Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

mirrorlessrumors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 371 posts

Re: Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

#71

Post by ghaff »

robotmay wrote: post #38
beagle3 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traditional lens manufacturing is likely in its last days (which can easily take a decade or two, but ... the end is visible). Modern lens are made with techniques perfected in semiconductor manufacturing, and use advances in material science (meta materials in particular). I don't know how close this is to mass market, but I've seen superthin flat lens, with a marginal cost of production around ~$2 in a university f…

There's a couple of lens advancements I've seen recently that I found particularly interesting: Canon putting Fresnel elements in their lenses to reduce size/weight: https://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/400mm-f4-do-is-ii.htm Canon making an f/11 800mm super telephoto lens that can still autofocus thanks to the new mirrorless camera bodies: https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/800mm.htm I think we'll see a b…

Although a friend of mine tried it out as a rental along with an R5. He was really wowed at first but after using it for a bit he wasn't as impressed with the results. Still, for a birder, at $1K coupled with the R5's eye autofocus it doesn't have any real competitors. Not everyone needs or can pay for the higher end and very heavy lenses. (And, with modern full frame digital cameras, the smaller fixed aperature doesn't matter nearly as much.)

Re: Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

#73

Post by lizknope »

numair wrote: post #42

Nikon hasn’t really made an amazing camera since the days of the F5 (the weapon of choice for greats such as Peter Lindbergh). I really feel that Japan Inc. needs a version of that Stephen Elop “burning platform” rant.

Between my Dad and I we have owned the D70, D200, D90, D40X, D2X, D3, D7100, D7500, D800, D850

I like all of them. Are any of them amazing? Sure, why not?

The D70 was just $1000 which was great. The D2X and D3 are built like tanks. I think my D850 is the best DSLR ever made.

Re: Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

#75

Post by Kye »

formerly_proven wrote: post #56
robotmay wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a couple of lens advancements I've seen recently that I found particularly interesting: Canon putting Fresnel elements in their lenses to reduce size/weight: https://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/400mm-f4-do-is-ii.htm Canon making an f/11 800mm super telephoto lens that can still autofocus thanks to the new mirrorless camera bodies: https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/800mm.htm I think we'll see a b…

> At the moment lens prices are pretty bonkers but I think that Canon f/11 lens is a great indicator; it's basically less than 1/10th of the cost of a traditional 800mm lens and does more than enough for most people. But that tradeoff seems hardly new to me. Consumer 70-300 for ~300 $ vs. Pro 70-200 for 2000+ $. The "only" difference is build quality and the pro lens being 2-3 stops brighter. Price difference: ~10x.

You can get the consumer 70-300 for even less refurbished assuming you mean the DX VR Nikon lens. I've had mine almost a year and it works perfectly.

Re: Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

#76

Post by ghaff »

robotmay wrote: post #32
hef19898 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cameras =!= Lenses. I always found Nikon cameras more my taste than canon. But that is just taste, in terms of quality, in the sense of the pictures, I never saw a difference. Not back the day when we still developed our black and white pictures ourselves and not now with digital cameras. Lenses on the other hand a different thing altogether. There I saw defferences between the "cheaper" Sigma and the premium Nikkor…

I think camera bodies make a much larger difference these days than lenses, actually. Obviously the lens still makes a notable difference, and for certain forms, like wildlife photography, the lens requirements are inescapable. The new models out in the past few years have absolutely incredible low-light performance that completely change the lens landscape, even; you can now ditch the requirement of carrying a hefty…

Sigma used to be one of the brands you bought because you didn't have the money for the camera manufacturer's lens. Now, they have unique models in a number of cases. I still have mostly Canon glass but I have a couple Sigma models because Canon doesn't have the equivalent.

Re: Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

#77

Post by ghaff »

x87678r wrote: post #72

I bought a new SLR body probably every 5 years for the last 40. My newest smartphones are so good I've given up. Yes if you want crisp incredible detail, or if its your wedding you need an SLR, but no other reason.

I only sorta joke that the amount I use a camera is inversely proportional to how much the body and the system cost. I use my iPhone a bunch, my Fujifilm X series a fair bit when traveling, and my Canon 5Diii mostly only if I'm going on a particularly photography-oriented trip or some other specialized purpose. I'm honestly not sure if I'll ever upgrade my Canon body at this point.

Re: Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

#78

Post by monkeynotes »

formerly_proven wrote: post #56
robotmay wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a couple of lens advancements I've seen recently that I found particularly interesting: Canon putting Fresnel elements in their lenses to reduce size/weight: https://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/400mm-f4-do-is-ii.htm Canon making an f/11 800mm super telephoto lens that can still autofocus thanks to the new mirrorless camera bodies: https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/800mm.htm I think we'll see a b…

> At the moment lens prices are pretty bonkers but I think that Canon f/11 lens is a great indicator; it's basically less than 1/10th of the cost of a traditional 800mm lens and does more than enough for most people. But that tradeoff seems hardly new to me. Consumer 70-300 for ~300 $ vs. Pro 70-200 for 2000+ $. The "only" difference is build quality and the pro lens being 2-3 stops brighter. Price difference: ~10x.

2-3 stops is enormous. Speed of the lens is partially where the additional cost comes from, and professionals are willing to pay for that extra performance - especially sports photographers.

It's been a long time since I paid any attention to pro photographic equipment so I don't know if fast lenses are important with modern sensors performing so well in low light. But back in the analog/early digital days 2-3 stops was a huge advantage.

Also something to consider, the pro lenses also focus faster and more accurately. I was never sure if this was down to the software in the lens, which is proprietary and why 3rd party lenses are never as good as manufacturer. I could easily see Canon or Nikon tweaking the firmware on prosumer lenses to focus a fraction slower.

Re: Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

#79

Post by aikinai »

x87678r wrote: post #72

I bought a new SLR body probably every 5 years for the last 40. My newest smartphones are so good I've given up. Yes if you want crisp incredible detail, or if its your wedding you need an SLR, but no other reason.

I’m not even close to a serious photographer nor have a trained eye, but phone cameras have such terrible dynamic range and artifacting (the impressionistic watercolor look), they’re still not even close to a real camera. Maybe in very specific conditions and never viewed zoomed in or bigger than Instagram sized, they’ll do.

I sync my camera photos to my Photos library along side phone pictures and whenever I’m flipping through to share something with a friend, they always notice and comment, “You took those on your phone!?” The difference is still huge.

Re: Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

#80

Post by nordsieck »

beagle3 wrote: post #55
criley2 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but I've seen superthin flat lens, with a marginal cost of production around ~$2 in a university facility, that work better than some $500 lens -- and the latter are expensive because they are hard to make the traditional way. I find this very fascinating because while I enjoy my ever-increasing smartphone camera and use it as a daily driver, I have a about 13 year old Canon DSLR (one of the first one they made now)…

I was not referring to phone lens, although those things are being applied there too. It is now possible to build a telephoto lens for your DSLR, that costs $2 to make, is short and flat, yet has better optics than your current kit. When these become common, it will likely cause another seismic shift in the pure-camera market. Perhaps some of them will actually be bonded with the sensors, unlike what we have today. R…

> It is now possible to build a telephoto lens for your DSLR, that costs $2 to make, is short and flat, yet has better optics than your current kit.

Do you have any references you can share? I'm super interested.

edit: For anyone else interested, the key phrase that worked for me was "metasurface lenses".

Post reply on HN