«

"RichA" <> wrote:

> So where is the equivalent-sized digital, huh Nikon? Is it
> that you figure you HAVE to have a hulking body to justify
> the PRICE of those things???

Note: I know I'm feeding the troll, but at least I find
these calculations interesting.

In 1979, the Nikon EM with a 50mm f/1.8 lens cost $250.
In 2009 dollars, that works out to about $720. For that
$720, you can buy a D3000, 35mm f/1.8 DX, and a decent sized
memory card.

In 1959, a Nikon F and 50mm f/2 lens would have set you
back around $350. In 2009 dollars, that works out to about
$2550. Today, you can buy a D700, 50mm f/1.8, and a memory
card costs about $2650.

Of course, it's barely possible that someone _might_ want to
actually use a camera to produce actual _images. The dSLR
prices listed above include the cost of the sensor -- the
film cameras do not.

A D3x, 50mm lens f/1.4 lens, 64 GB of memory cards, and 10
terabytes of disk space will cost one about $9000. Based
on shutter rating, this will allow you to shoot and store
300,000 shots as 14-bit raw files using non-lossy compression.

Let's compare that with the least expensive legal way to get
positive images out of 35mm film. To accomplish this, one
would buy "short ends" of B&W movie film and respool it into
used (ie free) 35mm still cartridges, process it yourself,
and then make a contact print.

Just counting the cost of consumables, I can find no time
in history when you could accomplish that for 3 cents
per 35mm frame.

--
Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required)
Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain

"Michael Benveniste" <> wrote in message
news:...

> In 1979, the Nikon EM with a 50mm f/1.8 lens cost $250.
> In 2009 dollars, that works out to about $720. For that
> $720, you can buy a D3000, 35mm f/1.8 DX, and a decent sized
> memory card.
>
> In 1959, a Nikon F and 50mm f/2 lens would have set you
> back around $350. In 2009 dollars, that works out to about
> $2550. Today, you can buy a D700, 50mm f/1.8, and a memory
> card costs about $2650.
>
> Of course, it's barely possible that someone _might_ want to
> actually use a camera to produce actual _images. The dSLR
> prices listed above include the cost of the sensor -- the
> film cameras do not.
>
> A D3x, 50mm lens f/1.4 lens, 64 GB of memory cards, and 10
> terabytes of disk space will cost one about $9000. Based
> on shutter rating, this will allow you to shoot and store
> 300,000 shots as 14-bit raw files using non-lossy compression.
>
> Let's compare that with the least expensive legal way to get
> positive images out of 35mm film. To accomplish this, one
> would buy "short ends" of B&W movie film and respool it into
> used (ie free) 35mm still cartridges, process it yourself,
> and then make a contact print.
>
> Just counting the cost of consumables, I can find no time
> in history when you could accomplish that for 3 cents
> per 35mm frame. --
> Mike Benveniste

YIKES! Thanks for this illuminating reality-check! BTW,
I still have a few bulk film-loaders with old film in them,
plus my old chemicals have long since turned to crystals in
their containers and trays. Someday, I *MUST* clean out
that darkroom, sigh......!
--DR

On Jun 24, 9:46*am, "Michael Benveniste" <m...@murkyether.com> wrote:
> "RichA" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > So where is the equivalent-sized digital, huh Nikon? *Is it
> > that you figure you HAVE to have a hulking body to justify
> > the PRICE of those things???
>
> Note: *I know I'm feeding the troll, but at least I find
> these calculations interesting.
>
> In 1979, the Nikon EM with a 50mm f/1.8 lens cost $250.
> In 2009 dollars, that works out to about $720. *For that
> $720, you can buy a D3000, 35mm f/1.8 DX, and a decent sized
> memory card.
>

Yes, we all know that what we get now is cheap, no doubt about it.
Though electronics on a performance basis are cheap today, people are
also spending almost 3 times more of their income on a percentage
basis on electronics now than they did 25 years ago. But it's neither
here nor there. My contention is that any of the mfg's could offer a
FF camera in a cheaper, smaller, more convenient package today, but an
artificial wall has been built to prevent this, to protect the profits
provided by their pro gear. Sony at least tried to break it down, but
even the A850 is $2000, putting it out of range for most buyers.
The other problem is lens quality. Going after market with zooms
(example, Tamron's new 70-300mm which supports FF) and with basic,
inexpensive primes like Nikon's 35mm and 50mm are likely the only way
people would be able to afford lenses for a stripped-down FF. Sad,
when you consider an 80-200mm f4 FF (not crappy f4-5.6 like now) could
be had for about $200 in the mid-1980s.

I'd love to own a small, light weight, full-frame DSLR, and I don't
know why nobody offers one.

I and many others, I'm sure, would gladly forgo thousands of useless,
confusing options that come with most cameras and are there simply
because you can cram them into the computer.

This is what I need:

Auto focus w/manual option
Auto exposure with A, T, +/- button, plus manual settings
Choice of average, center, or spot metering (don't need 3,543
segments)
As high an ISO as is practical
Image stabilizer in the body
A good, sharp LCD, easy to view in daylight, supplied with screen
protector
Small, built-in flash for opening shadows in daylight

I'm sure some other features, but I can't think of any. I don't need
movies, 10 fps, etcetera, etcetera.

"Rich" <> wrote:

> Yes, we all know that what we get now is cheap, no doubt about
> it. Though electronics on a performance basis are cheap today,
> people are also spending almost 3 times more of their income on
> a percentage basis on electronics now than they did 25 years
> ago.

If true, that's simply because electronics do more now. If you
look at entertainment expenditures other than fees and admissions,
you will find that the average consumer household spends a
slightly lower percentage of after-tax income on entertainment
now than they did in 1985. (Source: http://www.bls.gov/cex/).

> My contention is that any of the mfg's could offer a FF
> camera in a cheaper, smaller, more convenient package today,
> but an artificial wall has been built to prevent this, to
> protect the profits provided by their pro gear.

Manufacturers are in business to make money. They will therefore
attempt to maximize profits, including using whatever market power
they have. But it's unclear to me that at the current level
of technology, a full-frame camera has a significant advantage
over a DX-format camera for the average consumer. Even wonder
why inexpensive medium-format film cameras virtually disappeared
by 1980? Same reason.

It's particularly ironic that you chose the Nikon EM for your
false analogy, as that marketing effort was the first time Nikon
made a serious effort at increasing profits through market
segmentation. Along with the EM, they introduced the E-series
of lenses. While they had made consumer-grade lenses like the
43-86mm before, they were badged as Nikkors. The E-series didn't
carry the Nikkor brand and Nikon actively discouraged pros and
"prosumers" from buying and using them.

So arguably, the EM was the first instance of exactly the
behavior (protecting pro gear) you are now complaining about.

> The other problem is lens quality. Going after market with
> zooms (example, Tamron's new 70-300mm which supports FF) and
> with basic, inexpensive primes like Nikon's 35mm and 50mm are
> likely the only way people would be able to afford lenses for
> a stripped-down FF.

I don't know of any 70-300mm offerings which don't cover 24x36mm.
But you've hit upon _two_ of the reasons why the average consumer
won't see a significant advantage of a 24x36mm dSLR. The first
predates 1979 -- "glass first, body later." Since camera tech has
been evolving faster than lens tech for decades, you get more
for your money by buying good glass first and then upgrading the
camera body rather than the other way around. The second reason
is even simpler -- you don't need a 24x36mm dSLR to create the
size of image the average consumer is looking for.

> Sad, when you consider an 80-200mm f4 FF (not crappy f4-5.6 like
> now) could be had for about $200 in the mid-1980s.

Ever wonder why the 3rd party lens makers discontinued their
80-200 f/4's and none sell one today? After all, it's not like
they had "pro gear" sales to protect. It wasn't any sort of
conspiracy; simply the introduction of new products which better
met the demands of the market.

The f/2.8 telezooms took care of the high-end of the market, and
the 70-300mm class of lenses covered those looking for something
smaller and lighter. In fact, I own an 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D
_and_ a 70-300mm f/4.5~5.6 AF-S for just that reason. The only
company that sold enough lenses to make going after the "in-
between" crowd worthwhile was (and is) Canon.

If you were to take on of those $200 80-200mm f/4's today and
stick it on a D700 or 5D, be prepared for a disappointment. In
2006, I spent $125 on a near-mint 80-200mm f/4 AI-s Zoom-Nikkor.
Great deal, right? Not really. Especially at the long end,
CA is high by modern standards, as one would expect from the
lack of ED glass. And that was one of the _better_ tele-zooms
of the 1980's.

--
Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required)
Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain

"Michael Benveniste" <> wrote in message
news:...

[...]
> It's particularly ironic that you chose the Nikon EM for your
> false analogy, as that marketing effort was the first time Nikon
> made a serious effort at increasing profits through market
> segmentation.

Interestingly, though, Nikon followed the EM with the not-very-
interesting FG-20, then the full-featured FG (TTL flash, M/A/S/P
exposure choices, and a "real" black or "chrome" finish instead
of unfinished plastic) based on the EM body. I still have one of
the delightful compact FG bodies...

> Along with the EM, they introduced the E-series
> of lenses. While they had made consumer-grade lenses like the
> 43-86mm before, they were badged as Nikkors.

This lens in its first incarnation was terrible as was the early
80-250mm zoom (but useful at the time to photojournalists who
prised their zoom ability more than image quality).

> The E-series didn't
> carry the Nikkor brand and Nikon actively discouraged pros and
> "prosumers" from buying and using them.

The early E-Series were not well-finished, but were often optically
good. The later redesign made them look more like Nikkors, although
the optics were not changed. The 28mm f2.8 was variable, with good
samples being quite good stopped down some; the 35mm f2.5 also
varied a bit, but could be quite good stopped down some; the 50mm
f1.8 was quite good (and had VERY low linear distortion, as did the
longer non-zooms); the 100mm f2.8 was a gem I still have (sharp wide
open, light, and compact); the 135mm f2.8 was also very good (but,
oddly, it was much heavier than the 100mm); the 36-72mm f3.5
was surprisingly good, close-focusing, and constant-aperture; the
75-150mm f3.5 is a legend, being very sharp, compact, and constant-
aperture; the 70-210mm f4 was good, but not as "snappy" as one might
have wished (but it was constant-aperture). With heavy use, all of the
non-zooms could show wear (but the resulting looseness still seems
relatively "tight" compared with AF lenses.... The zoom barrels were
made of metal. Not bad, for "cheap" gear at the time... I suspect
that Nikon simply wanted to expand into the lower-priced market by
offering generally high-quality optics at good prices with compromises
in finishings being made to cut costs.
--DR

"David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
news: ...
>
> "Michael Benveniste" <> wrote:
>> "RichA" <> wrote:
>>
>>> So where is the equivalent-sized digital, huh Nikon? Is it
>>> that you figure you HAVE to have a hulking body to justify
>>> the PRICE of those things???
>>
>> Note: I know I'm feeding the troll, but at least I find
>> these calculations interesting.
>
> ROFL. But yes.
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> Of course, it's barely possible that someone _might_ want to
>> actually use a camera to produce actual _images. The dSLR
>> prices listed above include the cost of the sensor -- the
>> film cameras do not.
>>
>> A D3x, 50mm lens f/1.4 lens, 64 GB of memory cards, and 10
>> terabytes of disk space will cost one about $9000. Based
>> on shutter rating, this will allow you to shoot and store
>> 300,000 shots as 14-bit raw files using non-lossy compression.
>>
>> Let's compare that with the least expensive legal way to get
>> positive images out of 35mm film. To accomplish this, one
>> would buy "short ends" of B&W movie film and respool it into
>> used (ie free) 35mm still cartridges, process it yourself,
>> and then make a contact print.
>>
>> Just counting the cost of consumables, I can find no time
>> in history when you could accomplish that for 3 cents
>> per 35mm frame.
>
> There are several problems with your above calculation.
>
> 1. 35mm doesn't produce D3x quality images. 35mm film in real life is no
> better than 8MP digital.
> 2. The D3x produces image quality equivalent to 4000 ppi scanned 6x7 slide
> film such as Provia or Velvia. Which cost US$1.00 per frame to shoot and
> develop, and that's before scanning, which is seriously expensive.
> 3. Digerati shoot a lot more wasted frames than film shooters. A lot. You
> need to divide the life of the digital camera by a fudge factor to make up
> for that. For some slobs, that's an order of magnitude. But that doesn't
> make a difference, because the mechanical parts of a dSLR can be replaced
> cheaply; a few hundred dollars, and then you are back in business for
> another 100,000 (midrange users like me) or 300,000 shots.
>
> And so on.
>
> But you are, of course, exactly right. If you actually use your camera
> regularly, digital quickly becomes world's better than film in economics
> as well as image quality.


I would calculate the fudge factor differently. According to a knowledgeable
source: for both Nikon and Canon at the prosumer and pro level the
manufacturers MTBF rating of shutter pressing is understated by 50%. The
rational is that they believe they gain a better reputation from cameras
that exceed the rating.

--
Peter

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Bob G" <> wrote:
>
>> I'd love to own a small, light weight, full-frame DSLR, and I don't
>> know why nobody offers one.
>
> There are two reasons. The way the dSLR industry thinks is that "small and
> light" means "cheap entry level", and second, the industry is still claiming
> (probably correctly) that 24x36 mm of clean silicon is expensive.
>
> So there isn't going to be a "small light FF" camera. For a long long time.
>
> So get over it, stop whining, and get either a D700 or 5D2. FF with a good
> lens is an amazing improvement over APS-C. Anyone who tells you otherwise is
> an idiot.

Or just argumentative, or defensive, or trollish, or pest like, or.....

--
john mcwilliams

"David Ruether" <> wrote:

> Interestingly, though, Nikon followed the EM with the not-very-
> interesting FG-20, then the full-featured FG (TTL flash, M/A/S/P
> exposure choices, and a "real" black or "chrome" finish instead
> of unfinished plastic) based on the EM body. I still have one of
> the delightful compact FG bodies...

Actually, the FG came first (1982) before the FG-20 (1984). It
also didn't have shutter priority, just M, A, and P.

While I consider the FG the most underrated of the Nikon film
bodies, my favorite compact Nikon film SLR was the last one,
the N/F75.

{Excellent summary of the series E lenses snipped).

> I suspect that Nikon simply wanted to expand into the lower-
> priced market by offering generally high-quality optics at
> good prices with compromises in finishings being made to cut
> costs.

Yes, but they also wanted to avoid cannibalizing sales to their
current customers. It's also interesting to note that two of
the Series E designs, the 28mm f/2.8 and the 70-210 f/4, evolved
into AF-Nikkors.

--
Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required)
Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain

"Doug McDonald" <> wrote in message
news:i0115p$irr$...
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
>>
>> So get over it, stop whining, and get either a D700 or 5D2. FF with a
>> good lens is an amazing improvement over APS-C. Anyone who tells you
>> otherwise is an idiot.
>>
>
> At what print size?
>
> I own a Canon 30D and almost bought a 5DMkII for my recent vacation.
>
> But I kept looking at the 7x10.5 inch prints I usually make, and
> I don't see how the 5DMkII would be noticeably better. I'm
> assuming using my 100mm f/2.8 macro for both, which removes the lens as
> the limiting factor.
>
> Now at 16x24 inches, things would be different.
>


Of course you are assuming that the images you shoot will not be severely
cropped.

--
Peter