows what they mean, but it would be useful to have a term for those cameras that 'rank' higher than those with pop-up flashes and lower than those with pop-out prisms. I know, the FE and FM series...

 

<P>Then there are oddities. The F801(s) had built-in multiple exposure, the replacement F90(s) relegated it to a databack, despite the fact its controls are almost identical to the F801, but it appears again in the F100 which has in turn superseded it. Whether this was done through ineptness or market research I don't know.<P>

 

It seems quite clear now that the pattern is for only the F series and the next one down to be metering-compatible with AI lenses. But that could change when the F100 is replaced...<P>

 

But that's AF. In MF, it seems odd that there was never an F3s that came out with a spot meter, and the FM3a missed this, too, even though the cheaper, near-contemporary F80 has it, and the F75 has a partial spot (presumably to head off its Canon competitors at that price mark).<P>

 

Still, all these complications make choosing a Nikon body rewarding, if got right.

<P>

 

One accessory I would like to see more of is the filters, as they're good-quality, thin, and I can get them for a pound or two over a Hoya or Heliopan (otherwise they go for B+W prices). As it is, 52mm - conveniently, for me - is the one size that carries most options, but the Nikon range is limited (no FL-D, tungsten film in daylight, grads, never mind star filters...).

I totally agree. I remember the Nikon F2, F2A, F2S, F2SB, and F2AS. The F3 has the F3, F3P, F3HP, and F3H. The F4 has the F4, F4s and F4e. The F5 only has F5.

 

Now granted the meter is the best and the motor is built in. But I wish to see the return of the 750 back(100 ft film roll) not to mention, as you say, a lot more acessories.

 

Even if technology has been able to make all the "old" accessories be incorporated wiht the current cameras, what about the accessories that we have today!

 

You can't even get a chrome camera nowdays, and I liked to carry one of each because I use the body color to be able to tell what sort of film is loaded in them (my chrome body held Kodachrome film, the black body held black and while film).

The most recent Nikon with a 750 exposure back was the F2,

with a 250 exposure back was the F3. The F3 is also the

most recent one to have a high speed version available

with pellicle mirror and 13 fps motor drive (introduced in

1997!). True, most photographers never used or needed

these features, but it's nice to know they're there.

<p>

I'll differ a little on the tilt issue with the wideangle

PC lenses. The only reason to tilt a lens is to change

the plane of focus, and the wideangle lenses have such deep

DoF that tilting is hardly necessary. And if you're shifting them

to correct converging perspective lines, your film plane and

subject plane are already parallel anyway, so no tilt is needed.

<p>

The 85mm is a different beast entirely. It's not suited to

architecture, because of its long focal length. It IS suited

to macro, and tilting the focus plane is very useful in macro,

since you're always struggling to get more DoF, or use what

you've got more effectively.

<p>

The old PB-4 bellows had tilt and shift for macro,

and you could mount your choice of lenses on it, including

the short mount bellows Nikkors, to do tilt

and shift macros with a lot more flexibility than the 85mm

T/S gives you. But many of the modern Nikons won't

meter with a bellows, so they had put that functionality

into a dedicated, expensive lens that's less versatile

than the older solution.

<p>

It's only slightly disappointing that some of those

accessories are no longer made. What's nice is that they're

still available used, and that they were built to last.

I think THAT may be the big reason so many pro accessories are

no longer made. The market was never too big for them,

certainly not as big as the market for a "you push the button,

we do the rest" type camera. And since there are so many of

them still in great working condition in the used camera shops,

any effort to re-introduce them would have to compete with

the old stuff -- not an easy task.

<I>I totally agree. I remember the Nikon F2, F2A, F2S, F2SB, and F2AS. The F3 has

the F3, F3P, F3HP, and F3H. The F4 has the F4, F4s and F4e. The F5 only has F5.

</I><P>

You left out the F2/T and the F3hp/T. except these two bodies, along with the pellicle

(sp?) versions of the F2 & F3 and the F3p, all of these used the same boy with

different prisms. To that end there were at least three if not four version of the Nikon

F as well.<P>

 

 

<I> Now granted the meter is the best and the motor is built in. But I wish to see the

return of the 750 back (100 ft film roll) not to mention, as you say, a lot more

accessories. </I><P> I don't think any government has requested Nikon make a run

of these long exposure backs -- which why you don't see them. I really doubt there

was enough customer demand to support the development and tooling costs. If there

was: you would see them.<P><I>

 

 

Even if technology has been able to make all the "old" accessories be incorporated

with the current cameras, what about the accessories that we have today!

 

 

You can't even get a chrome camera nowadays, and I liked to carry one of each

because I use the body color to be able to tell what sort of film is loaded in them (my

chrome body held Kodachrome film, the black body held black and while film).

</I><P> Don't tell me: Chrome for color transparency and black for negative

materials,

right? great mnemonic

Also, the accessories are painfully expensive. The viewfinders for the F5, for example (ouch). I do think that many of the accessories aren't needed any more (the focusing screens are better than they used to be in the time of Nikon F, and few lenses slower than f/5.6 are used today, so the current set should be adequate).

 

There is also the issue of digital development and that takes resources away from traditional cameras.

 

I have much regretted also that the F3 never had a spot meter. Now THAT would be a great camera! And a real exposure compensation switch, too. I've had to buy an F5 to get a spot meter and MLU in the same camera, although what I'd really love to use is an FM3A with a spot meter and the F3HP viewfinder. But spot meters never made it to manual cameras because Nikon wants to attract people to AF cameras (and esp. AF lenses).

I take all the points here well, but I guess we all dream that someone would make every little option/feature/toy we want and always have it available for every camera no matter how small/insignificant if it is important to US. But the price we'd pay for such both in the original body and the accessories themselves just isn't fiscally realistic in many cases. Frustrating, yes, but we may as well get used to it.. If the demand is there, I assure you that the marketing dept will get word back and we'll see it return.

 

OTOH, Nikon has made some significant changes I think we all appreciate. Almost every decent high end lens now comes with a custom fitted/designed lens hood. The new tripod foot on the 70-200G-VR... is truely novel and they certainly could have sold a lot of those for a lot of money by providing a cheap non-removable foot on a removable collar. How many of us would gladdly paid $200 for a high quality foot like that? You might say "not me", but how much do you pay for just a quick-release adapter alone...yea, thought so.

 

Change is difficult, some embrace any change as better, some resist any change and decry it for the worse. But it is just change--we gain something, we lose something, but, in most cases, the overall impact is for the better.

The problem is that there are so many models, and accessories are incompatible between models for essentially cosmetic reasons ... they liked to change things ... I'm really surprised that the same cable release works on both my cameras.

A lot of these accesories existed because film cameras were used for many purposes such as recording scientific experiments, copy work and other uses. These days, people use cheap video cameras, scanners and other devices for these purposes or the scientific equipment is computerized in such a way it records the information directly.

Nikon's accountants can presumably count.They're the culprits--not the marketing department. The stuff doesn't sell. The peak year for SLR sales was 1980.Nikon's accessory and manual focus lens rosters have been shrinking steadily for the last decade. Where have you been???

"...I'm really surprised that the same cable release works on both my cameras."

 

Yeh, I don't even own a Nikon F but the cable release for one does work with my Yashica 635 TLR. Who'da thunkit?

But why are SLRs on the decline? Is it that the red-eye shiny-skin P&S look is just preferred by the majority of people?

I can't answer that, Ilkka, but <a href="http://medfmt.8k.com/brondeath.html">Robert Monaghan</a> has a few thoughts on it.<P>

 

I think Paul's point is a good one. I've not, for instance, come across a pin-registration F after the F3 (Oxberry Pro 5).

I don't think the fact that there were more SLRs sold in the 1970's than presently means that there were more serious photographers. In the old days, if you wanted to adjust the angle of view in a camera, that usually meant an SLR. So a lot of holiday snappers had them. Nowadays, holidays are photographed on P&S cameras and basically I think that the results are so bad that the thought of photography as a serious hobby doesn't even come to one's mind.

 

Photography is also present everywhere, and it is so ordinary that it is only seen for its utilitarian value. Also people think it's expensive and don't get involved with it for that reason. I think that the point and shoot cameras have basically made photography more accessible to "everyone" but it has reduced the challenge of taking a photograph, and consequently reduced the interest in the eyes of those who might be able to do it well.

That makes sense, Ilkka. I'd noticed that a lot of people about retirement age who just used their cameras on holiday had SLRs, but had never thought of the reasons for this.

 

I met an older gent recently who was admiring my F801s and saying he wished he had a camera that fine that would be capable of taking good photos. Well, we got chatting and it turned out he had a Nikon somewhere, so I suggested he shoot with it again. He couldn't remember what model it was, but I asked him about various things, including the viewfinder and shutter-speed dial...

 

It was an F2AS!

I don't think the point and shoot is replacing the SLR. When I started with photography in the early 60s, the Instamatics were eclipsing the Brownies because of easier loading. The Speed Graphics were still in use for presswork but weddings, but their days were numbered. A new Pentax Spotmatic cost $250 in 1970. Advances in manufacturing brought the cost down, and advertisers convinced the average Joe that an SLR camera was the way to go. Joe soon found the SLR required more technical knowledge than the Instamatic, and thought the newer "autofocus" point and shoot cameras were the deal. Now Joe can point and shoot and print on his home computer.

 

What about all the shiny accessories Nikon used to make? Most of us didn't need them. I quickly opted for the E screen with its grid, but don't even remember what the other twenty odd do. How many research scientists were buying cameras vs the general market? nikon discovered the vast amateur market. Even the old Nikon staple, the press photographers, ran with pretty basic outfits. I think many of the old shift lens crowd are using view cameras. Not all former SLR users went point and shoot and/or digital. The amateur large format market is much larger than in the 60s. I think the same could be said for the medium format crowd.

 

Some of us luddites haven't yet switched to the F3. While I have an FM2, my two F bodies are still very much alive, and will continue to be that way. Ten years from now? Who knows. I suspect the SLR will become more like the Leica or the view camera, prized for what it does best rather than being a "universal" camera. Leica made very nice Visoflex units to convert the rangefinder cameras to reflex viewing, as well as some very fine bellows and telephoto lenses. Who uses them today? The SLR is a marvelous camera for closeup work, long lens work, and not at all shabby for general work. It is no match for the Leica in low light. It cannot match the 4x5 for architectural work. It certainly cannot match the digital technology for quick processing.

 

Will I trade my Nikons for a digital camera? No, thank you.