future of the FM system

[angel_o.]

<i>"Corleone shoots with Canon, so i don't think he cares.. :-)" </i><br>

Uff, now I can say something too... ;-)<br><br>

 

You're all completely right. It is desireable to have a full manual body and an automatic body that are able to interchange their lenses, flashes, etc. but the problem is the amount of money that the customers are willed to spend. It's not just one lens, it's a system that requires full engineering and this is what makes R&D very expensive and therefore, at the end this shows up in the retail price.<br><br>

Being honest, I was looking for that kind of compromise too but I've to admit that I wouldn't want to spend on a manual camera the same amount of money as on a full automatic camera in the price segment of the F5. Because, this is what a manual camera would cost too, if it would be fully compatible to all new lenses. Therefore, I'd very glad to be able to get a good price on a system that fits my needs. If the G-lenses are the only way to get good optics combined with nice to have features (like AF-S/VR) I'd buy G-lenses. Of course, if I would be able to buy the same lens with an aperture for the same money, I'd buy it with aperture ring, just in case I buy once a day a manual camera again, but I wouldn't spend one more cent on it. <br>

<br>And probably this typical consumer behaviour is what leads Nikon to drop the aperture ring - the consumers want to have a great and cheap system. The small number of pros, simply don't provide enough profit for the company. Sorry, but today only a company that sells a high number of units makes profit and survives.<br>

 

<br>

Maybe, if Corleone wouldn't shoot Canon there were no aperture rings missing... :-)

<br><br>Have fun!

[over exposure]

No, wait just a moment.....

 

Why do you tell that a manual camera for being compatible with the electronic one would cost so much??

 

In fact an FM3 and a F5\F100 are fully compatible and the price is not the same, or not?

 

G lenses bring a obvious message: "we prefer that you buy new bodies and lenses, not that you use old lenses on new bodies and old bodies with new lenses"...

 

With this politic in mind, my question "which future for the FM system" has an answer: straight to used compartment and with universal lens products...

 

 

..i signed and sended Nikon the petition, anyway.....

 

happyness!!!

[jemini_joseph]

I guess compatibility is (was) a greate with Nikon. I switched to F100 when they announced the first serious G lens (24-85). That was a good decision I've sold my n90s. I guess the price went down after that. But anyway I'm one of those unhappy customers. I used to tell Canon friends that Nikon is the only one keeping this compatibility. I cannot do that any more... :(-

[angel_o.]

<i>In fact an FM3 and a F5\F100 are fully compatible "</i> <br><br>

The F5/100 can meter with MF lenses, other cameras like the F80 are mechanically compatible to MF lenses, you just have to use an external lightmeter (I admit, this is not very convenient all the times). Nevertheless, I meant with "fully compatible" that the mechanical camera should be able to use all AF lenses too without restrictions (e.g. when the aperture ring got lost on the road to the dealers). Obviously, G-lenses don't work at all with the FM3 and the main features of AF-S and VR lenses are missing.

<br><br>

A hypotetical solution for a 100% compatible system could be that

"VR" is realized with a camera independent gyroscop (e.g. a mechanical solution won't be bad at all - sorry, mech. eng. speaking :) ). If in addition, the AF sensors, the metering chip and the batteries were located in the lens, the camera body would only have to be a box designed for holding the shutter-release button, the shutter-curtain, the film/CCD and the flash. Thus, those lenses were 100% compatible to everything. - This would be the end of all MF vs AF vs G debates but really expensive! ;-)<br><br>

Enjoy your Nikon - don't look at Corleone's camera! :-)

[ilkka_nissila]

But if there weren't G lenses, then the FM3a would be fully compatible with all lenses in production. That wouldn't add to the price of the camera, rather the lenses (but even there it's very small).

[edwin_chung]

What is the big deal about G lens. Currently, Nikon has about 5 or 6 G lenses. However, Nikon is still making other non-G lens. In fact, all G lenses have a non-G equivalent in Nikon lens line-up. If you have a body that cannot use G lens, just buy another lens.

 

Here is the list:

 

AFS 70-200 f2.8G (try AFS 80-200 f2.8 or AF 80-200 f2.8 with tripod collar)

 

AF 24-85 f3.5-4.5G (try AF 24-85 f2.8-4D)

 

AF 28-80 f3.5-5.6G or Af 28-100 f3.5-5.6G (try A 28-105 f3.3-4.5)

 

AFS 24-120 f3.5-5.6G (try AF 24-120 f3.5-5.6)

 

AF 28-200 f3.5-5.6 (try 28-200 f3.5-5.6)

 

AF 70-300 f3.5-5.6G (AF 70-300 f3.5-5.6)

 

not to mention a full line of MF lens.

 

Each lens might have a slightly different specs (i.e. some have ED glass or AFS or faster lens speed etc.) but there are a lot of choices. They are all good choices. I have used all of the lenses except the latest G lenses. All of them compare well with the G lenses. The G is ready not an issue at this moment.

 

Think about it. If you have an old 1960's nikon manual focus camera, you can still use it with today's many top-of-the-line nikon lenses. How awesome is that! So what if there are a few lenses that you cannot use. If someone absolutely must use the new AFS 70-200 VR G. I am sure they already have the latest camera body.

 

I have never heard anybody complaining about the latest Photoshop version cannot run on a Apple II or an IBM XT. How many things you bought 20 or 30 years ago are still working and are still being supported by its manufacturer. The fact that Nikon is still supporting its manual focus cameras is nothing short of amazing.

 

There are other things we could complain about Nikon but G lenses should not be one of them (at least not right now).

[edwin_chung]

Sorry, there are a few typo.

 

AFS 70-200 f2.8G (try AFS 80-200 f2.8D or AF 80-200 f2.8D with tripod collar)

 

AF 24-85 f3.5-4.5G (try AF 24-85 f2.8-4D)

 

AF 28-80 f3.5-5.6G or AF 28-100 f3.5-5.6G (try AF 28-105 f3.3-4.5D)

 

AFS 24-120 f3.5-5.6G (try AF 24-120 f3.5-5.6D)

 

AF 28-200 f3.5-5.6G (try AF 28-200 f3.5-5.6D)

 

AF 70-300 f3.5-5.6G (try AF 70-300 f3.5-5.6D)

[ilkka_nissila]

Cameras aren't computers. The computer industry is an anomaly. Nobody expects computers to last, and since they're dirt cheap, they don't really have to. (The environmental waste is quite bad though.) You can buy a PC for the price of a single lens. Now talk about replacing 10-20 lenses with new ones? Since we're really buying the optics, and there's no physical reason why they shouldn't be perfectly useable for 20 years or more. That's how it used to be. Now they're mixing computers with cameras and applying the same obsolition principle to cameras. For no other reason than profit.

 

Nikon's compatibility isn't amazing. It's mediocre. Only one film camera in production today will properly meter with manual focus lenses. They could do better, but they don't want to.

 

You can't use new software in old computers because in the early days, software was made to fit in a small space. Today, they try to add as many useless toy features to the programs (classical example: the Office Assistant) which take up the resources. Thus you have to upgrade the computer if you want to use new software. The disk & memory consumption of today's commercial software is nothing short of spectacular.

 

All of this is because economists and marketing people run the show, and the engineers (who take pride in doing their work well) are left without a say.

[ilkka_nissila]

Sorry, I meant to say only one AF film camera today (the F5) will meter correctly with MF lenses.

[cd thacker]

Not to nitpick, Ilkka, but I believe the F100 will, as well.

[angel_o.]

<i>"Cameras aren't computers."</i><br>

<br>

The only thing they're missing to be computers is the mouse! :-))

<br>

<br>

<i>Nobody expects computers to last, and since they're dirt cheap, they don't really have to. ...You can buy a PC for the price of a single lens. Now talk about replacing 10-20 lenses with new ones? </i><br>

<br>

Sorry, for the money I spent on in the meanwhile worthless computers

I could have trashed many F5 and precious lenses - it would have been a lot cheaper.

<br><br>

I think your statement depends on your professional and personal needs.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>"There is nothing noble in using a manual focusing,

non automated SLR, just a weakly thought out sentimental

attachment to 20 year old technology." --Ellis Vener<br>

</em><br>

I have to disagree in part to this statement. There is nothing

noble with embracing new technology for its own sake. True

automation comes in the brain of the photographer. Different

parts of the brain are used when one is doing something on a

reflex level and when one is consciously performing the act as a

series of steps.<br>

<br>

The advertising campaigns of camera manufacturers have, for at

least the last 25 years, heavily stressed automation as a means

of achieving the Holy Grail of photography, the Grab Shot. That

some of this technology was slower than the old "f/8 and be

there" method was not mentioned as advertising is clearly

profit motivated. For many todays cameras have so many

features that they are overwhelmed. Many set the cameras to

Program mode and let the cameras make the decisions. Others lose

shots because the camera tries to be "helpful" when no

help is desired.<br>

<br>

The well established trend in cameras is more automation, higher

performance, more robot construction (i.e. less hand assembly)

and unfortunately lower quality of construction, materials and

finish. This is a mixed situation but its most likely to be

unpleasant for those who rely on personal skill. This does not

preclude in any way personal skill applied to more automated

cameras nor does it preclude one person from using both manual

and automated technology as they see appropriate.<br>

<br>

The best defense I've seen of the Nikon FM3a is this post by

Daniel Bayer...<br>

<br>

<em>This camera has been designed and produced almost specificaly

for the rough and remote photojournalist. The likes of Gordon

Wiltse, Galen Rowell and my friend Ace Kvale and myself have

practically requested this model for mountaineering and long term

expedition photography. It's a no-brainer for ultra long time

exposures too. <br>

<br>

The Nikon FM3A is a brilliant new camera, quite the security

blanket too.<br>

<br>

db <br>

<br>

-- Daniel Bayer, August 3, 2002</em><br>

<br>

Here is a link to...<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon/fm3a" target="_new"><u>Nikon

FM3A, (Briefly) reviewed</u></a> in October 2001 by Philip

Greenspun<br>

<br>

Regards,

[ilkka_nissila]

Doug, I have researched this thoroughly and the F100 requires a lens-dependent exposure compensation with non-CPU lenses. This is stated even in the brochure in fine print (the same was true for the F70 and the F90X in early versions but not later ones, and I made a big fuss about it). I've tested some F100's and they had 1/2 underexposure with my manual focus lenses vs. a similar AF lens. Now, this is not a big deal if you shoot neg film but it's an annoyance with slides. And since Nikon says it depends on the lens/tube etc. you will have to test every close-up setup/tube/bellows/Ai converter. My conclusion is that it doesn't meter properly with Ai lenses, period. That's why I don't have one, instead I have the F5 and a 1999 sample of the F90X.

[ShunCheung]

I still find it very strange that people describe the FM3a or anything from the FM/FE series as "rugged." I have had two myself, so I know these cameras quite well. When the FM was first introduced back in 1977, that was the era of the big and heavy Nikkormat FTn/FT2/FT3 and Nikon F2, photo magazines used to describe the small FM as flimsy.

 

The very modern SLRs, especially DSLRs, are nothing but computers. The CCD is a computer chip; they even put CPUs inside lenses. That is precisely why cameras depreciate and get out of date so quickly, and it gets difficult to couple old all-mechanical lenses into modern all-electronic camera. A mouse is just a pointing and selection device; we have it in the form of the AF point selection pad on the F5, F100, D1 ....

 

The good thing about computers and modern electronic is that they get cheaper quickly. Before the D1, those Kodak DSLRs used to be like $15K a few years ago. Back in 1999, the $5K D1 was a major price break through. Last year the D100, Fuji S2 and Canon D60 were around $2k. This year the Canon 10D is $1.5K and we expect lower-end DSLRs to be below $1K next year. The bad thing is that computers become obsolete rapidly and you need to upgrade fairly frequently. The days when the FM and FM3a haven't changed that much over some 20+ years are long gone.

 

People are more than happy to accept the rapid price reduction in modern electronic cameras, but they refuse to accept the down side that comes with it.

[ilkka_nissila]

The camera makers charge for important basic features (such as fast autofocus) much more in DSLRs than in film cameras. The Ai compatibility used to exist in very inexpensive cameras so it shouldn't be a problem. Maybe it's that things that used to be inexpensive (mechanics) are now more expensive as they may need more testing and calibration than the electronics.

[douglas_green1]

I believe that the bottom line for Nikon is just that, the bottom line, i.e. MONEY. I can say for CERTAIN that I spent $1000 buying an Olympus E-10, and specifically DID NOT SPEND $2400 on a Nikon D100 because of 1 reason, and 1 reason only - it does not meter with my AI/AIS lenses. I can also say that I DID NOT spend $400 on an N80, but rather, bought a USED N90s in the aftermarket, for 1 reason, and 1 reason only - because it did not meter with my AI/AIS lenses. I am a serious owner of Nikon cameras and lenses, I own 8 Nikon bodies, and 14 Nikkor lenses, only 3 of which are AF lenses. And I personally can account for $2800 that I DID not spend purchasing New Nikon equipment in the past 2 years, but rather spent elsewhere - SPECIFICALLY because Nikon has chosen not to support AI/AIS lenses with these newer cameras. And I can GUARANTEE that the high-end 12-16 Megapixel Digital SLR that I will purchase in a couple of years once they come down to $2000-2500 for a body, will ALSO not be purchased from Nikon if it cannot use my AI and AIS lenses, and it WILL be purchased from Nikon if it CAN use (and meter) with my AI and AIS lenses. (Otherwise, I will undoubtedly get something with lenses matched to the sensor size, such as the Olympus system that has been announced.) So, for Me personally, this decision to intentionally obsolete the AI and AIS lenses on newer bodies has the very REAL likelihood of cost Nikon $5000 of revenue over a 3-4 year period from someone who otherwise WOULD be a LOYAL, and big spending customer.

 

Is anyone from Nikon Marketing reading this? This is the information that Nikon NEEDS TO HAVE, to properly run their business.

[over exposure]

Dear friends,

 

I�m reading with very much interest all the stuffs that you�re writing�

 

What it comes out, after all, is that my doubts were real�.I hope, and I even believe in some way, that the Nikon FM system will last years again, but if you look at the photo-market you can�t notice how the total compatibility story is going out of interest�

 

Probably (surely) even at nikon the rule �live, buy, get away� have its weight�

 

About lenses..used gear market and universal productions will be careful enough to make lenses for the customers that will need\want\love �em and I think nikon will do it too, until really doesn�t want to cut with the past�.

 

In some opinion I�ve noticed many users are friendly with the new road�

 

I think is nice having the dream of having the right tool for everyone, without having to be forced to rob a bank to afford a camera with two lenses, if it isn�t digital or of the latest generation.

 

Great anyway seeing so many interested people in this �obsolete� technology, proving that maybe we will call obsolete many AF and especially Digital cameras before!!

 

You're right!! Nikon should make his conts with care...is really a big deal losing customers, now that Dslr's are getting almost popular?

 

And even on the film planet.....

 

Nikon take care.....

 

Gabriele

[edwin_chung]

responding to Ilkka Nissila comments:

 

(Cameras aren't computers)

 

Almost 90% of today's camera has computer chip inside. What do you think TTL flash, TTL matrix metering is? Computer Chip.

 

(The computer industry is an anomaly. Nobody expects computers to last, and since they're dirt cheap, they don't really have to.)

 

The computer industry is NOT an anomaly. How about music tapes, records, 8-tracks, Beta, laserdisc or soon to be VHS?? Everything has a limited life span. Sorry to say it but even you and I has a limited life span.

Computer is anything but dirt cheap. 'Cheap' is relative. A high-end personal computer could easily cost more than $5000.00. Even a cheap computer cost $1000.00. Perhaps that is dirt cheap for you but it is still a lot of money for most people.

 

(You can buy a PC for the price of a single lens.)

 

Of course, a Nikon 600mm f4 costs $9000.00. You could definitely buy a computer of two. On the other hand, I have used computer that costs several times more than most people entire camera collection.

 

(Now talk about replacing 10-20 lenses with new ones? Since we're really buying the optics, and there's no physical reason why they shouldn't be perfectly useable for 20 years or more. That's how it used to be.)

 

It still is. Old Nikon lenses are perfectly usable today. I am not sure where the argument is? Why does anyone need to replace all his/her old Nikon lenses????? If someone insist on using old lenses with non-compatible latest AF camera body, buying a light meter will solve all problems.

 

 

(Now they're mixing computers with cameras and applying the same obsolition principle to cameras. For no other reason than profit.)

 

A Nikon F with old Nikon lenses is perfectly usable. They are not obsolete at all. Mixing computers and cameras has been going on for a long time. In fact, the car you drive, the microwave oven you use and countless everyday items are mixing with computer and computer chips. It is of course for profit but it is also for producing better and cheaper products. All the great lenses you are using are products of computer engineering (even the old manual focus lenses). Of course Nikon is in it for the profit. If a company does not turn a profit, I wonder how long it will last. No profit also means no R&D. When the company is gone, I guess there will be no more complaining. Will you go into a business not wanting to turn a profit? Will you work on a job and not take a salary? Even non-profit organizations need to have positive cash flow. And volunteers need to have other income source.

 

 

(Nikon's compatibility isn't amazing. It's mediocre. Only one film camera in production today will properly meter with manual focus lenses. They could do better, but they don't want to.)

 

F5, F100, FM3A, FM10, FE10 plus the easily available new F3HP and new FM2. Plus the huge use market of older Nikon manual focus cameras. There are 5 cameras out of 9 from the Nikon web site that can properly meter with manual focus lenses. Yes I agree they could do better but I still think Nikon has done a pretty good job of compatibility. Remember AF and MF are two different systems. Nikon is the only one still producing compatible AF & Mf system.

 

Let�s go back to the original questions: the future of cameras without command dials with the new G lenses.

There are too many alternative lenses at the current time. G lenses are not an issue at this moment. Perhaps when Nikon stop making manual focus lenses and replace all the D lens with G, then we will have a problem.

 

Other issues that came up:

New camera bodies that are not compatible with old lens.

Nikon still has 5 camera models currently in production that will work with old Nikon lenses. I also wish all their lenses will work on all their new and old bodies but this is not an ideal world.

 

I think the problem is that: someone wants/insists to use the old manual lenses on the latest non-compatible AF or digital bodies. I guess that person could always buy a manual focus camera or a light meter. As for digital SLR, I guess the solution might be buying a light meter or some new lenses or a D1 or buy a different brand digital SLR with all new lenses. Going digital is expensive. So much for being �dirt-cheap�.

 

[ilkka_nissila]

Edwin, of course modern cameras have electronics inside. Mostly to do tasks irrelevant in a film camera & make the user interface easier for beginners.

 

Well, as far as music goes, CD's have been here since the 80's and every new computer (in addition to CD players which are everywhere)can read them. LPs are a completely different technology, which has a major flaw in the mechanical vulnerability of the medium. In practice LPs can only be played a finite number of times so it's not the same problem. Lenses can be used to take probably hundreds of thousands of pictures without problems. At least the good, old, ones could. They're like a 50's refrigerator at my grandparents' place: it still works.

 

A new computer at $1000 is cheap in comparison that many people use it as a major tool at work. While in theory, a well-made computer would last 10 years easily, software are made artificially inflated so that people eventually have to upgrade the hardware, in practice every 3-4 years or so. Compared to total costs that a company has to pay to have an employee, $1000 every three years is not much, is it?

Especially when compared to 80's, when a basic PC that could be used for work would cost something like $5000.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no technical reason modern lenses couldn't be used smoothly along with older lenses, and the same is true of old and new cameras. Nikon used to know how to do this, but now commercial realities apparently force them to abandon the past. A separate light meter is something that solves many incompatibilities when using a short lens, but how about photographing a subject that is far away with a 300 mm lens? An in-camera spot meter (which is a feature needing no computer whatsoever) solves the problem smoothly.

 

I didn't mean that a company shouldn't seek profit. They should. But ethics matter as well. If they want to increase profits, why do it by introducing incompatibilities? How about making a superior product which will sell by that virtue instead. One item shouldn't have to be made several times if the first one was perfectly good. It's environmentally unfriendly to make new gear incompatible.

 

As far as I'm concerned, there are people actually working for it's own sake. It has positive social effects, provides a meaning to one's life (although life itself can be meaningful even without work). If you cannot find a job which you like, and need to seek profit above all from it, then that's your problem. I go to work to accomplish something, to help other people near and far. Of course it has to pay for a living to be meaningful. But provided that there isn't some kind of problem at work (social or other), it's not necessary for it to be really profitable in the sense of shareholders wanting interest for their financial investment. Life's a process which is meaningful in itself and it's not like I have to die with a lot of money.

 

What I resent is the idea that you can just make a lot of well-made precision instruments artificially obsolete (like by removing the AI coupling mechanics) just to force people to buy new equipment. They should strive to make maximum use of what has been already manufactured. That's what happens inside any company or family. Solid economy.

 

Nikon Japan's web site lists the following film cameras that are available new: F5, F100, F80, F75, F65, F55, FM3A. Of these, only the F5 and FM3A (sorry, I forgot the FM3A because it wouldn't fit my use) meter correctly with non-CPU lenses. The F100 requires lens-dependent exposure correction with non-CPU lenses (very likely artificially introduced) so it doesn't count.

 

The issue with "G" is not a big problem as it is now. The issue is that Nikon is coupling "G" with features which are not related to the existence of the aperture ring, such as VR and AF-S. Features which have been widely available for years in the EOS system. Nikon introduced VR in a way which doesn't work with bodies older than the F5 and even then only on medium and high-end cameras. Every single EOS camera can use IS and USM lenses 100%. So essentially Nikon is more compatible with the far past but less compatible with the near past and future. And for no technical reason. All of this is about trying to force people to get rid of their old stuff (as a one-time crash or gradually, bit by bit) and remove the attractiveness of perfectly good optical instruments in the 2nd hand market. To make the industry more friendly for the user of these equipment, there should be an universal camera mount. The only reason it isn't introduced is because then people could just pick what they need, instead of having to sell and buy lots of unrelated gear in the process. The reason you cannot use several incompatible camera systems effectively at the same time is film. (That'll change allright.) Several films are needed in many tasks in photography to get optimal results, thus several bodies are needed, and they all need to be compatible with all lenses for the idea of using a body as a film back to work as it should.

 

Digital will remove the problem of having to have several bodies to get optimal results in different light. That's very good. Digital is expensive but it solves a very real problem (the colour temperature-dependency of films). So I'm all for it. But I want all the lenses ever made (!) to be functional with it. :-)

 

I'm not terribly unhappy with the situation as it is, but I would like to see some principles of preserving what already is good incorporated in the business model of the industry.