Do camera companies screw us?

[spystyle]

Well I'm not trying to start a flame war or get in trouble, but I sincerely wonder if camera companies screw us.

My biggest gripe as a Nikon owner is that Nikon has disabled the metering of manual lenses in it's consumer line of dSLR (yet their pro bodies can meter manual lenses) - compare this to Canon, who's bodies will meter any lenses.

So I always assumed that between the "two giants", Canon was more virtuous.

I recently ran this idea past a pal of mine who is a Canon user. He said that Canon does something equally as devious by disabling it's pro bodies from working with it's line of affordable consumer lenses. I don't know about this first hand but he seemed quite convinced.

Then I remembered hearing there was controversy when Canon went from FD mount to EF mount, it was not backwards compatible on account of the registration distance.

(though today Canon dSLR users can buy a 3rd party adapter to use FD lenses on their cameras)

So then I starting to think that neither Nikon or Canon was especially virtuous and I started to think about Pentax, who's cameras are intentionally backwards compatible to the first M42 mount lens made in 1949 (which requires an inexpensive adapter)

So I wonder if Pentax is the most virtuous or if they screw us as well ? How about Olympus and Sony?

Do camera companies screw us? Which company is the most virtuous ? What do you think?

Thanks,
Craig

[AK]

Hi Craig
U r 100 % correct, Nikon screw us badly and Canon also, when i go to purchase a nikon D40, 60 , 3000, 5000, i find that old lenses r not compatible, these bodies r not cheap also , nikon can easily fit a motor in D40, 60, 3000, 5000 models but they donot do because they have to sell AFS Lenses, canon to some extent do favour to amateurs , their base model Canon 1000 D has a built in motor, i also heard that In Pentax bodies we can use old lenses.
I am sure u agree with me.
Thanks
alok

[tharper]

I don't know about screwing us, but I think maybe they make decisions on things for their cameras that stand out in contrast to what the other companies are doing. I'd be happy if my D80 would meter my old 50mm 1.4 lens, but I'm having a good time learning to sorta meter in my head and see if my estimations are correct. Most of the time I'm a little off, but the learning experience is great. I see where you are coming from though!

Originally Posted by spystyle

Well I'm not trying to start a flame war or get in trouble, but I sincerely wonder if camera companies screw us.

My biggest gripe as a Nikon owner is that Nikon has disabled the metering of manual lenses in it's consumer line of dSLR (yet their pro bodies can meter manual lenses) - compare this to Canon, who's bodies will meter any lenses.

So I always assumed that between the "two giants", Canon was more virtuous.

I recently ran this idea past a pal of mine who is a Canon user. He said that Canon does something equally as devious by disabling it's pro bodies from working with it's line of affordable consumer lenses. I don't know about this first hand but he seemed quite convinced.

Then I remembered hearing there was controversy when Canon went from FD mount to EF mount, it was not backwards compatible on account of the registration distance.

(though today Canon dSLR users can buy a 3rd party adapter to use FD lenses on their cameras, I've done it personally)

So then I starting to think that neither Nikon or Canon was especially virtuous and I started to think about Pentax, who's cameras are intentionally backwards compatible to the first M42 mount lens made in 1949 (which requires an inexpensive adapter)

So I wonder if Pentax is the most virtuous or if they screw us as well ? How about Olympus and Sony?

Do camera companies screw us? Which company is the most virtuous ? What do you think?

Thanks,
Craig

[brian.austin]

I cannot buy a computer today that will work with an old MFM hard drive.

My 2000 Ford F250 Diesel can't use parts from a circa 1960's truck.

I can buy a TV that receives analog signals but no one is transmitting them any longer.

Things change.

Why put full functionality into a sub-$800 body that has good image quality? If all of the features of a $4,000 body were in a $600 body, why would anyone buy the "good stuff"? Buy 3-4 cheap bodies and it's STILL less expensive to shoot than one pro unit.

The profit margins on high end dSLR bodies is bigger. These companies are in business for one thing: profit. Just like you profit from doing computer service work, Craig. If you don't profit, how do you feed your family?

[Ed Shapiro]

I don’t think that anyone is screwing anyone else here. Nowadays all manufacturers have their own version of built in obsolesce and whether it is intentional or not is anyone’s guess.

For many decades, I have been a Hasselblad, Mamiya RZ and Nikon F series user and have hardly experienced any such problems. Even now, with all of my systems, I can still use some of my 20 and 30 year old lenses with the latest bodies. I never got into the so called consumer gear because there are many changes there and I have no time to keep track of all that business- that is for so called “gear-heads” to worry about.

I once posted something to the effect that a certain older model lens could be used on a current Nikon DSLR and some guy came on as if I had committed a heinous crime- going on to explain that doing so would cause near irreparable damage to the camera. I no longer assume anything along theses lines and sometimes have to do a bit or research before dispensing information and furthermore I don’t care- please allow me to explain why.

Nowadays I no longer consider cameras as a long term investment. Let’s face it- some of the most expensive DSLRs will unceremoniously drop dead after a certain life span has expired. I don’t even bother to keep them on my books from year to year and show the depreciation- I simply purchase the gear on lease to buy deals and expense the entire amounts of the lease payments and be done with it. My cameras a tools and nothing more- I have no emotional attachment to them and when the die or outlive their usefulness, I use them for paperweights. I no longer have reason to believe that any of my new DSLRs will be around long enough to worry about obsolescence.

From an engineering point of view, I can well understand why some manufacturers have to change some of the lens mount designs. When you reminisce about some of the classic film cameras and designs such as the Lica and Pentax screw mounts, the ago old Nikon F configuration and many of the others you have to remember that the main use of the lens-mount was to keep the lens on the camera and somehow locking securely it in place so it won’t fall off. The most sophisticated linkages were a few aperture controls or a bit of electronics. Nowadays, the cameras and lenses begin “talking to each other” as soon as you switch the camera on. There as all kinds of mechanical and electronic linkages and every time new features are added there are more and more electronic contacts and mechanical linkages added to the mix. We are talking about aperture controls, servo-motors, auto-focus mechanisms, dedicated flash circuitry, stabilization controls, wiring to readouts and L.E.Ds aboard the bodies and more.

No one system will do everything, especially if you depend on all those automatic features. Some of it is silly to me because I prefer to use manual controls when ever possible. When you look at all theses things realistically and from a neutral perspective you will come to realize that all this business of incompatibly and obsolesce is moot.

If all of this is frustrating to some of you, it is comforting to remember that many iconic images were made in years gone by with cameras such as the classic Rolleiflex twin lens reflex camera with no automation and a fixed lens. Somewhere in there world there is a great photographer, as we speak, making photographic masterpieces with ad D-70 and a kit lens.

Ed

[00silvergt]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

I cannot buy a computer today that will work with an old MFM hard drive.

My 2000 Ford F250 Diesel can't use parts from a circa 1960's truck.

I can buy a TV that receives analog signals but no one is transmitting them any longer.

Things change.

Why put full functionality into a sub-$800 body that has good image quality? If all of the features of a $4,000 body were in a $600 body, why would anyone buy the "good stuff"? Buy 3-4 cheap bodies and it's STILL less expensive to shoot than one pro unit.

The profit margins on high end dSLR bodies is bigger. These companies are in business for one thing: profit. Just like you profit from doing computer service work, Craig. If you don't profit, how do you feed your family?

Good point, but I like to point out that DSLR bodies are like most things in technology. R&D cost the most and volume eventually leads to lower cost. Why did my dad's 8086 cost us $10,000 and the 80286 $15,000-case and point for the longest time memory was $30 per MB, now it is almost 1000 times cheaper. I still have PC books that recommend against upgrading too much memory since it will be "expensive". Anyway, I digress. DSLR's are technology driven, has the initial, expensive R&D is paid for (probably the one with Kodak and Canon is just now getting even.) and yields starting paying off then, prices will drop and moore's law will kick in and you simply get better stuff for less money. Is that screwing us? No, that's doing business.

[ohenry]

I my darn 8 track tapes won't play on anything!

[spystyle]

Well I guess that wraps it up There is nothing but love for camera companies in this room

Thanks all for chiming in, it's thought provoking

[KmH]

Do camera companies screw us?

Only if you let them.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by 00silvergt

Good point, but I like to point out that DSLR bodies are like most things in technology. R&D cost the most and volume eventually leads to lower cost. Why did my dad's 8086 cost us $10,000 and the 80286 $15,000-case and point for the longest time memory was $30 per MB, now it is almost 1000 times cheaper. I still have PC books that recommend against upgrading too much memory since it will be "expensive". Anyway, I digress. DSLR's are technology driven, has the initial, expensive R&D is paid for (probably the one with Kodak and Canon is just now getting even.) and yields starting paying off then, prices will drop and moore's law will kick in and you simply get better stuff for less money. Is that screwing us? No, that's doing business.

Yields are already paying off. Remember the first dSLR that hit mainstream consumers? The Canon Digital Rebel for $1000. That same camera has almost 3 times the pixels, does HD video, is faster, and $300 less than the first generation.