dave_bernard

I bought that 45P brand new together with an FM3a. It always had a slightly stiff focus. The focus is smooth enough, but has an oddly short throw and requires more effort than I'm used to on the more full bodied manual focus Nikkors.

I dig that lens, and use it today on a Df for a compact walk around full frame set up.

<p>Daniel asks, " ...is the Df *really* that much bigger than an F3HP? "</p>

<p>I dunno, I'm looking at the specs online and it doesn't really seem that they are all that far apart if you consider all dimensions and the 'grip':</p>

<p>Nikon F3HP: approx 148.5 x 101.5 x 69 mm<br>

Nikon Df: approx 143.5 x 110 x 66.5mm<br>

<br />Nikon F3HP: 760g approx.<br />Nikon Df : 710g without battery; 765g with battery and media card<br /> </p>

<p> </p>

<p> Check out the Canon SD1200 (available used) or its immediate successors. Much smaller and more pocketable than than the S95/S100 series. You won't even know it's in your pocket.<br>

<br />It has an all-metal body and a 35-105 equivalent zoom. For me the killer is that in this miniscule form factor it still sports a zooming optical viewfinder. For some reason Canon could fit one in the SD1200, but not in the larger S100?</p>

<p>I won't debate "image quality" trade-offs, since if you're considering what to carry in your pocket, you already know about these. To me, image quality is getting the picture you want with the camera you have. It has nothing to do with grain or pixels.</p>

<p>Back in the 70s, the heyday of the fixed-lens rangefinders, they offered state of the art features that many top of the line cameras did not- like auto exposure and electronically timed shutters. The best offered very high quality lenses.</p>

<p>The medium SLR bodies with a 50/1.7, like the Minolta SRT101 might cost $200, at a time when a new graduate engineer might earn $10,000-12000 USD per year. The fixed-lens rangefinders offered a much cheaper alternative for only around $100.</p>

<p>The point is, the classic-look fixed-lens rangefinder was a cheap alternative for people who wanted to take nice pictures. Somehow, this is now upside down, and it will be more expensive than alternatives. Marketing is wonderful</p>

<p>At around $300-400 I would be very interested in this camera.</p>

<p>I disagree that a 'rising yen' explains it all. Unless all raw materials, labor, and assembly occurs only in Japan. Because a rising yen should benefit from comparable reduction in the above costs when the work and materials are done offshore from Japan.<br>

<br />Instead, we're dealing with Japanese exports being crushed. Sony is no exception- sales are way down, as would be expected for discretionary consumer products such as cameras, at a time when people already have a camera, jobs are up in the air, and debt is knocking on your door. Wages certainly are not rising.<br>

What's their answer to maintaining profit margins? Raising prices!! Which is a short-term desperation move, as it forces consumers to buy even less. A tailspin results, with prices ever rising and sales ever dropping.<br>

The answer is that they do not have the power in today's market to raise prices indefinitely and indiscriminately. Or, they can, but then they go out of business.</p>

<p>Deflation is a wonderful thing. It means prices get cheaper, and I can buy more with my [insert currency]. It is the opposite of the insidious inflation, which eats the value of my dollars year after year.<br>

Deflation is only bad, of course, if you are in debt. <br>

Nikon is fighting the tide. Its own costs of raw materials and labor (at least offshore from Japan) have to be coming down. True, it will not sell the same volume, therefore, it is trying to raise its prices. It will soon find that it has zero pricing power in a consumer electronic toy, which is what the vast majority of cameras are. My own opinion, I expect Nikon prices to drop by year's end, or Nikon may well go belly-up (I hope the latter does not happen).</p>

<p>A bad and self-defeating decision by Nikon.<br>

Japanese exports are way down. Their economy's shrinkage is accelerating. <br>

I could see the exchange-rate argument if all components, all raw materials, all assembly was done in Japan. Since it is not, I have to assume that Nikon is in fact benefiting from the exchange rates. Not to mention the global deflation of wages and materials.<br>

I am speculating that this is purely a reaction at reduced sales. They feel that they must keep margins up, so will increase prices.<br>

For something as discretionary as a consumer electronic toy (which is basically what they sell) when everybody already has one, people will think twice when their own wages and benefits and even jobs are shrinking.<br>

Nikon will sell less. What will it do then, raise prices again? Then sales will shrink. Then they will raise prices again...<br>

I want Nikon to stick around for a long time. This won't do it. If anything, to the contrary. Nikon has zero pricing power in today's market. This will cause harm to them, but it's not the first of bad decisions in recent years.</p>

>>"...My friends got his A900 for $2300USD brand new (not grey) last week...."

 

Richard, could you please indicate the US retailer from whom he purchased?

 

Thank you.

<p>A900 needs a price drop OR competitive retail pricing.  They must have already skimmed the early adapters at their price point.<br>

I went to a local vendor show at a large regional dealer last week.  The usual big names exhibited.  Sony did not have the 24-70/2.8 to display, nor did they have brochures.  The competition had plenty.  This may have been a coincidence, but it didn't look good.<br>

Nikon is stealing Sony's thunder at the high end.  Sony hit hard with the A100, pricing attractive features and functions at a price point lots lower than the competition.  Now Sony introduces their A900 and Nikon the D700 at identical price point.<br>

Watch the D700 drop- from $3000 to under $2300 within the last couple months.  Sony stays frozen at $3000, nor will it allow retailers to discount.  I have to think this is costing them marketshare.<br>

No, I don't want to talk about cameras functions or which is better; this is about business & product & pricing...</p>

The P5100 is an underrated camera, capable of great photos. It has a lot of features for the price.

 

There are a few other nice cameras, including the Canon G9 , but the P5100 has a few things over them: Price- the P5100 can be got for $2xx-something, US. Size- the P5100 is truly pocketable, unlike some of its larger, pricier brethren.

 

My dislikes are the abominable lag- really an embarrasing feature in a camera like this. Some people bemoan the lack of raw- in my opinion that is an overrated attraction for a camera such as this, and mostly makes up for a lack of what they call dynamic range.

Is it me or is yet one more photographer snapping pictures of strangers on the streets of NYC as much a cliche as taking photos of sunsets.

 

Do something different- do Des Moines or Dayton. It will certainly be more challenging, and don't expect the fabeled indifference of New Yorkers. Go away from midtown to the middle of the ghetto.

 

Take pictures that show something dynamic happening- have we really deteriorated from Hank Bresson, Erwitt, and those others into random shots faces not showing anything but annoyance?

 

Hard to tell from the video clip- are only littler people shot? Big guys, groups of teenagers? Penetrate into challenging subjects, who will not be so passive.

Whether a consumer product is 'pro' or not is a hang-up only the camera field enjoys. When buying a car, no one cares what the "pros" (taxi drivers?) use.

 

In any event, my thought is that Sony will state for the public that it does not wish to compete at the high end, in an attempt to lull the competition. Meantime, Sony is competing head on at the low and now the mid range, offering equivalent image production at a much lower price point.

 

If Sony plans to put out a camera at $3000, a price you can bet the average consumer will walk by it, they have to be thinking internally that they are competing head-on with the high volume/ high end vendors, especially if they continue with their lower price approach. No matter what they say for public consumption.

 

After all, Sony owns commercial video; why wouldn't they go after still photography?

The A100 is the competition to the D80. The A200 is an upgraded A100. It is definitely not in the D40 segment.

 

If you don't have a current system, Sony is offering a fantastic bargain in exchange for market share. Add to that the built-in anti-shake capability, and the Sony is hard to pass up. Sony is continuing to add to their lens line up, and include Zeiss lenses in that line-up. They have announced intentions to also introduce a "Pro" grade (whatever that is) camera to their DSLR line-up.

 

If you have a good use for the money you're saving- such as investing in your kids' private sports coaching- go with the Sony.

 

Nothing wrong with the Nikon, of course.

I started using Leicas in 75. In 95 I sold my two M6's, purchased new, with lenses. My new M6s had cost me $1800 (after $500 rebate). At the time of selling them, new M6s were selling for $2800 discounted; I sold mine for $1900 each.

 

If you had bought the M6 at $2800 and today it is worth $1000, you probably would not think much of the myth of Leicas holding their value.

 

Some of my favorite pix ever were taken with the M6. But I have never regretted selling them, and would not consider purchasing Leica again at this time.

 

There are plenty of other fine machines out there at very fine prices. It's just a camera, they come and go.

 

Never love anything that can't love you back.

"In production" in camera lingo goes not necessarily mean the item is scheduled for a production/manufacturing run, and has active tooling and parts on order.

 

It often merely means that existing stock of the camera is in the warehouse or distribution channels, although the last production run may have been months and months ago.

Sony is in business to make money. Although a 900 may be coming out, that will not sell in sufficient quantity alone to keep the SLR business viable.

 

Sony took a big chance in expanding into this market, and it needs to nourish its cash flow. Consequently, it needs marketable lower end models that will appeal to the keen consumer. This means it needs to go head-to-head against the competition in this space.

 

We may think of the A200 as just an A100+, but if it generates enough net new sales at the low end it helps preserve this line as a going concern. Which means new and better 900s, 1100s, 1300s...

The advantage of a 'slight telephoto' for portraits is that you can get a more pleasing rendition of the individual if filling the frame. Razor-sharpness is not necessarily a desirable feature of a portrait lens, unless you are going for the weathered-leathery fisherman look.

 

In fact, a case can be made that a slight softness in full-face shots is a little more desirable, unless viewed from a distance. Being able to examine individual pores and hairs with a magnifying glass is not necessarily something customers ask for...

Why not stop in person at B&H, pay for the items without taking physical possession, and discuss with them about courier, or even taxi, delivery to you at your NJ hotel?

A Minolta SRT-101 in the early 70s could be had with 50mm lens for around $200-220USD. In 1977 the Nikon F2 w/Photomic could be had around $335 chrome body only (black bodies were typically ~$20 more).

I sold mine for under a bill, and considered myself lucky. $100 is not really that good a price.

 

The standard Nikkor 28/2.8 manual focus lens, on the other hand, is widedly considered as one of. of not the, finest wide angle Nikon lenses ever made, and command a premium.

What makes a camera professional is if it is used to make you money. The most professional camera is the one that makes you the most money.

 

A Ford Crown Vic is a professional car if it used as a Taxi. A Ford Taurus is a professional car if it is issued to government agencies for official business.

 

A Porsche is not a professional car if you use it only for Sunday pleasure drives.

 

A D200 is not a professional camera if you use it only for your own personal family and vacation shots.

The companies are similar to each other in that they have built a marketing image that is greater than the product.

 

Not to slam the products at all.

 

But Apple sells rather conventional technology with great cosmetic appeal and external materials. They market themselves as the choice for the unconventional, the free spirit, the artist.

 

Likewise, Leica sells conventional technology (at best) with great cosmetic appeal and external materials. They market themselves towards the elitist, the smart sophisticate, the savvy daredevil, the artist.

 

When a product itself is not enough to build a market it's the job of marketing to build product perception to do so.

 

When such marketing is successful, companies are able to charge a premium price for a cosmetically appealing if functionally pedestrian product.

In late December I phoned our town's only remaining pro retail shop to ask about the wait list for this (two weeks previously they had said around a couple months and I would be 10th in line).

 

However, on that call they actually had two in stock! I gave them my card number and went down to pick it up.

 

From all I had heard I never expected this to be a walk-in, in-stock item yet, but there you are, it happens.

These models seem to be selling very well. There are millions of 'bay pages with vendors selling them. A couple dealers were temporarily sold out.

 

Additionally Nikon (in common with most big players) have been shocked at the amount of D-SLR sales they've enjoyed over the last few months. WSJ had an article about this recently.

 

Nikon USA just had a series of rebates offered or some of its equipment- no D80 on the list.

 

I expect the price to hold steady for longer than we might normally expect. Heck, they might even be able to get away with an interim price increase.

The link says 'Out of stock'