How important is Nikon's past to you?

[mark_drutz]

<p>Some people are into history and some aren't. I find that knowing the history of anything increases my enjoyment of it. One can enjoy a baseball game on it's own merits. I enjoy it more knowing the history of the game.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>I still own and occasionally use a 1970 F. I have it because it was my first SLR. I also have and use a large group of older lenses I have a 55 f/1.2 that has been AI modified. I also have and use a 58 f/1.4 from 1960. I really like this lens on my D300 and my Kodak Pro 14 NX. That lens has a look all its own..<br>

I like the old glass for its build quality and for its look. I like the fact that with a simple modification I can use almost any lens that they have made on there newest cameras today.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>Lil,</p>

<p>"Unfortunately that's gotten me in trouble by once getting a non-Ai lens. Still have to either sell it or have it Ai'ed."</p>

<p>Which poor orphaned non-AI lens do you have? Maybe we can come to some arrangement for me to give it a new home? I have several Nikon F2 Photomic bodies. I hate to see pre-AI lenses undergo the messy back room AI conversion operations unless it's with a genuine Nikon conversion ring kit. I always keep the old non-AI ring whenever I convert so it can be restored on the lens should some future owner want to.</p>

<p>Contrary to Kent and Shun, I am a sentimentalist to the max.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>I was recently reading something in a magazine while waiting for a doctors appointment about Geomagnetic Storms which originate on the sun and blast the earth every century or so. I guess the last big one we had was in 1859. The author was saying that if earth experienced another one of these periodic storms today, it would burn out everything computer operated. Even cars wouldn't run and all communications, satellites, electric power grids, etc., would be toast. I wonder if digital cameras would be reduced to fist sized chunks of charcoal? :-(</p>

<p>I also wonder if only those of us with old mechanical cameras and some film in the freezer would be able to record such an event if it ever happens again. They say the aurora borealis could be seen even in Hawaii during the 1859 storm. I'd like to get a shot of the aurora over Diamond Head and Waikiki Beach with my Nikon F2 and Leica M2. I couldn't be accused of photo shopping it into the image, either. ;-)</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>So, how important is the Nikon past to you?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I find assurance in Nikon's long-standing history of innovation, quality, and reliability. Also, when I first started taking photography seriously the people whose work I admired most used Nikons. Does that count?</p>

[zlight_b]

<p>different folks, different strokes!<br>

for some, nikon or any other brand, is simply a means to an end.<br>

for others, including to me, it's a means to an end but much more than that! a part of my biography, part of my memories ie. any "thing" is obviously a physical entity, but the same thing also has a "social" life too...herein lies our attachment to some products that for us, appear to be more than simply products. think about it: maybe the quality of an "image" is most important. but an image can be broken down simply to physical entities ie. pixels, paper, color etc. But really, what is it that attracts us to an image? both the physical attributes AND the emotions it unleashes. Same when it comes to "gadgets" (at least for me). it is never simply a tool, but of course, it is a tool too, no question about that. since nikon was the first camera i bought, classic nikons take me back and help me relive, partially, the past. subjective emotions? you bet! but then again, this is what "design" is all about!</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>The older Nikon lenses exude quality and precision. I can take my 300mm f/4.5 (non-If and non-ED), turn the focusing ring all the way to the minimum focusing distance, place it on the counter and watch the focusing ring turn under the weight of the internal barrels and lenses. I have looked at some of Nikon's latest stuff, even some of the more high end stuff and my first impression is they construction wise they are <em>junk</em>. And don't EVEN get me started on plastic male bayonet fittings!</p>

[greg_kowalczewski]

<p>If Brand X released a camera system (body and lenses) that suited that way I wanted to take (read create) and print shots (read minimal photoshop) and was a quantum leap superior to anything on the market today and was affordable I would ditch all my current camera gear in favour of Brand X.<br>

So much for history.</p>

 

[rafael_s]

<p>I too love the older Nikon bodies/lenses. I think it's easy to form emotional ties to that era of photography when camera's were built to last and didn't have plastic parts. I am glad that I can still use a lot of the older lenses with the newer digital bodies. I also appreciate and still hold on to classic Canon and Minolta bodies/lenses. The craftsmanship and attention to detail can still very much be appreciated today.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Nikon could make a digital FM3a with a full frame 12mp sensor and do well. So many folks still love the feel of well crafted cameras and lenses. Rich guys pay $7000 for M9's. In these tough times companies need to think outside the box. Canon long ago abandoned quality MF cameras and could not compete with Nikon if they decided to build the camera suggested above.</p>

[kivivuori]

<p>To me it`s very important. Back in 1968 I had a classmate - a son of of a famous finnish pressphotographer - who was dreaming of Leica M4 meanwhile I was dreaming of Nikon F. We both had brochures with us and compared eagerly those legendary cameras (without any deeper knowledge, of course).<br>

Two years later I started my working career in one of the largest chains of true camera shops in Finland. there I was surrounded by Nikons, Leicas, Hasselblads etc. Unfortunately I couldn`t afford my dream camera Nikon Photomic FTn so I bought Nikkormat instead and became a Nikon user.<br>

BR<br>

Esa Kivivuori<br>

Finland<br>

See also:<br>

http://esakivivuoriphotography.ning.com/<br>

http://www.rps.org/portfolio/511--Kivivuori,-Esa-ARPS</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon could make a digital FM3a with a full frame 12mp sensor and do well. So many folks still love the feel of well crafted cameras and lenses. Rich guys pay $7000 for M9's. In these tough times companies need to think outside the box. Canon long ago abandoned quality MF cameras and could not compete with Nikon if they decided to build the camera suggested above.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>What a great idea! I would spring for a digital Nikon F2 chrome body in a snap. How cool would that be, especially if it was compatible with pre-AI lenses.</p>

 

[randall_born]

<p>Nikon's past is quite important to me on several fronts. First and foremost is the fact that I am "living in the past" in that I still shoot primarily film, using now discontinued Nikon bodies and lenses. I shoot as a hobby, just for fun not for profit, so I've never felt the need to be at the very cutting edge of technology. Film produced wonderful images for decades, and it still does. It works for me.</p>

<p>Having said all that I do appreciate the advantages of newer technology. I have a lot of MF gear, but I also have some AF bodies, and I certainly see the benefits of digital imaging. I've waited quite patiently for Nikon to produce a full frame digital camera that is fully compatible with most of my older lenses and the D700 seems to that camera. However, since I shoot strictly as a hobby, I can wait a bit longer. Given the rapid "obsolescence" of digital cameras Nikon's <em>next</em> full frame digital should make the D700 affordable for me. That's how I've been able to acquire the collection of fine old equipment that I am currently using. The advent of AF made some of the best MF lenses affordable, digital cameras made top quality film bodies affordable, and the need for DX lenses coupled with the desire for the very latest technology (faster AF, vibration reduction, etc.) has made some pretty nice AF lenses affordable. One brand new pro body and two or three of the latest zooms would probably cost more than I have invested in my entire collection. Some might argue that would be the better deal, but I'd sure miss the variety.</p>

<p>One of Nikon's most notable features for many decades has been the backwards/forwards compatibility of their lenses/bodies. The F mount has withstood the test of time. Some of my lenses are 30+ years old, but all 12 of my Nikkor primes and all 12 of my Nikkor Zooms (both MF and AF) will work on all of my 8 film bodies, and I believe many of them would be equally at home on a D700 or a D3. That means a lot to me, and I expect it does to many other photographers who own fine old lenses.</p>

<p>The other impressive things about much of Nikon's older gear was their great design and quality construction. I appreciate fine machinery, elegant precision engineering, and first rate materials and construction. A brand new Toyota or a vintage Mercedes-Benz will each take you from here to there; the Toyota may do it more efficiently but the Mercedes provides the looks, the feel, and the quality materials and construction that I prefer. Sadly these qualities are not always as evident in some of the newer Nikon gear.</p>

<p>Finally, let's not forget that Nikon's reputation as a purveyor of fine photo equipment was built over the past half a century or so. Without that sterling reputation the company as we now know it would not be here to provide the newest generation of photographers with the hi-tech DSLR's and lenses that they are purchasing today.</p>

 

[szrimaging]

<p>Ok, I didn't read most of this, but I am voicing my opinion. I love old glass. I shoot with a Nikkor 55mm (although it may be marked 5.5cm) micro f3.5 pre-AI on a regular basis. Fantastic lens. The feal of manual focusing these are second to none. And the different optical qualities of theses lenses, well, that is half the beauty.</p>

[tony_defilippo1]

<p>I was a Nikon-for-life convert before I realized what different brands there were out there. When I started learning photography my Dad and Grandad handed me one of their Nikkormat FTn's with a 55/3.5 and away I went. By the time I realized there were Pentax K1000's and Canon XYZ's out there I was already hooked on Nikon. My Grandfather worked in satellite optics in the 50's and to this day talks about how superior the Japanese Nikon lenses were at the time, that is what got him started.</p>

<p>Randall - I love your philosophy of letting the current tech drive down prices on truely great lenses and cameras, sounds like you have a fantastic collection!</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Here I got a used Nikon F with standard prism and 5.8cm F1.4 back in 1962. Before that my slr was the Exakta VX series. I got into the Nikon F slr system because of the lenses. I liked the fast change bayonet like my Exakta system had; plus the wide range of lenses; bellows; focusing screens.</p>