> From: "Tom Reese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Graywolf forwarded this message to the list:
>
> "Tom Reese, like many on the list, just don't understand BUSINESS.
>
> He says the Nikon F5 is too good a camera and has too loyal a following to
> drop it from the lineup in the foreseeable future. He suggests in making
> that statement that Nikon should keep making something that is not selling,
> just to make people feel good. Go into your neighborhood camera store
> (where an F5 is stocked) and ask when they last sold one. The folks behind
> the counter will look at each other, scratch their heads and probably say
> that they don't remember when they last sold one. Nikon doesn't have the
> money to keep making things which are not selling."
>
> I understand business very well. You make products that people want to buy.
> I also understand that Nikon has a relatively large customer base of
> professional photographers who use the F5.
Just out of curiousity, in what genre of professional photography?
I haven't seen an F5 in the field in over a year. Most areas of
photography that require better than 11-14MP require medium format.
> I don't think Nikon ever sold
> vast numbers of the F5 model. It is still important to them as proof that
> they make the best (yes I know this is debatable but it is marketing)
Canon still sells EOS1Vs, I think, so Nikon will presumably keep selling
F5s. Last I looked you could still get new F3s! Quite possibly the
production line has stopped and they are building from parts.
> cameras. There are still segments of the professional market that are
> predominantly film based. John Shaw is still shooting 90% film (as of a few
> weeks ago in a seminar I attended). I do not believe that Nikon will drop
> the F5 from their lineup until they have a replacement for it.
Other than the AF system, though, and battery consumption, there is very
little on the F5 that needs improvement. It's at least as good as anyone
else's top-of-the-line film camera. It's strongest competitor in many
ways is Nikon's own F100.
>I could be
> wrong but I can't see them abandoning it even if they aren't selling very
> many of them. I believe that it is too important to their marketing
> department ("more pros use Nikon equipment than any other brand") for one
> thing.
I doubt this is still true. "Now, it's Canon".
Of course I'm still convinced that Pentax retains the big FA* lenses for
more of less the same reason. I've never seen one in the wild, and only
once or twice heard of anyone who uses one. I get the impression that
most of them are built to order, as some of Nikon's oddballs used to be.
> I also believe that slide film provides something that digital does not and
> can't because of the nature of the medium. I believe that slide film will be
> around after print film disappears. I believe that digital is better if you
> want prints but there is no digital replacement for transparencies if that
> is what you want. I could be wrong about slide film demands too.
You can, or at least could, burn digital images to slide film
(expensively, at a service bureau). Digital manipulation artists
apparently do this a lot.
While I prefer slide film myself, I'm not sure what it offers in practice
to most people except perhaps the ability to bore their friends in
darkened rooms.
DJE
