| |
Jeremy wrote:
> 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.
It is not just him, and not just Pentax. Nikon 35 mm and 85 mm f1.4 go for $900 to $1000
at B&H prices. Seems a bit high since the design was done over a decade ago, and is
largely unchanged. Likely the labour rate is too high today.
>
>
> 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.
Consider that many photography enthusiasts are getting quite old, and their eyesight is
not what it was in the past. Autofocus might be the only choice for the ageing population
of photographers. Indeed, even Rollei made such a comment about sales of the 6008AF. The
other thing is focus confirmation, which can help when manually focusing. Mind you I am
not an autofocus user (except my SX70), but I can see why some want it.
> 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.
Sure, I don't own any zoom lenses. Most of my lenses are fairly fast for the focal length
and format. I largely explore short DoF shots, though there are benefits for some scenes
of stopping down.
>
>
> 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?
Probably more than a few. Unfortunately not many of them even know those choices exist.
The average consumer electronics outfit selling cameras rarely ever has manual focus gear,
nor even medium format.
>
>
> 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?
Light weight making it easy to carry. People are sold on seeing professionals at sporting
events using SLRs and big lenses. While the average consumer is not buying the big lenses,
they are buying an "SLR" since that is what the pros use. Very simple association, and it
pay for Nikon and Canon to support these professionals, since the loose association to the
cheaper gear generates sales.
>
>
> 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.
>
I happen to have the full product catalogue in front of me. The 50 mm f1.2 is what you
refer to, though f1.4 is represented by the 35 mm and 85 mm. Even the old 105 mm f2.5 AIS
is still being made. I think the current catalogue is sparse because they are cutting back
on production. Take a look at the full 35 mm B&H catalogue, and there are more than two
dozen Nikon manual focus only lenses available. You can still buy a new 50 mm f1.4 or
f1.8.
I think the bigger issue is these are largely the same as the older lenses, some of them
dating back to the 1970s or early 1980s. The still good working used choices compete
directly with the new gear. How many people would pay nearly $300 for a 50 mm f1.4 AIS,
when they can get a clean used example for closer to $100. These lenses rarely need
service, and rarely break anything unless badly abused.
Of course there are still some medium format choices made in mostly metal, with nice heavy
lenses. If weight is what you want, just get an RZ67. Of course, I know there are times
when using a nice compact 35 mm camera is simpler.
>
>
> 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.
It is easier to change tooling when lots of plastic is used. Most people also seem to want
lighter cameras. My mom has an N65, and likes that it is easy to carry around. The best
camera is one you actually take places with you.
Pentax did have the Limited series of lenses. They also make fairly sturdy 6x7 gear, even
in a funky 35 mm on steroids SLR style. ;-)
I thought the last truly nice Canon was the last F1 they made. It sucks that command dials
and hierarchical menus have become the norm in cameras.
Hasselblad still makes the 500 series, and even the smaller Xpan is fairly stout and
metal. The H1 and H2 look sort of plastic, but are fairly strong and not light. You also
pay for the extra build quality, though the reward should be longer service life.
>
>
> 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.
Sort of close. However, when the manual focus Nikon gear is not that high priced, and even
the recently discontinued Contax gear was not so high priced, it makes you wonder about
Leica prices. Don't get me wrong, Leica make nice items. I just think the recent pricing
is more a reflection of too many sales to rich collectors, rather than actual Leica users.
> Still, that plastic stuff really bothers me. I just
> can't stand holding it, although I'm sure that it has fine optical
> performance.
I feel largely the same way about mostly plastic gear. I like the solid feeling of metal
(mostly) bodied cameras, though I pay the price when I load up one of my camera bags. I
think if it was carbon fibre over aluminium for the camera and lens bodies, I might like
something like that, and I would bet it would be light (and expensive).
The problem I have with Leica is that they targeted the collector market for too long, and
seemingly ignored the people who wanted to use their gear. Sure there were used choices,
but even those prices went crazy. The same money could easily buy medium format gear; and
it is tough to beat a larger chunk of film with any high quality small format gear.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
|
|