"Christian Rieck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>During the Christmas days I've read some books about the Nikon system
>and encountered one topic which surprised and worried me a bit: All
>professional cameras (from F2 to F4) were initially highly disapproved
>by most Nikoneers using the current F-generation. The F2 was a "toy",
>the F3 was too electronical, the F4 was Nikon's death because of AF.
>Of course, all of theme became classical Nikons some years after
>their introduction.
Why does this worry you? The fact they all became classics says
something good about the quality of Nikon flagship cameras IMO.
I have heard that the F3 is the biggest seller of any pro camera
though the F2 is the most coveted of the classic Nikons. A mint
condition F2AS fetches almost as much as a new F5.
>Only the F5 was accepted from the first moment on, it was even
>treated as a God, as someone on the list has put it. Does this mean,
>that this is the first time that an F is not visionary but only
>extrapolating current technology?
Are you suggesting that the previous flagships were visionary at the
time they were released and that the F5 is not cutting edge? If that
is what you are saying you have it backwards. The previous flagships,
except the original F, were not cutting edge. They used technology
proven in lesser models first. The F5 is the first flagship since the F
that used cutting edge technology. This is unusual behavior for Nikon.
>Could that be reason that Nikon's
>market share (at least in Germany) declined so strongly as compared
>to pre-AF times?
Probably the reason Nikon's market share declined is that they didn't
use cutting edge technology until the F5. They have been quite conservative
in the past. Were it not for competition from Canon, we probably would
have seen an F100 first to prove the technology and market before seeing
the F5. Had Nikon been more aggressive in the beginning of the AF era
along with producing lenses with silent wave technology, Canon probably
would not have made the inroads that they have.
Another reason for Nikon's loss of pro market share is agressive marketing
by Canon. They supposedly give away systems to high profile pros to improve
their image. They also supposedly have good pro support.
When I first got into photography in the 1970's, Canon mainly marketed towards
amateurs. They had their pro F1 system but they didn't have much of a pro presence
at all. Nikon was THE pro system back then.
FOR ME, Nikon is still THE system. Their conservative approach has kept the
cameras/lenses sturdy and performing well for my needs and kept the costs down.
I personally don't need ultrafast
AF. I rarely even use AF, though it is nice to have occassionally,
but I am not a photojournalist. However, I hope they do continue to push
forward.
David Johnson
