Masterdeath
Senior Member
I think your right, Nikon would not sell Cam 1300 except for a very high price... Kodak 760... But now that they have the CAM 2000, they will start selling off cameras with the Cam1300
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Will S3 go 4/3rd's
- Thread starter sej1001
- Start date
Masterdeath
Senior Member
Nikon can make more money selling their cameras and selling bodies to Fuji, then if they dont sell the bodies..
Masterdeath
Senior Member
Are you completly forgetting about the LENSES!!!
Nikon is making a killing from selling LENSES.. I have spent more on Nikon Lense then I did on my S2.. hmm
The number of Nikon lenses being sold are large because you have cameras like the S2 and even the Kodaks that use the lenses...
If the S2 did not exist I was not going to buy a Nikon, I was going CANON.. and Nikon knows this... Most peole stick with Nikon BECAUSE they have more choices then Canon.. If Nikon did not sell to Fuji then Canon would... Canon is not making much on the sale of 10D and the newer cam.. Most people who use Nikon F-mount cameras use Nikon lense and most Canon user use Canon Lenses..
Nikon makes on their sale of a N80 body to Fuji, about the same they would make when someone buys a D100
Money wise... Think about that one....
The next Fuji pro will most likey be a F100, since the CAM 2000 is out... in a few years when their is a Cam 3000, nikon will sell he CAM 2000.. So on and so forth... Nikon never rarely sells the best...
Nikon is making a killing from selling LENSES.. I have spent more on Nikon Lense then I did on my S2.. hmm
The number of Nikon lenses being sold are large because you have cameras like the S2 and even the Kodaks that use the lenses...
If the S2 did not exist I was not going to buy a Nikon, I was going CANON.. and Nikon knows this... Most peole stick with Nikon BECAUSE they have more choices then Canon.. If Nikon did not sell to Fuji then Canon would... Canon is not making much on the sale of 10D and the newer cam.. Most people who use Nikon F-mount cameras use Nikon lense and most Canon user use Canon Lenses..
Nikon makes on their sale of a N80 body to Fuji, about the same they would make when someone buys a D100
Money wise... Think about that one....The next Fuji pro will most likey be a F100, since the CAM 2000 is out... in a few years when their is a Cam 3000, nikon will sell he CAM 2000.. So on and so forth... Nikon never rarely sells the best...
sej1001
Senior Member
The digital race is quite a battle right now. These companies have very deep back door associations. Fujinon has been making some of the small consumer lenses for Nikon for years. Fuji and Nikon have some sort of interest in each other. Look at Sony and Nikon. Nikon uses Sony chips in most of their cameras, but Nikon makes a lot of the equipment that sony uses to manufacture those chips. I would agree that Nikon has everything to gain from Fuji using their lens mount.
Remember, Nikon was the first one to introduce a DSLR!!! Peters argument that Nikon now no longer needs fuji is faulty. Nikon didn't need them to begin with. The S2pro was announced Jan. 2002 and the D100 in Feb. 2002. This means the D100 was already manufacturing and planned for release by the time Nikon had licensed Fuji. Therefore, Nikon knew the two cameras would somewhat compete, but they saw it as a win/win anyway.
If, anything it's Fuji that would benefit from a switch. They would gain a larger mount. They would have a larger mount to chip size ratio. They would not pay for the mount license. However, as RC pointed out earlier, it would hurt them with their current following! Big time.
Steve J.
Remember, Nikon was the first one to introduce a DSLR!!! Peters argument that Nikon now no longer needs fuji is faulty. Nikon didn't need them to begin with. The S2pro was announced Jan. 2002 and the D100 in Feb. 2002. This means the D100 was already manufacturing and planned for release by the time Nikon had licensed Fuji. Therefore, Nikon knew the two cameras would somewhat compete, but they saw it as a win/win anyway.
If, anything it's Fuji that would benefit from a switch. They would gain a larger mount. They would have a larger mount to chip size ratio. They would not pay for the mount license. However, as RC pointed out earlier, it would hurt them with their current following! Big time.
Steve J.
sej1001
Senior Member
Yes, because I am looking at the S2 for exactly this reason! I shoot canon and might not switch for the Nikon line, but I really like the Fuji and am considering on this basis. You nailed it.
Kevin P Kitching
Senior Member
Hi Guys,
Many here seem to have overlooked the fact that the manufacturers licence the lens mounts to third party lens makers!
Once the lens mount has been petented, any other use by an 'independant' would be in breach of copyright.
Sigma, Tamron etc., are still paying licence fees to Nikon, Canon etc. Otherwise, you would expect the cost of a third party lens to be significantly cheaper than a Nikkor!
As for choice - my local camera store tries to get new DSLR users to buy the Canon 10D. Why? probably because the profit margin is greater and there are some who will believe them. The S2 is still the finest DSLR for the money so I don't care about the 4/3 system or the S3 (for now).
I have a body and lenses that perform well. Why change something that ain't broke?
--
Kevin P Kitching
same here!
I already had Nikkors for my film based Nikon bodies. I compared the spec of the S2, the D100 & D1x and eventually chose the S2. Why? because the EX software gives 1/3stop adjustments if needed (I haven't needed it yet!), the D100 has fewer usable features over the S2 for me and feels too small. The D1x 'seems' close on spec for what I wanted, but has a price tag which is too high and I don't need fast fps for shooting landscapes!
Maybe not... but no-one knows for sure.Nikon makes on their sale of a N80 body to Fuji, about the same
they would make when someone buys a D100
about that one....
Makes sense...
Many here seem to have overlooked the fact that the manufacturers licence the lens mounts to third party lens makers!
Once the lens mount has been petented, any other use by an 'independant' would be in breach of copyright.
Sigma, Tamron etc., are still paying licence fees to Nikon, Canon etc. Otherwise, you would expect the cost of a third party lens to be significantly cheaper than a Nikkor!
As for choice - my local camera store tries to get new DSLR users to buy the Canon 10D. Why? probably because the profit margin is greater and there are some who will believe them. The S2 is still the finest DSLR for the money so I don't care about the 4/3 system or the S3 (for now).
I have a body and lenses that perform well. Why change something that ain't broke?
--
Kevin P Kitching
Jonathan F.
Senior Member
I'm a D100 user, but I see different shooters use the cameras for different situations. I think both cameras serve certain niche markets. I notice more wedding and studio photographers using the S2, while I see the D100 more in the field and with event photographers. This is just my observation, and I think while there is some overlap, both cameras are doing well in respective areas.
----------------------------------------------
The only limitation is no limitation at all...
http://www.inhousephoto.com
--
----------------------------------------------
The only limitation is no limitation at all...
- Bruce Lee
http://www.inhousephoto.com
Jonathan F.
Senior Member
What are the chances Fuji would integrate a vertical shutter release or make the S3 compatible with whatever Nikon grip sold, perhaps the MB-D100? This could be a big factor for me going over to Fuji in the next round of DSLRs, since I like the color and sharpness of the S2 very much.
----------------------------------------------
The only limitation is no limitation at all...
http://www.inhousephoto.com
----------------------------------------------
The only limitation is no limitation at all...
- Bruce Lee
http://www.inhousephoto.com
Kevin Blair
Well-known member
My guess, and it's only a guess, is that Fuji's participation in the 4/3rds standard will be supplying the sensor for Oly's consumer body coming out next year.
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
Personally, I don't think that's a problem (for reasons I've outlined elsewhere).
I'm positive it won't be F100 based. I want a capable and affordable F100 based digicam so much that Nikon, Fuji, and Kodak are picking up my psychic waves of longing and are therefore building something completly different.
--
Ciao!
Joe
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
N
Negative287
Guest
The sensor Olympus is using is cr*p and they could use Fuji's sensor; but it would probably hurt Fuji in the long run because the prices on those 4/3 lenses are crazy and don't offer enough for people to switch lenses and to follow Fuji in to Oblivion! In fact, if Nikon didn't offer a solid product worth upgrading to some would stick with the S2 and others would jump to Canon.
Thomas Karlmann
Senior Member
If they don't upgrade that N80 based body for the S3, they will lose a lot of pros who know the differences, and are not similarly limited in Canon's offerings.
Thom
but the most consistent seem to be F100-based body.
--
I need a Photographer's assistant --- e-mail me
-- female preferred.
Thom
but the most consistent seem to be F100-based body.
--
I need a Photographer's assistant --- e-mail me
-- female preferred.
sej1001
Senior Member
Kevin that might be embarrasing. If, oly had a consumer camera with a better image?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Steve J.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Steve J.
J
Jon Ragnarsson
Guest
uk102
Senior Member
Hi,
Canon have droped in the 300D so Fuji are like to put the S2 sensor in a 3/4 body.
Then release a replacement for the S2. I hope the F100 body will be used. I don't go for the old one that there is no money in DSLR's i'm sure there is loads of money.
I'm not sure I want a CMOS sensor, but all the R&D going that way. Canon seams to have all the Pat's needed to make CMOS work well.
What that leaves I'm not sure. I'm not keen on going Canon. i just don't like the feal and ethos of their Cameras.
Alex
Canon have droped in the 300D so Fuji are like to put the S2 sensor in a 3/4 body.
Then release a replacement for the S2. I hope the F100 body will be used. I don't go for the old one that there is no money in DSLR's i'm sure there is loads of money.
I'm not sure I want a CMOS sensor, but all the R&D going that way. Canon seams to have all the Pat's needed to make CMOS work well.
What that leaves I'm not sure. I'm not keen on going Canon. i just don't like the feal and ethos of their Cameras.
Alex
Anthony32599
Veteran Member
This makes no sense. The 300D is the 10D sensor in a cheap body. The 4/3 cameras are expensive--have to absorb the costs of a new body, new lens design etc. Look at how expensive the new Olympus cameras are!
Instead, if Fuji wants to compete with Canon, they should find a cheap body--say the Pentax ZX series or the Nikon N65--and drop their sensor in there. And just for fun, take an F100 or F5 and drop a sensor in there as well. Certainly, it would be much cheaper for Fuji than starting up a plant to make 4/3 cameras with an uncertain future.
Anthony
Instead, if Fuji wants to compete with Canon, they should find a cheap body--say the Pentax ZX series or the Nikon N65--and drop their sensor in there. And just for fun, take an F100 or F5 and drop a sensor in there as well. Certainly, it would be much cheaper for Fuji than starting up a plant to make 4/3 cameras with an uncertain future.
Anthony
Peter Herth
Leading Member
I can in no way see how a 4/3rds body would be more expensive than any other SLR body. In contrary, some parts like the pentaprism are smaller and thus usually less expensive. Actually , if you look at the S7000, not much seems to be needed to build a 4/3rds body on that basis. The Olympus E-1 body is more expensive than some other cameras because of its features.
Likewise with lenses, the advantage of 4/3rds is, that not every company has to have its own set, the Olympus Zuikos would work fine on a possible Fuji body. So they just would add a few to complete the lineup.
Peter
uk102
Senior Member
Hi,
It costs Fuji more money to purchase the Nikon mount (Lic. costs). Why the Olympus is so costly, i'm not sure.
The reason Fuji uses the Nikon mount is it's a Pro platform and it of a wide range of lens , but at a cost.
Sigma have tried and failed to get wide spread acceptance of their mount, SD9 etc.
The hole idea of 3/4 was to reduce costs an offer a wide range of lens. Hence the alliance.
Alex
It costs Fuji more money to purchase the Nikon mount (Lic. costs). Why the Olympus is so costly, i'm not sure.
The reason Fuji uses the Nikon mount is it's a Pro platform and it of a wide range of lens , but at a cost.
Sigma have tried and failed to get wide spread acceptance of their mount, SD9 etc.
The hole idea of 3/4 was to reduce costs an offer a wide range of lens. Hence the alliance.
Alex
Anthony32599
Veteran Member
Actually, it's very simple. The Nikon mount has been around for a lot of years and the machines/tooling/dies are all paid for. There's no new costs in making parts.
With the Olympus, you have to design the system then essentially change production lines to make a brand new system. Take they pentaprism example you cite--Nikon probably has machines which have been making their pentaprisms for years so the machine costs are all paid for and it costs them virtually nothing to make pentaprisms. By comparison, Olympus hasn't been making SLR's for some time, so now they may have to buy a brand new machine, program it, and fine tune it. Thus, while it may ultimately be able to produce a pentaprism cheaply, it still has to overcome the startup costs.
As for the lenses, need I point out that people have preferences between Sigma vs. Tamron vs. Nikon? Thus, the so-called advantage of being able to share lenses between Olympus, Fuji, and Kodak 4/3 cameras because none have to make a full line of lenses really isn't an advantage. People will end up having their preferences, and I can't see Olympus not putting out as full as line as possible since it can't count on Fuji, Kodak, Sigma, or Tamron to back them up by making lenses. Thus, this adds costs to Olympus.
It's obvious to me that Fuji and Kodak have signed up, but Olympus is the company really taking the risks. And this means that at least initially, 4/3 cameras are going to be expensive, particularly for a higher quality camera.
That's why Fuji did it the way they did. For those people who remember, the S1pro was thousands cheaper than the Nikon D1--because it used an existing camera body (the cheapo Nikon N60). It's the same reason why the Canon 300D is cheaper than the Canon 10D--because they're using an existing cheap camera body.
And that's my point--if Fuji wants to make cheap digital SLRs, it makes more sense to buy $200 SLR bodies wholesale (where they cost much less than $200!), then modify them as cheaply as possible, and resell them. That's gotta be way cheaper in the short run than taking a risk by setting up a factory to design and make a whole new system.
Anthony
With the Olympus, you have to design the system then essentially change production lines to make a brand new system. Take they pentaprism example you cite--Nikon probably has machines which have been making their pentaprisms for years so the machine costs are all paid for and it costs them virtually nothing to make pentaprisms. By comparison, Olympus hasn't been making SLR's for some time, so now they may have to buy a brand new machine, program it, and fine tune it. Thus, while it may ultimately be able to produce a pentaprism cheaply, it still has to overcome the startup costs.
As for the lenses, need I point out that people have preferences between Sigma vs. Tamron vs. Nikon? Thus, the so-called advantage of being able to share lenses between Olympus, Fuji, and Kodak 4/3 cameras because none have to make a full line of lenses really isn't an advantage. People will end up having their preferences, and I can't see Olympus not putting out as full as line as possible since it can't count on Fuji, Kodak, Sigma, or Tamron to back them up by making lenses. Thus, this adds costs to Olympus.
It's obvious to me that Fuji and Kodak have signed up, but Olympus is the company really taking the risks. And this means that at least initially, 4/3 cameras are going to be expensive, particularly for a higher quality camera.
That's why Fuji did it the way they did. For those people who remember, the S1pro was thousands cheaper than the Nikon D1--because it used an existing camera body (the cheapo Nikon N60). It's the same reason why the Canon 300D is cheaper than the Canon 10D--because they're using an existing cheap camera body.
And that's my point--if Fuji wants to make cheap digital SLRs, it makes more sense to buy $200 SLR bodies wholesale (where they cost much less than $200!), then modify them as cheaply as possible, and resell them. That's gotta be way cheaper in the short run than taking a risk by setting up a factory to design and make a whole new system.
Anthony
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
True, once you amortize the tooling. Now, if you have a look at the cutaway diagrams of the E-1 that are floating around the net, you'll see that the prism is bigger than it needs to be for a 4/3 sensor. It's actually full frame sized. With Oly's projected 90,000 cameras a year, it doesn't make sense to tool for the prism or the shutter. Just buy them on the outside.
W think we'll have to wait for 4/3 to really catch on before you see cheaper, low cost components.
Look at Canon and Nikon. Canon is tooling for over a million 300D bodies a year, and they still use a full sized film camera shutter and pentamirror, instead of tooling up new ones.
Pentax is the bold one. *ist D still has a full sized shutter shared with film *ist, but it has a reduced sized pentaprism.
Yeah, it should have adequate processing power, the body design is fine. Just a bigger sensor, deeper image chamber, and 4/3 mount. Eliminate the onboard focus and zoom motors and lens, and they might still be able to bring it in around $800.
Sure it's an EVF camera, but it's the highest res EVF on the market, and a 4/3 body that could approach S2 quality, and have movie mode, would be a real killer.
Wow. Someone who understands. You don't build a weather sealed magnesium shell and an ultrasonic dust protection system and have the body come in cheap. Those are features I would pay extra for.
Yeah, if they were launching something like a "super" 7000, an ultra wide range lens (like Oly's 10:1 14-140mm lens for 4/3, US patent 6,483,648) would be a kicker. Add a 300mm f4.0 telephoto, a 400mm f5.6, a low cost 8-16mm f4.0, and you'd have the low end defined pretty well.
Although, if it offered an image comparable to S2, this "low end" camera might seriously outperform the "high end" Oly E-1.
--
Ciao!
Joe
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum