|
|
Re: Zeiss to make lenses for Nikon cameras even though Nikon won't
Matt Clara wrote:
> "Etaoin Shurdlu" wrote in message
> news:11se2rlkcg75jc7@news.supernews.com...
>
>>Zeiss to make lenses for Nikon cameras even though Nikon won't
>>
>>
>>Well, that's what the press said!
>>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/01/12/nikon.film.ap/index.html
>>
>
>
> It did not say that anywhere in there. Are you stupid, or just being a
> jackass?
>
Don't know who's braying at whom. The article does say exactly that in
paragraphs 4 & 5 --
>: NEW YORK (AP) -- Nikon Corp.,
>: which helped popularize the
>: 35mm camera five decades ago,
>: will stop making most of its film
>: cameras to concentrate on
>: digital models.
>:
>: The Japanese company said it wanted to
>: focus on "business categories that
>: continue to demonstrate the strongest
>: growth" as film cameras sales keep
>: shrinking.
>:
>: Nikon will discontinue seven film-camera
>: models, leaving in production only the
>: current top-line model, the F6, and a
>: low-end manual-focus model, the FM10.
>:
>* IT WILL ALSO STOP MAKING MOST OF ITS
>* MANUAL-FOCUS LENSES.
>*
>* Most of the company's autofocus lenses
>* work with manual-focus bodies, however.
>* Also, German optical company CARL ZEISS
>* AG IS WIDELY REPORTED TO BE PLANNING A LINE
>* OF MANUAL-FOCUS LENSES FOR NIKON BODIES.
-- EMPHASIS ADDED --
|
|
|
| |
Gordon Moat wrote:
> Older manual focus lenses often were
> made just a bit better than newer autofocus lenses. Many companies older manual focus
> lenses can still be used, so unless they get scratched or otherwise damaged there
> would be little reason to replace them.
>
>
Surely you've seen Mike Johnston's column on the Luminous Landscape
website, wherein he quoted a Japanese camera executive who said the the
SMC Takumar 50/1.4 lens, if it could be manufactured and marketed today,
would probably sell for between $1250-1500.
That is a manual lens, and camera companies have convinced the majority
of today's buyers that they just can't get along without the latest
autofocus wonders. I never see any attempt made to learn just what kind
of photos those buyers will be taking. I shoot mainly static subjects,
and autofocus is an additional obstacle for my style of shooting. I
want to be able to choose my depth of field. I want to control the
aperture and shutter speed combination. I have a couple of point &
shoot models, and they are very unsatisfying because they allow the
photographer only to compose, but not exploit the characteristics of a
lens' bokeh or depth of field.
I often wonder how many other shooters are out there, who really could
find a manual camera/lens to be just what they needed to have more
creative control?
I handled a Canon SLR at Wal Mart on Saturday. All plastic.
Lightweight. Sold for $200 and looked it. Very unsatisfying feel to
it. And this is what today's shooters get all revved up over?
Now that Zeiss bodies and lenses are no longer being made in the Contax
mount, who besides Leica is left, if one wants that substantial feel of
metal bodies and lens barrels? Nikon still makes the FM3a, but I don't
follow their lenses, and suspect that there aren't too many manual,
metal-barreled items. Their brochure lists, for the normal lens, only
an f/1.2--it must cost a small fortune. No 1.4's or 1.8's.
Minolta got out of making metal gear decades ago. Pentax's last hurrah
was probably the LX. I have a couple of P3n bodies, with plastic
bottoms, "made in China." Canon? They must have abandoned metal when
they discontinued the breech mount. Who is left? Leica and the
Russians? A Zenit is more appropriately used as a doorstop than as a
photographic instrument. Same for the Kiev.
We normally think of Leica as too expensive, but in reality the prices
charged by virtually ANY manufacturer for classic metal gear would be
right up there. Still, that plastic stuff really bothers me. I just
can't stand holding it, although I'm sure that it has fine optical
performance.
|
|