True. As I wrote, the marekt for such prisms was minute, but not non-existent. But you have used this very fact in order to try to prove your (flase) hypotheis. As well as the nonsense you wrote in #13 on collectors vs real photographers.The facts are that
- almost all major camera manufacturers have had offered top-of-line cameras with interchangeable prisms in the 70ies and 80ies
- all of them have abandoned that concept long ago
- they have stopped it because their sales data clearly showed that only a tiny part of their customers had bought additional prisms, and the huge majority of customers wanted a different design concept.
It was very much about the costs involved. If such prism was cheap to make, various makers would keep it as an advantage.It was about demand and customer wishes, not about costs. I have talked with manufactuerers about that topic, and all have explained the same: lack of demand, professionals preferring robustness more.
Never ever said that.Of course you are free to say that a F6 is not a professional camera because it has a fixed prism.
I thought there is an obvious reason why digital cameras don't need an interchangable screen in order to perform equally well in situations where only an interchagable VF SLR (like F5) could complete the task?? Think about it.But then you have to be consequent and also call all the other cameras used by professionals which have (had) a fixed prism also not professional, but more amateur-like cameras:
Canon EOS 1 DX Mk. III, Nikon D6, Sony A9 II, Olympus OM-D E M1X, Fujifilm GFX series, Panasonic S1 series and all the other dozens of different forerunner models of them during the last 20-35 years with fixed non-intercheangeable prisms.
I'm affraid they have no reason to laugh at me as I've never said anything in those lines.Tell the hundreds of thousands of professional photographers who have used (and are using) these cameras with fixed prisms were/are not real professional cameras because of a fixed prism. They will laugh at you.
Best regards,
Henning
But does it? In all practical means it does not. Think of the pro Nikons and Canons of the era. Was there anything similar offered that was more rugged? Maybe Leicaflex but I'm not sure.Having an interchangeable finder available decreases the ruggedness of a camera. It can be a detriment - something that would have caused many professional users to decide against a model.
Having an interchangeable finder available decreases the ruggedness of a camera. It can be a detriment - something that would have caused many professional users to decide against a model.
I live in an area with a high amount of rainfall. I also worked with newspaper photojournalists when they had transitioned from the Nikon F to the Nikon F2.But does it? In all practical means it does not.
I live in an area with a high amount of rainfall. I also worked with newspaper photojournalists when they had transitioned from the Nikon F to the Nikon F2.
I can assure you that weather sealing would have been considerably more important to them than having the ability to change finders - which none of them ever did.
In those days, if you were changing finders, you were either doing so because that was what you needed to do to have in-camera metering, or you were using medium format film.
Interchangeable focusing screens met the needs of most who sought viewing flexibility in their 35mm cameras.
Probably correct - the manufacturers had to eliminate the interchangeable finders in order to increase the ruggedness.Weather sealing was not "a feature" in those days as you may recall. However I'm not convinced there were more rugged (or weather sealed) system cameras available than the aforementioned F/F2 regardless of the finder type. However I may be wrong here?
Probably correct - the manufacturers had to eliminate the interchangeable finders in order to increase the ruggedness.
increasing the ruggedness was totally not on the engineer’s list when designing the F6. The F5 was so rugged it is unreal. I’ve rarely felt so much raw power, so much refinement, so much sturdiness, so much accuracy from an electric/electronic device in my life. After the F5, no other camera has shown so much ruggedness: definitely not the D1/2/3/4/5/6 line, and not the F6. The F5 is a powerhouse and rugged to the max.
No. The F6 was Dumbed down because the market was already elsewhere. As simple as that.
Most probably.The F6 was Dumbed down because the market was already elsewhere. As simple as that.
It was very much about the costs involved. If such prism was cheap to make, various makers would keep it as an advantage.
The F6 was designed in a non-pro market. There was no more pro film market, therefore the F6 became a mix of a F100 and a F5.
increasing the ruggedness was totally not on the engineer’s list when designing the F6.
The F5 was so rugged it is unreal. I’ve rarely felt so much raw power, so much refinement, so much sturdiness, so much accuracy from an electric/electronic device in my life. After the F5, no other camera has shown so much ruggedness: definitely not the D1/2/3/4/5/6 line, and not the F6.
No. The F6 was Dumbed down because the market was already elsewhere.
I agree with you! Check out this article which was an interview with Nikon's desginer.
https://f6project.com/inspiration/the-value-of-unique-pictures/
My understanding is that your comments hold true to the F6 designers plans, but people should read the interview themselves and decide if the F5 or the F6 is better for them. Personally, I'd like to have a complete set, F2, F3, F4, F5 and F6 some day.Just yesterday I watched my F6 fall on concrete, was painful. I hope all is ok, we’ll see over time.
about the F6 being the most sophisticated, I disagree. It should at least have interchangeable prisms and easily accessible screens.
the F5 is the most impressive by far, with its impressive list of optional accessories. It’s crazy! It’s a whole system unto itself, a world of possibilities.
The F6 was often described as an advanced amateur camera, or a faux-pro camera, and I tend to agree. The F4 and F5 are true workhorses, the F5 is like a Driling machine. The F6 is more luxurious and damped, but lacks the edge and the accessory system.even the fps is seriously lacking, without the accessory grip, and it’s a shame.
I'm playing with Canon F1, first two bodies. How finders are matched to the body, how they move in and out, none of this is affecting overall ruggedness of the camera. Unlike in many other interchangeable finder cameras, in F-1 once finder is on, it appears and feels like if it were indeed a fixed one. This feeling is same with all F-1 finders. Whether Canon changed this on the New F-1 I don't know, never had one.Probably correct - the manufacturers had to eliminate the interchangeable finders in order to increase the ruggedness.
Sorry to disagree, F6 was already introduced in times when money were counted at every stage from design to manufacturing to distribution. To make finders as precise as Canon had it in F-1, it takes serious tooling and quality control, it is nothing but money to make and money uncounted when this feature is removed. Once you remove a well know feature from your top offering you have to make an argument as to why and telling buyers because we're ... cheap is not a good advertising.No, they would not. Because the huge majority of their customers have considered it as a disadvantage. The manufacturers have reacted to the wishes of their professional customers, which prefer the more robust design. That is why interchangeable prisms were abondoned decades ago. As explained above, I have talked to the manufacturers, and they all explained it was a demand topic, not a cost topic. The camera manufacturers have always put the best and most expensive technology at that time in their top-of-the-line cameras. If the professionals would have wanted continued interchangeable options, the manufacturers would have continued it. But the sales of interchangeable prisms have been tiny.
The needs and wishes of professionals and enthusiasts as main customers were decisive. Manufacturers have always had close customer contact and good market research in the area of the top cameras.
Best regards,
Henning
You know what I think?Sorry to disagree, F6 was already introduced in times when money were counted at every stage from design to manufacturing to distribution. To make finders as precise as Canon had it in F-1, it takes serious tooling and quality control, it is nothing but money to make and money uncounted when this feature is removed. Once you remove a well know feature from your top offering you have to make an argument as to why and telling buyers because we're ... cheap is not a good advertising.
As for demand part, all I will say is that once electronics got into shooting routine, ever more complex, ever "better" etc. the crowd using these cameras had changed perception of what is helpful in different situations. And all of it from the idea of automated shooting, where changing finders would not be, well ... automatic. Wrong to think it is was wise demand change, but perhaps. However, I would say this demand change came well after F6 was in production, or at least took hold for good. Hence it was NOT playing into what Nikon decided to do in the first place.
Sorry to disagree, F6 was already introduced in times when money were counted at every stage from design to manufacturing to distribution.
However, I would say this demand change came well after F6 was in production, or at least took hold for good.
Just yesterday I watched my F6 fall on concrete, was painful. I hope all is ok, we’ll see over time.
So much as I like the F100, I've found myself looking lately at the F4 to address the flimsy back door / latch issue and was hoping to pick up some lens compatibility - backwards (Nikkor 135 F/2.8 is a favorite B&W walk-a-round lens but I'm walking it on an FM2n). Interesting that folks want to go forward, and I get that. Forward for me has been to simply make most of my Nikon lenses AF-D's. Question becomes whether to look into a F6 instead of an F4 (or F5 which seems bulky to this small guy), a backup F100 body, or go with the F4 and save the balance to help sub my D750 out for a Z7 (or it's successor). F6 is an expensive film solution, but for now not a compelling one... yet. Thanks for the discussion, folks. Glad to see Nikon still acknowledges film cameras exist and film shooters didn't go extinct.
You know what I think?
I think that Nikon introduced the F6 so that they can discontinue the F5. They can sell the F6 for more money as it has more software related features which is cheap to make.
It can share parts with the D2 series at the time.
They can sell it for more yet cost them less than making the F5.
The true mirror lockup is also expensive
and the ADR which is simply optical device is also expensive.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?