ian_craigie
Active Member
I have followed the discussion re the D2X with interest. I have learned a lot about photography, and some more about people. I see that there is now a post regarding the relative merits of the D2x versus the D70. This is now the choice for me, as I contemplate a Nikon F-mount digital future. And I find neither is ideal - one is too expensive and too heavy, and the other is unsuitable for other reasons. I find I have a significant problem if I wish to continue with a Nikon digital future.
I am not a professional photographer, but an enthusiastic amateur who has been fortunate enough to travel widely. In the late 80's, having used the beautiflly light, but manual, Olympus OM-1, I had to choose between the two competing AF systems of the time - Canon EOS and Nikon F-mount. As my travels usually took me many miles off the beaten track, I decided upon the Nikon system, and bought a second-hand F-801.
At the time the Nikon AF system was not considered as technologically advanced as the Canon, but for a travelling photographer like me, there were compelling reasons to choose. First of all, there was the famed Nikon toughness, the fact that a wonderful legacy of MF lenses remained available, and very importantly, the 801 used AA batteries - a fantastic boon in rural India or in an Andean village. I was delighted with my purchase, and after fitting myself out with some wonderful lenses, was even more thrilled to realise that the FM-2N could sit in the bottom of my camera bag. Even if I could not find the AA's for my 801, I could still take my shots. Wonderful.
The 801 served me well, and it was sold on to a friend, and he to his brother. It has been around the world several times now, 6 continents, and is still taking photos in Iraq to this day. I had chosen well, and migrated to a second-hand F4. A little heavier (I did not use the F4s, but bought the 4 AA battery handle so that it looked an oversized 801). Again, it served me brilliantly, and I could not have cared less that many said the EOS mount was more sophisticated, or faster, or whatever. Nikon's system was wonderful, and never let me down - in fact, while I did use the FM-2, it was usually more for pleasure or for its relative lightness on climbs, and never because my F4 failed, or because I had failed to track down batteries, even in Central Asia or the wilds of Namibia.
The N90 came out, and it was an incremental change - very similar to the F801, in fact, and as a light second AF body it did good service. I sold it though, when the simply superb F100 became available - to this day, it remains my favourite camera, at home with either my favourite 20mm lens or with a 400mm lens. Rugged, relatively dust proof, fast-focussing, and still powered by ubiquitous AA batteries. Not revolutionary, but evolutionary. Over 15 years, my lenses remained relatively unchanged, it's true, but the camera bodies that served me so faithfully continued a wonderful tradition.
An then came the advent of digital photography. I recognised that while Canon had caught the eye of many, Nikon would bring out wonderful digital bodies in time. They always had in the past - my choice in '89 was a good one. I would continue to use my F100, with the wonderfully fine-grained, saturated films that had now become available, and scan my slides until the right F-mount digital came my way. It again would be evolutionary, not revolutionary. The wonderful legacy I had enjoyed would be continued. Nikon understood that many were like me - not able to justify a new F5 or D1x, but "contemplative" and considered and enthusiastic.
I was keen to continue using a system that recognised that features that had stood the test of time (aperture rings, AA batteries, cable release sockets) had done so because they had tremendous value. I did not need 8 frames per second to take a decent shot of Macchu Piccu, but it would be good to keep an aperture ring on my new Nikon lens because my FM2 would remain a valuable back-up and second body. Besides, I did not want to lug a D1x, plus lenses, along the Inca Trail, even if I could afford it. And where would I go to recharge my lithium battery? Of course, a cable release was very important - even more so if there was to be no mirror lock-up. Even my FM2 could manage this, with the self-timer.
And where have Nikon arrived at today? I have a choice of a wonderfully complicated digital camera that could take a photo of just about anything - if only I could carry its massive weight and bulk with me, if only it's batteries didn't tether me to an AC recharging source, if only my new lens had an aperture-ring, if only... And the other choice is of an excellent, light digital camera that has been much praised, apart from its dark viewfinder, and its power source, and its lack of cable release. I am about to travel to South Africa for safari, and whereas last year I could recharge my F100s AAs with a solar charger (very effective), and STILL have the option of using my FM2 if all else failed, I now feel I and those of my type have been forgotten. The legacy of Nikon is a wonderful one, but the links to the past that made it such a wonderful system for me have been systematically done away with. In this digital age, for me, the link has been broken.
Just as in '89, when the Olympus system no longer served my needs, I find myself re-examining my commitment to the Nikon system. After all, a camera is merely a tool - a sophisticated, expensive tool, but no more than a glorified box for capturing light. I have made an investment, it's true, but if I am to consider a digital future, increasingly it no longer suits my needs. F-mount lenses with aperture rings work on the new digital bodies - why do away with the aperture ring, and make my FM2 an aging paperweight with any new lens? Fuji seem to have been able to get their S3 pro to work with AAs - why not Nikon? (The S3 is large, though, and for other reasons seems less than suitable for taking on the road). The F80 can accept a £6 shutter release cable - why not the D70? Did it REALLY make it too expensive?
I now look at Canon bodies with interest. Sure, they have their D2x equivalent (such as the EOS 1D and 1Ds II) and their D70 equivalent (the price-breaking D300 and its imminent replacement, the D350). But they also have the D20S! Where is the midrange Nikon? The D100 is at least 2 years old - an age in this rapidly changing field. Many have said that the D70 is more sophisticated in a number of ways. And I now find that the D20 can be used with AA batteries! Sure, it requires a larger battery pack, but it is at least an option. I know that the EOS system has no on-lens aperture ring, but neither do the latest Nikon lenses - this is item neutral, now. And the D20 seems to have been built with the keen amateur in mind - you can choose to custom select mirror lock-up as an option - no such feature on the admittedly lighter D70.
In 2003, I wrote to Nikon regarding the change from aperture rings on lenses. It's a minor thing to many, but for yours truly, I was anxious to know what I could expect from future Nikon lenses. To their credit, they responded to my enquiry, but stated that there was no official policy to do away with aperture rings. The official reply from Nikon UK stated that no-one had ever raised the issue before, and they did not think that it was actually a feature that many were concerned with. However, they thanked me for my interest, and said they would pass on my comments to Nikon Japan. And so it ended.
Don't get me wrong - I still love using my Nikon system. When released, I bought the 80-400 VR lens for my travels (people, animals, compressed perspectives, and so on), and was stunned by its optical excellence. I was gratified to see that it COULD be used with my FM2. But this seems to have been the end of the line, and all releases now seem to be "G"-type lenses. I have no problem with the DX-lens system, or the use of the smaller digital sensor - film area and image sensor area do not apparently need to be directly comparable, from the excellent and helpful postings I have read here. However, there is a break in the line.
Am I the only Nikon user who feels this way? Do any share my disappointment? I believe there may be a "D200" released soon, and I would love it to have the features on my wish list, but I fear it will continue the trend towards severing links with the past. "Legacy" means little in this particular age of Nikon. The F-mount, the ruggedness, and the wonderful lens system are there, but increasingly I am forced to compromise on cost, weight, power source, or features.
I lament this apparent change in philosophy, and while I am sure that PJs and pro's are happy to lug their D2x's and D2h's around, even if I could afford it financially, I cannot carry it, along with lenses and a tent and a backpack. The D70 might be my best option, but there are other compromises to be made here too.
I do not seek to be merely a critic, but the Nikon engineers have systematically removed the reasons that made Nikon my system of choice since the late 80's.
I can't wait for the digital "F100", but fear it may now never come.
I welcome your opinion on my comments, and look forward to finding other kindred spirits, or being proved wrong ...
Best wishes,
Ian
I am not a professional photographer, but an enthusiastic amateur who has been fortunate enough to travel widely. In the late 80's, having used the beautiflly light, but manual, Olympus OM-1, I had to choose between the two competing AF systems of the time - Canon EOS and Nikon F-mount. As my travels usually took me many miles off the beaten track, I decided upon the Nikon system, and bought a second-hand F-801.
At the time the Nikon AF system was not considered as technologically advanced as the Canon, but for a travelling photographer like me, there were compelling reasons to choose. First of all, there was the famed Nikon toughness, the fact that a wonderful legacy of MF lenses remained available, and very importantly, the 801 used AA batteries - a fantastic boon in rural India or in an Andean village. I was delighted with my purchase, and after fitting myself out with some wonderful lenses, was even more thrilled to realise that the FM-2N could sit in the bottom of my camera bag. Even if I could not find the AA's for my 801, I could still take my shots. Wonderful.
The 801 served me well, and it was sold on to a friend, and he to his brother. It has been around the world several times now, 6 continents, and is still taking photos in Iraq to this day. I had chosen well, and migrated to a second-hand F4. A little heavier (I did not use the F4s, but bought the 4 AA battery handle so that it looked an oversized 801). Again, it served me brilliantly, and I could not have cared less that many said the EOS mount was more sophisticated, or faster, or whatever. Nikon's system was wonderful, and never let me down - in fact, while I did use the FM-2, it was usually more for pleasure or for its relative lightness on climbs, and never because my F4 failed, or because I had failed to track down batteries, even in Central Asia or the wilds of Namibia.
The N90 came out, and it was an incremental change - very similar to the F801, in fact, and as a light second AF body it did good service. I sold it though, when the simply superb F100 became available - to this day, it remains my favourite camera, at home with either my favourite 20mm lens or with a 400mm lens. Rugged, relatively dust proof, fast-focussing, and still powered by ubiquitous AA batteries. Not revolutionary, but evolutionary. Over 15 years, my lenses remained relatively unchanged, it's true, but the camera bodies that served me so faithfully continued a wonderful tradition.
An then came the advent of digital photography. I recognised that while Canon had caught the eye of many, Nikon would bring out wonderful digital bodies in time. They always had in the past - my choice in '89 was a good one. I would continue to use my F100, with the wonderfully fine-grained, saturated films that had now become available, and scan my slides until the right F-mount digital came my way. It again would be evolutionary, not revolutionary. The wonderful legacy I had enjoyed would be continued. Nikon understood that many were like me - not able to justify a new F5 or D1x, but "contemplative" and considered and enthusiastic.
I was keen to continue using a system that recognised that features that had stood the test of time (aperture rings, AA batteries, cable release sockets) had done so because they had tremendous value. I did not need 8 frames per second to take a decent shot of Macchu Piccu, but it would be good to keep an aperture ring on my new Nikon lens because my FM2 would remain a valuable back-up and second body. Besides, I did not want to lug a D1x, plus lenses, along the Inca Trail, even if I could afford it. And where would I go to recharge my lithium battery? Of course, a cable release was very important - even more so if there was to be no mirror lock-up. Even my FM2 could manage this, with the self-timer.
And where have Nikon arrived at today? I have a choice of a wonderfully complicated digital camera that could take a photo of just about anything - if only I could carry its massive weight and bulk with me, if only it's batteries didn't tether me to an AC recharging source, if only my new lens had an aperture-ring, if only... And the other choice is of an excellent, light digital camera that has been much praised, apart from its dark viewfinder, and its power source, and its lack of cable release. I am about to travel to South Africa for safari, and whereas last year I could recharge my F100s AAs with a solar charger (very effective), and STILL have the option of using my FM2 if all else failed, I now feel I and those of my type have been forgotten. The legacy of Nikon is a wonderful one, but the links to the past that made it such a wonderful system for me have been systematically done away with. In this digital age, for me, the link has been broken.
Just as in '89, when the Olympus system no longer served my needs, I find myself re-examining my commitment to the Nikon system. After all, a camera is merely a tool - a sophisticated, expensive tool, but no more than a glorified box for capturing light. I have made an investment, it's true, but if I am to consider a digital future, increasingly it no longer suits my needs. F-mount lenses with aperture rings work on the new digital bodies - why do away with the aperture ring, and make my FM2 an aging paperweight with any new lens? Fuji seem to have been able to get their S3 pro to work with AAs - why not Nikon? (The S3 is large, though, and for other reasons seems less than suitable for taking on the road). The F80 can accept a £6 shutter release cable - why not the D70? Did it REALLY make it too expensive?
I now look at Canon bodies with interest. Sure, they have their D2x equivalent (such as the EOS 1D and 1Ds II) and their D70 equivalent (the price-breaking D300 and its imminent replacement, the D350). But they also have the D20S! Where is the midrange Nikon? The D100 is at least 2 years old - an age in this rapidly changing field. Many have said that the D70 is more sophisticated in a number of ways. And I now find that the D20 can be used with AA batteries! Sure, it requires a larger battery pack, but it is at least an option. I know that the EOS system has no on-lens aperture ring, but neither do the latest Nikon lenses - this is item neutral, now. And the D20 seems to have been built with the keen amateur in mind - you can choose to custom select mirror lock-up as an option - no such feature on the admittedly lighter D70.
In 2003, I wrote to Nikon regarding the change from aperture rings on lenses. It's a minor thing to many, but for yours truly, I was anxious to know what I could expect from future Nikon lenses. To their credit, they responded to my enquiry, but stated that there was no official policy to do away with aperture rings. The official reply from Nikon UK stated that no-one had ever raised the issue before, and they did not think that it was actually a feature that many were concerned with. However, they thanked me for my interest, and said they would pass on my comments to Nikon Japan. And so it ended.
Don't get me wrong - I still love using my Nikon system. When released, I bought the 80-400 VR lens for my travels (people, animals, compressed perspectives, and so on), and was stunned by its optical excellence. I was gratified to see that it COULD be used with my FM2. But this seems to have been the end of the line, and all releases now seem to be "G"-type lenses. I have no problem with the DX-lens system, or the use of the smaller digital sensor - film area and image sensor area do not apparently need to be directly comparable, from the excellent and helpful postings I have read here. However, there is a break in the line.
Am I the only Nikon user who feels this way? Do any share my disappointment? I believe there may be a "D200" released soon, and I would love it to have the features on my wish list, but I fear it will continue the trend towards severing links with the past. "Legacy" means little in this particular age of Nikon. The F-mount, the ruggedness, and the wonderful lens system are there, but increasingly I am forced to compromise on cost, weight, power source, or features.
I lament this apparent change in philosophy, and while I am sure that PJs and pro's are happy to lug their D2x's and D2h's around, even if I could afford it financially, I cannot carry it, along with lenses and a tent and a backpack. The D70 might be my best option, but there are other compromises to be made here too.
I do not seek to be merely a critic, but the Nikon engineers have systematically removed the reasons that made Nikon my system of choice since the late 80's.
I can't wait for the digital "F100", but fear it may now never come.
I welcome your opinion on my comments, and look forward to finding other kindred spirits, or being proved wrong ...
Best wishes,
Ian