Nikon F4 vs Maxxum 7 or 9

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by bruce, Sep 1, 2003.

  1. bruce

    Alan Browne Guest

    As I said in the past, the Maxxum 9 can be used to break F5's into
    little pieces. (But I prefer to make photography with mine).
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 5, 2003
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. bruce

    Matt Clara Guest

    Hey Alan, your experience may differ, but that in no way negates another's
    experience. You may disagree, but the only bullshit here is your attitude.
     
    Matt Clara, Sep 5, 2003
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. bruce

    Pierre L Guest

    Look at a Nikon F80 (N80 in the U.S.). It's got everything you need in a
    straightforward manner, with no gimmicks, no pre-programmed picture modes
    whatsoever and no manual controls missing. Also no controls involving the
    eyes at all, no menus. It's really like a traditional 35mm SLR evolved to
    have full automatic modes, full manual modes and everything in between,
    full-featured metering, and a practical autofocus system. It's the Nikkormat
    or Spotmatic of our era.
    Pierre
     
    Pierre L, Sep 5, 2003
    #23
  4. I can think of one other, which is the Konica-Minolta merger. As the
    middle managers and salarymen scramble for budget, power, and position,
    product development is bound to suffer. That's especially the case
    with minor product lines.

    According to http://konicaminolta.net/ir/plan/plan.html, in 2002
    Konica had at least twice the revenue from camera gear as Minolta,
    and at least 5 times the profits. That puts the Minolta managment
    team in an awkward position. At best, 35mm and digital SLR gear
    is going to drop on the "kinolta" priority list, and I think we're
    seeing that already. At worst, the new company may decide there
    are better ways to make money than by Nikon and Canon from the
    #3 position.
     
    Michael Benveniste, Sep 8, 2003
    #24
  5. bruce

    Alan Browne Guest

    Konica have nothing in high end glass or digital that comes remotely
    close to Minolta. I do take your point, but when companies merge it is
    either to benefit from complimentary products and capabilities or to
    chop it up for sale... which is not a very Japanese habit (this too can
    change...)
    The Minolta scanner line has always been extremely good, and the latest
    5400 may remain king for a very long time (eg: a few months). I don't
    know if Nikon will backhand against this, but we'll see. My point here
    is that this is pretty much the same Minolta that does the SLR's...
    Konica will not forsake this...
    I have no doubt that Konica made more money selling cheap P&S' and
    copiers than Minolta made selling cheap P&S and SLR's ... if you look
    hard and long at most of these companies, the SLR business is not even
    close to 50% of its overall base. But it is, usually, profitable.
    Japanese companies as a group have been accepting ROI's much lower than
    any US firm would tolerate.
    That is a facet I was discussing with a friend yesterday. Many "modern"
    business models say "be number 1 or 2 or get out." (Popularised by GE's
    J. Welsh) OTOH, it has been mentioned often that Nikon make very little
    profit from their SLR product lines as a whole and that hasn't forced
    them to abandon it for their higher margin/profit lines in optics and
    industrial equipment...

    There is also the question of corporate responsibility. As the Konica
    Minolta merger settles down, they will at some point have to declare for
    or against SLR's ... and to declare for SLR's, w/o declaring for a
    digital SLR would be stupid (not to mention laughable). Minolta have a
    fine high end digital camera in the Dimage 7Hi. I would be delighted if
    they had a transition SLR body based on that and/or the Olympus chips.
    If K-M decide against a DSLR, that had better declare it.

    Time will tell; the rumors months ago of an autumn announcement are
    sustaining us for the time being... The new high end lenses have to
    have a market. Who will spend US$1,500 and more for a lens w/o a
    digital path?
    I have too much M-glass to let go of the hope;
    Film will be around in __practical terms__ for the forseeable future
    (and I'm thinking a decade at least);
    and frankly, while impressed, I'm not awed by digital to the point of
    wanting it to death yet.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 9, 2003
    #25
  6. bruce

    Alan Browne Guest

    If you're talking about lenses, there is some truth (albeit exagerated
    in numbers) to what you say.
    WRT camera bodies, there is not so much variation in construction as to
    have an effect on image quality. Reliability, yes.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 14, 2003
    #26
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.