Will Nikon Ever Dominate Again

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Years ago Photography was spelled GERMAN like in Leica, Hasselblad,
Schneider, and Zeiss. Then came the original Nikon F with extremely
sharp lenses, interchangeable finders, meters, focusing screens, backs
and motors. Canon was an also ran. Now, with maybe the exception of
lense construction (not L or optics) and especially in the digital world
Canon appears to be the system to beat.

The question I pose is will Nikon ever regain its dominance and be the
leader it once was. And if so what has to happen in the future for that
to occur?

 

[Bob]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in news:x4GDd.7443$wZ2.7228
@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

> Years ago Photography was spelled GERMAN

Before 1935, right?

> like in Leica, Hasselblad,
> Schneider, and Zeiss. Then came the original Nikon F with extremely

You missed the letter "S". I'd love to get one of those, but even the
reproductions are 4 figures.

> sharp lenses, interchangeable finders, meters, focusing screens, backs
> and motors. Canon was an also ran.

"In the day," Canon had what Nikon had, just less selection. As a
consolation, their prices were a bit lower.

> Now, with maybe the exception of
> lense construction (not L or optics) and especially in the digital world
> Canon appears to be the system to beat.

Lens construction seems to be a pretty big field.

> The question I pose is will Nikon ever regain its dominance and be the
> leader it once was. And if so what has to happen in the future for that
> to occur?

The little I know of Japanese companies is that the big ones will be
conservative, and the most clever guys in the big company will go to the
underdog.

I think that of the two, Nikon is more married to systems. Particularly
interesting in your questin is that you are not interested in any non-
Japanese companies.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply

 

[Darrell]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"All Things Mopar" <usenetMAPS123@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95D7D96412ECBReplyToken@216.196.97.131...
> measekite commented courteously ...
>
> > Years ago Photography was spelled GERMAN like in Leica,
> > Hasselblad, Schneider, and Zeiss. Then came the
> original
> > Nikon F with extremely sharp lenses, interchangeable
> > finders, meters, focusing screens, backs and motors.
>
> Well before the Nikon F (I still have my 1969 FTN), there
> were a whole series of Nikon range finder cameras, also
> with removeable lenses. They were clear knock-offs of the
> Leica range finder cameras. Seems like this started circa
> late 1940's, early 1950's.
>
Actually they were closer to the longer based Zeiss Contax cameras, Canon
were Leica clones.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

measekite wrote:
> Years ago Photography was spelled GERMAN like in Leica, Hasselblad,
> Schneider, and Zeiss. Then came the original Nikon F with extremely
> sharp lenses, interchangeable finders, meters, focusing screens, backs
> and motors. Canon was an also ran. Now, with maybe the exception of
> lense construction (not L or optics) and especially in the digital world
> Canon appears to be the system to beat.
>
> The question I pose is will Nikon ever regain its dominance and be the
> leader it once was. And if so what has to happen in the future for that
> to occur?

I would say that in specific market segments, Nikon is still a leader,
if not dominant. I don't think that a single company being dominant is
a good thing for the industry. Surely Kodak dominates the low end of
the P&S market, but on the other sides of the market, other companies
are dominant. As long as competition is pretty broad, we all get better
cameras, and better customer service, and the industry prospers.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

measekite wrote:

> The question I pose is will Nikon ever regain its dominance and be the
> leader it once was. And if so what has to happen in the future for that
> to occur?

Look at what 1987 event occurred, that would eventully propel Canon to
the front of the pack, and you'll understand what Nikon must do to
compete successfully (at least in the professional, and so-called,
"prosumer" segments).

Forever is a long time. Nikon could choose to make the necessary
changes, or they can go out of business.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Go on, tell us what 'event' occurred in 1987 to propel Canon to world
dominance.

 

[Darrell]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"JackN" <jackn@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:cro7k4$ev5$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> Go on, tell us what 'event' occurred in 1987 to propel Canon to world
> dominance.
>
Canon said screww-you to it's FD lens mount users and changed to a proper
bayonet, similar to the Nikon F mount. The FD was a backwards mount. This
complete abandonment of their existing user based, and not bothering for
legacy support was the only thing Canon did in 1987.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Darrell" <no@spam.here> wrote in message
news:VJKdnToiVPbAQ0LcRVn-sQ@rogers.com...
>
> "JackN" <jackn@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:cro7k4$ev5$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
>> Go on, tell us what 'event' occurred in 1987 to propel Canon to world
>> dominance.
>>
> Canon said screww-you to it's FD lens mount users and changed to a proper
> bayonet, similar to the Nikon F mount. The FD was a backwards mount. This
> complete abandonment of their existing user based, and not bothering for
> legacy support was the only thing Canon did in 1987.
>
>
>
It wasn't the only thing Canon did in 1987. You skipped over the
reason/impetus for that mount change, autofocus. Before that point, Canon
had some autofocus lenses in FD mount, but they weren't very effective, with
the AF totally in-lens.

--
Skip Middleton
http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Darrell" <no@spam.here> wrote in message
news:VJKdnToiVPbAQ0LcRVn-sQ@rogers.com...
>
> "JackN" <jackn@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:cro7k4$ev5$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
>> Go on, tell us what 'event' occurred in 1987 to propel Canon to world
>> dominance.
>>
> Canon said screww-you to it's FD lens mount users and changed to a proper
> bayonet, similar to the Nikon F mount. The FD was a backwards mount. This
> complete abandonment of their existing user based, and not bothering for
> legacy support was the only thing Canon did in 1987.

And what cost Canon my business as a professional and consumer. At the time
I had a very heavy investment in Canon bodies & FD glass. As soon as the new
mount was announced with no trade or any other support for the existing
owner base I sold all my Canon eqpt immediately and switched to Nikon. Have
not regretted the decision for a moment.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Canon had the Pelix and the F1. This had an add on motor and
interchangeable focusing screens that you changed from inside the lens
cavity. It did not have interchangeable meters, backs etc.

bob wrote:

>measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in news:x4GDd.7443$wZ2.7228
>@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
>
>
>
>>Years ago Photography was spelled GERMAN
>>
>>
>
>Before 1935, right?
>
>
>
>>like in Leica, Hasselblad,
>>Schneider, and Zeiss. Then came the original Nikon F with extremely
>>
>>
>
>You missed the letter "S". I'd love to get one of those, but even the
>reproductions are 4 figures.
>
>
>
>>sharp lenses, interchangeable finders, meters, focusing screens, backs
>>and motors. Canon was an also ran.
>>
>>
>
>"In the day," Canon had what Nikon had, just less selection. As a
>consolation, their prices were a bit lower.
>
>
>
>>Now, with maybe the exception of
>>lense construction (not L or optics) and especially in the digital world
>>Canon appears to be the system to beat.
>>
>>
>
>Lens construction seems to be a pretty big field.
>
>
>
>>The question I pose is will Nikon ever regain its dominance and be the
>>leader it once was. And if so what has to happen in the future for that
>>to occur?
>>
>>
>
>The little I know of Japanese companies is that the big ones will be
>conservative, and the most clever guys in the big company will go to the
>underdog.
>
>I think that of the two, Nikon is more married to systems. Particularly
>interesting in your questin is that you are not interested in any non-
>Japanese companies.
>
>Bob
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The main event that I can think of is auto focus.

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>> The question I pose is will Nikon ever regain its dominance and be
>> the leader it once was. And if so what has to happen in the future
>> for that to occur?
>
>
> Look at what 1987 event occurred, that would eventully propel Canon to
> the front of the pack, and you'll understand what Nikon must do to
> compete successfully (at least in the professional, and so-called,
> "prosumer" segments).
>
> Forever is a long time. Nikon could choose to make the necessary
> changes, or they can go out of business.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Where is Nikon dominant today? Maybe with the F6?

Ron Hunter wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>> Years ago Photography was spelled GERMAN like in Leica, Hasselblad,
>> Schneider, and Zeiss. Then came the original Nikon F with extremely
>> sharp lenses, interchangeable finders, meters, focusing screens,
>> backs and motors. Canon was an also ran. Now, with maybe the
>> exception of lense construction (not L or optics) and especially in
>> the digital world Canon appears to be the system to beat.
>>
>> The question I pose is will Nikon ever regain its dominance and be
>> the leader it once was. And if so what has to happen in the future
>> for that to occur?
>
>
> I would say that in specific market segments, Nikon is still a leader,
> if not dominant. I don't think that a single company being dominant
> is a good thing for the industry. Surely Kodak dominates the low end
> of the P&S market, but on the other sides of the market, other
> companies are dominant. As long as competition is pretty broad, we
> all get better cameras, and better customer service, and the industry
> prospers.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>>Years ago Photography was spelled GERMAN like in ... Hasselblad<<
Hasselblad bodies were (and are) swedish and indeed made in sweden

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Only thing I can think of is the new lens bayonet mount that Canon
introduced. That put me off Canon simply because it made many models
obsolete. The Nikon bayonet was a piece of genius engineering from the
beginning.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 08 Jan 2005 in rec.photo.digital, measekite wrote:

> Canon had the Pelix and the F1. This had an add on motor and
> interchangeable focusing screens that you changed from inside the lens
> cavity. It did not have interchangeable meters, backs etc.

F1? Sure did - backs, prisms, focusing screens that you changed after
removing the prism:

http/www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/canonf1/html/concept.htm

--
Joe Makowiec
http/makowiec.org/
Email: http/makowiec.org/contact/?Joe

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <x4GDd.7443$wZ2.7228@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, measekite
says...
> Years ago Photography was spelled GERMAN like in Leica, Hasselblad,
> Schneider, and Zeiss.

Isn't Hasselblad is a Swedish company ?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http/groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
Olympus 5060 resource - http/myolympus.org/5060/
Olympus 8080 resource - http/myolympus.org/8080/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c49fb5516f997e898a927@news.supernews.com>,
Alfred Molon <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <x4GDd.7443$wZ2.7228@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, measekite
> says...
> > Years ago Photography was spelled GERMAN like in Leica, Hasselblad,
> > Schneider, and Zeiss.
>
> Isn't Hasselblad is a Swedish company ?

It used to be Swedish, yes. It has been taken over by Shriro, which is
headquartered in Hong Kong.

http/www.shriro.com/index_frame.html

Lourens

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <smak-E969CC.16353708012005@news.wanadoo.nl>,
Lourens Smak <smak@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

> Years ago Photography was spelled GERMAN like in Leica, Hasselblad,
> > > Schneider, and Zeiss.

No. It was also spelled Rollei, Rodenstock, Schact, Voigtlander, Exacta
and lots of others like Braun Paximat, Kodak Retina, Diax, Balda,
Killfit, Novoflex, Arriflex, Minox, etc.

But Hasselblad, like Bolex, was never German.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Joe Makowiec responds:

>
>On 08 Jan 2005 in rec.photo.digital, measekite wrote:
>
>> Canon had the Pelix and the F1. This had an add on motor and
>> interchangeable focusing screens that you changed from inside the lens
>> cavity. It did not have interchangeable meters, backs etc.
>
>F1? Sure did - backs, prisms, focusing screens that you changed after
>removing the prism:
>
>
>http/www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/canonf1/html/conc
ept.htm

Yup. At least mine did. You could shoot from ground level with the prism in
your pocket. I don't recall interchangeable meters, but it seems possible. The
prism slid back when you pressed two buttons at its rear bottom. Wish I still
had mine, along with the motor drive and 50' back.

Charlie Self
"One of the common denominators I have found is that expectations rise above
that which is expected." George W. Bush

 

[Darrell]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:vWRDd.46401$8e5.32195@fed1read07...
> "Darrell" <no@spam.here> wrote in message
> news:VJKdnToiVPbAQ0LcRVn-sQ@rogers.com...
> >
> > "JackN" <jackn@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:cro7k4$ev5$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> >> Go on, tell us what 'event' occurred in 1987 to propel Canon to world
> >> dominance.
> >>
> > Canon said screww-you to it's FD lens mount users and changed to a
proper
> > bayonet, similar to the Nikon F mount. The FD was a backwards mount.
This
> > complete abandonment of their existing user based, and not bothering for
> > legacy support was the only thing Canon did in 1987.
> >
> >
> >
> It wasn't the only thing Canon did in 1987. You skipped over the
> reason/impetus for that mount change, autofocus. Before that point, Canon
> had some autofocus lenses in FD mount, but they weren't very effective,
with
> the AF totally in-lens.
>
I understand that. The old FD mount was backwards, which was ok in manual
focus, but with effectively the body mount on the back of the lens, and the
lens flange on the body, it was impossible for Canon to get fast AF.