• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Nikons lack of affordable primes. Why!!!!!?

Latest Gallery

The Hot Waters

A
The Hot Waters

  • 0
  • 0
  • 1
The Hot Waters

A
The Hot Waters

  • 0
  • 0
  • 1

Photrio On the Go

Mobile Photo

...paper, scissors 426585

koraks

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
204,285
Messages
2,866,619
Members
102,207
Latest member
gustavocf
Recent bookmarks
0
For the most part I agree, I find that my primes are sharper than zooms at max aperture, but once stopped to 5.6 to 8 very hard to pick out the zooms from primes. Maybe if I had all pro glass, Sigma art, Minolta G, or Pentax LE I would see more of a difference. What I do get with primes is fast glass, 2.8 to 4.5, what I think is better Boka, less to go wrong, not as complicated as a zoom.
 
Crop and full frame are historical anachronisms based on 35mm film, which to be precise is a miniature format. It was always called that but became so popular - and 35mm cameras became so big - that 35mm became "normal" and other formats were re-imagined round the 36 x 24 standard. In the 1950s many people thought 6 x 9 negatives on 120 film as a normal snap-shooting and holiday format.

When digital photography took off SLRs were the biggest selling enthusiast camera, but sensor technology was sufficiently expensive that single lens reflex formats had to be rethought in smaller terms, with new variations in what people considered wide, standard and telephoto focal lengths. When prices dropped enough to put 35mm sized sensors in digital SLRs, people breathed a collective sigh of relief because the old numbers once again made sense. However that was only true for manufacturers invested financially and historically in SLRs, for other styles of camera there was little point in making compact cameras with big sensors, so Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic and others offer a range of wide, standard and tele primes to match their chosen format, while Nikon and Canon have relegated smaller sensors to beginners market, mostly, with a small range of semi-pro APS-C bodies and lenses aimed at longer focal lengths.

Digital has made a nonsense of older conventions, but they hang on in the minds of enthusiasts. Everyone else is using smartphones, the best of which will out-resolve most old 35mm cameras, and have larger teams working on their photo technology than camera manufacturers have on theirs.
 
blockend said:
Everyone else is using smartphones, the best of which will out-resolve most old 35mm cameras, and have larger teams working on their photo technology than camera manufacturers have on theirs.
Click to expand...

Hmm... that statement chills me. First, it suggests (probably truthfully) that most people will judge a camera mostly based n resolution. Second, it seems to me that the type of image one can get with a phone camera is severely limited to how one can use it, limited by software interface and ergonomics, etc. I've seen phone camera images that are quite good, but it strikes me that as a culture we are narrowing our future image production (rather than broadening/enlightening it!) by so wholeheartedly embracing the limits of the phone camera. Sorry, if this is OT, but that possible truth of that comment really bothers me.
 
keithostertag said:
Hmm... that statement chills me. First, it suggests (probably truthfully) that most people will judge a camera mostly based n resolution. Second, it seems to me that the type of image one can get with a phone camera is severely limited to how one can use it, limited by software interface and ergonomics, etc. I've seen phone camera images that are quite good, but it strikes me that as a culture we are narrowing our future image production (rather than broadening/enlightening it!) by so wholeheartedly embracing the limits of the phone camera. Sorry, if this is OT, but that possible truth of that comment really bothers me.
Click to expand...
It's not really about the actual resolution. But the general market is compromised mostly of non-photographers. People who mainly just want to "make a picture." That was always the case. Even in the "good old film days," the bulk of camera and film sales were such users. Who didn't care about apertures and shutter speeds and just wanted to "make a picture." And that picture has to "look nice." Of course, when digital cameras entered the market, the resolution was an issue. My first digital camera had 1.3 megapixels, and the next one had 4. That was a significant jump in terms of "looking nice." So, megapixels became a selling point and one of the key marketing messages. They stuck. So, people still think of more megapixels as being "nicer" or "better." We, as enthusiasts know that there isn't a difference between 12 or 14 megapixels, especially if you post your pictures to social media, send them by mail or view them on the screen. But "14 is better than 12" just got into the collective mind. That isn't just the case with photography. With cars, it's horsepower. With stereos, it is, or was, Watts. Simple metrics which for the non-enthusiasts mean "better." And I don't really think we will get away from that. How else can you sell a camera, including the one included in a cell-phone, and point out that it's "good"? So, what people are looking for is not really resolution but some hint of the device outperforming other devices.
And being limited also isn't something new. In the film days, enthusiasts like you and I lugged big DSLRs or even medium format cameras around, set them up on tripods and used Velvia for our landscape shots. Most people were happily using crappy 110 type film. If I correctly recall, 1/4 of the size of 35mm, which for many photographers was already borderline. So, they completely limited themselves by using tiny negatives, cheap film, junk cameras and cheap processing. But they were happy with their prints, they were "nice" enough. And the main selling points were "easy" and "cheap".
What we often fail to understand is that the camera market as a whole is not determined by photographers or enthusiasts. So, if you just want to "make pictures" and "nice on Instagram" is what you want to achieve, a cell phone is good enough for the job.
 
keithostertag said:
Hmm... that statement chills me. First, it suggests (probably truthfully) that most people will judge a camera mostly based n resolution. Second, it seems to me that the type of image one can get with a phone camera is severely limited to how one can use it, limited by software interface and ergonomics, etc. I've seen phone camera images that are quite good, but it strikes me that as a culture we are narrowing our future image production (rather than broadening/enlightening it!) by so wholeheartedly embracing the limits of the phone camera. Sorry, if this is OT, but that possible truth of that comment really bothers me.
Click to expand...
I agree on smart phone ergonomics, they're terrible. However the 99% seem to manage perfectly well with them, so I assume it's me who finds them compromising. I even made a book shot entirely on an iPhone, but I find screen interfaces of any kind don't work for reading glasses wearers. I wouldn't want to use a phone for photography often, never mind exclusively.

Technically I think smart phone cameras will improve to the extent that camera photography becomes niche. I also believe the smart phone has lead to an equally obsessive reaction towards narrow focus photography ("bokeh"), as the only thing smart phones cannot deliver optically. It's sad that newcomers to photography equate film with bokeh, when full aperture work occupied a tiny proportion of image making. Even pro's stopped down from f1.4 to f2 for portraiture to sharpen things up in film days, wherever possible. Film will almost certainly last my lifetime, it's for the younger generation to decide whether it, and the cameras that use it, live on.
 
blockend said:
Digital has made a nonsense of older conventions, but they hang on in the minds of enthusiasts. Everyone else is using smartphones, the best of which will out-resolve most old 35mm cameras, and have larger teams working on their photo technology than camera manufacturers have on theirs.
Click to expand...

This completely misses the point that the last two posts cover plus the fact that smartphones are almost always used for snapshots while professional and good amateur photographers take photographs. Yes a smartphone can be use to take a photograph and so can a box camera, but that is rarely the case.

Furthermore resolution is not the end all and be all of photography. For example blockend has completely ignored optics, just for starters.
 
Sirius Glass said:
This completely misses the point that the last two posts cover plus the fact that smartphones are almost always used for snapshots while professional and good amateur photographers take photographs. Yes a smartphone can be use to take a photograph and so can a box camera, but that is rarely the case.

Furthermore resolution is not the end all and be all of photography. For example blockend has completely ignored optics, just for starters.
Click to expand...
Not true on numerous levels. Professionals - people who are paid for their work like journalists, - are more likely to use a phone than any other photographic tool. That's the reality of the commercial sector. What has optics got to do with anything? If an image is sharp and has sufficient mp to be enlarged, it fulfils the brief. The rest is advertising and amateur photography.
 
blockend said:
Not true on numerous levels. Professionals - people who are paid for their work like journalists, - are more likely to use a phone than any other photographic tool.
Click to expand...

Please cite your source. It was probably something you read on your morning buttered toast. Jus' sayin' :angel: :laugh:
 
Sirius Glass said:
Please cite your source. It was probably something you read on your morning buttered toast. Jus' sayin' :angel: :laugh:
Click to expand...
You're clearly unfamiliar with contemporary practice. Paid photography is not generally concerned with aesthetics, and never was. The stuff that used to be shot on cameras is shot on phones. Can you see the subject? Is it sharp enough? Does the picture fit the text? The internet has accelerated the process, but most commercial photography was never art. That's for enthusiasts.
 
blockend said:
You're clearly unfamiliar with contemporary practice. Paid photography is not generally concerned with aesthetics, and never was. The stuff that used to be shot on cameras is shot on phones. Can you see the subject? Is it sharp enough? Does the picture fit the text? The internet has accelerated the process, but most commercial photography was never art. That's for enthusiasts.
Click to expand...

Again, cite your source please.
 
blockend said:
You're clearly unfamiliar with contemporary practice. Paid photography is not generally concerned with aesthetics, and never was. The stuff that used to be shot on cameras is shot on phones. Can you see the subject? Is it sharp enough? Does the picture fit the text? The internet has accelerated the process, but most commercial photography was never art. That's for enthusiasts.
Click to expand...

couldnt' agree more
a friend in NYC used to shoot
commecial jobs with a p/s camera for clients ..
if he was there now im sure he'd be using his phone.
 
Sirius Glass said:
Again, cite your source please.
Click to expand...
A source for what? The principle source of photographic imagery in the last fifteen years? It doesn't require peer reviewed research to demonstrate the bleeding obvious. Phones are the default tool for the nuts and bolts work that used to comprise the majority of applied photography. The last barrier to its adoption was Raw, which allowed the editor to tweak the image. From war photography, to academia, to photojournalism, to the guy who shot real estate, they're using phones. Not exclusively, obviously but numerically, certainly.
 
blockend said:
A source for what? The principle source of photographic imagery in the last fifteen years? It doesn't require peer reviewed research to demonstrate the bleeding obvious. Phones are the default tool for the nuts and bolts work that used to comprise the majority of applied photography. The last barrier to its adoption was Raw, which allowed the editor to tweak the image. From war photography, to academia, to photojournalism, to the guy who shot real estate, they're using phones. Not exclusively, obviously but numerically, certainly.
Click to expand...

You have not show any examples of professional photographers delivering their paid assignments from smartphones. Put up or shut up.
 
Sirius Glass said:
You have not show any examples of professional photographers delivering their paid assignments from smartphones. Put up or shut up.
Click to expand...
You seem to be under the illusion that professional photography is about a studio and a bag of lenses. It is not. Visual data gathering is part of many people's paid work, for others it comprises all of it.
Sirius Glass said:
the fact that smartphones are almost always used for snapshots while professional and good amateur photographers take photographs
Click to expand...
This shows just how out of touch you are.

For your information:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...raphers-who-ditched-a-dslr-for-an-iphone-5832
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jul/06/afghanistan-war-iphone-images
http://www.realclearlife.com/photography/photographer-ben-lowy-documents-war-iphone/#1
https://gizmodo.com/5758350/why-a-war-photographer-shot-an-award-winning-photo-with-a-2-iphone-app
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/201...her-who-captured-the-libyan-war-on-his-iphone
https://www.cnet.com/news/pro-photographer-iphone-julian-calverley-interview/
 
Last edited:
For some reason Nikon seems to take the brunt of criticism for the lack of primes for smaller sensor (EF-S/DX/APS/Whatever) dSLR cameras, but with the exception of Pentax it's pretty well industry wide.
  • Nikon has 4 -- 10.5mm fisheye, 35mm f/1.8, 40mm f/2.8 Micro, 85mm f/3.5 VR Micro
  • Canon has 3 -- 24mm f/2.8 pancake, 35mm f/2.8 IS macro, 60mm f/2.8 macro
  • Sigma had 3-4 -- 4.5mm f/2.8 fisheye, 10mm f/2.8 fisheye (discontinued), 4.5, 30mm f/1.4 (two versions, one discontinued)
  • Tamron has 1 -- 60mm f/2 Macro
  • Tokina and Zeiss have zero.
Since a) I continued to shoot film when my primary digital camera was a D200, and b) generally prefer wide-angle zooms, it amazes me how heated this topic becomes.
 
My wife and I attended the annual Circle Craft market in Vancouver last year - think of a large convention centre floor filled with hundreds of booths showing the wares of artisans, artists and merchandisers.
One booth had some spectacular custom clothing and textiles. The presentation was enhanced with some gorgeous product photography, printed very large.
The photography? Iphone, good lighting and the eye of the artist who actually created the textiles and clothing.
I'm sure that 90% of all the illustration photography displayed in the booths on the very large convention floor was done with a phone.
Still Cameras are a niche product. Of all the "commercial" photography being done now, most is probably video, shot on something like a Go Pro.
 
benveniste said:
For some reason Nikon seems to take the brunt of criticism for the lack of primes for smaller sensor (EF-S/DX/APS/Whatever) dSLR cameras, but with the exception of Pentax it's pretty well industry wide.
  • Nikon has 4 -- 10.5mm fisheye, 35mm f/1.8, 40mm f/2.8 Micro, 85mm f/3.5 VR Micro
  • Canon has 3 -- 24mm f/2.8 pancake, 35mm f/2.8 IS macro, 60mm f/2.8 macro
  • Sigma had 3-4 -- 4.5mm f/2.8 fisheye, 10mm f/2.8 fisheye (discontinued), 4.5, 30mm f/1.4 (two versions, one discontinued)
  • Tamron has 1 -- 60mm f/2 Macro
  • Tokina and Zeiss have zero.
Since a) I continued to shoot film when my primary digital camera was a D200, and b) generally prefer wide-angle zooms, it amazes me how heated this topic becomes.
Click to expand...

True. What does Pentax offer? I know they have a couple pancakes.
 
mporter012 said:
True. What does Pentax offer? I know they have a couple pancakes.
Click to expand...

DA and DA* primes of 14mm, 15mm, 21mm, 35mm (regular and macro), 40mm, 50mm, 55mm, and 70mm. Some like the 14mm may have been discontinued.
 
Sirius Glass said:
I now that I am going to set off a firestorm, but I find that my 28mm to 200mm AF Nikon zoom, my 28mm to 200mm AF Tamron zoom, and my 20mm to 25mm Nikon zoom photographs are indistinguishable from the primes. The differences are so small that I challenge all but the optical engineers to pick out the differences on slides and prints.
Click to expand...

Paul Howell said:
For the most part I agree, I find that my primes are sharper than zooms at max aperture, but once stopped to 5.6 to 8 very hard to pick out the zooms from primes. Maybe if I had all pro glass, Sigma art, Minolta G, or Pentax LE I would see more of a difference. What I do get with primes is fast glass, 2.8 to 4.5, what I think is better Boka, less to go wrong, not as complicated as a zoom.
Click to expand...

Long ago, zooms were considerably inferior to fixed focal length lengths. With the adoption of computer design, that has changed significantly, so that even when wide open it is often the case that modern zooms provide the same high resolution and contrast as found in fixed focal length lenses. There are two areas in which zoom FL may be inferior still to fixed focal length: vignetting at wide open aperture, and freedom from pin cushion/barrel distortion. This is particularly true of zooms at their widest FL settings.
 
Last edited:
blockend said:
A source for what? The principle source of photographic imagery in the last fifteen years? It doesn't require peer reviewed research to demonstrate the bleeding obvious. Phones are the default tool for the nuts and bolts work that used to comprise the majority of applied photography. The last barrier to its adoption was Raw, which allowed the editor to tweak the image. From war photography, to academia, to photojournalism, to the guy who shot real estate, they're using phones. Not exclusively, obviously but numerically, certainly.
Click to expand...
I don't see much iPhone photography in the fashion, home, and food magazines, including especially the advertisements contained therein. The occasion iPhone photo, yes; the bulk of it, no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:
Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom