Talk:Nikon FE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is wrong to call the Nikon compact F-series SLRs "professional" (or even, as contributer 4.240.247.238 calls them, "semi-professional") level cameras. While it is certainly true that many professional photographers did purchase and use Nikon compact F-series SLRs for their work, this is not a necessary AND sufficient condition to call a camera "professional" level. After all, working professional photographers have purchased and used point-and-shoot cameras in specific circumstances, but no one has ever called a P/S a "professional" camera.

The Nikon compact F-series SLRs are rightly called "advanced amateur" level SLRs, because, by Nippon Kogaku's own standards, that was what they were. They may have been more ruggedly built and had more extensive accessory systems than advanced amateur SLRs from competing brands, but the compact F-series did not meet Nippon Kogaku's long-standing 150,000 minimum picture cycles before breakdown benchmark, were not moisture and dustproofed, were not eligible for Nikon professional field services and did not have the interchangeable viewfinder heads of Nikon F-series professional level SLRs.

Contributer 4.240.242.185 is also wrong to call the Nikon FE "a success by any standard", especially since he/she admits that it was not as popular as it's competitors. The fact that it needed an improved successor, combined with grossly inferior contemporary sales figures to the Canon AE-1 prove that the FE was mis-marketed, under-featured and/or overpriced for market requirements.

Canon Camera K. K.'s blockbuster A-series was the success by any standard: SLRs carefully designed from careful consideration of the exact needs of a carefully defined market. Nippon Kogaku's insistence on the highest possible quality with their compact F-series was noble, but counterproductive when dealing with the ignorant beginner and/or fickle amateur photographer. I "blame" Canon's triumph over Nikon on Canon's better understanding of quality versus price in a competitive market. Perfection really is the enemy of success.

References

• Anonymous. “Nikon F3: Successor to Nikon F2 and F” pp 80-86. Modern Photography’s Photo Buying Guide ‘85. reprint from Modern Photography, June 1980.
• Anonymous. Nikon SLRs (FA, FE2, FG, FM2, F3HP) advertisement. “Some of the world’s greatest photographic achievements haven’t been photographs.” pp 56-57. Modern Photography, Volume 47, Number 12; December 1983. [The exact term used by Nikon Inc. (USA) in this advertisement to describe the level of the FA, FE2 and FM2 is "serious amateur."]
• Anonymous. Nikon USA 11 January 2006 press release “Reshaping Nikon's Film Camera Assortment" http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=130907&TICK=NIKON&STORY=/www/story/01-11-2006/0004247596&EDATE=Jan+11,+2006 retrieved 22 February 2006 [The exact term used by Nikon Inc. (USA) in this press release to describe the serious non-professional photographer is "dedicated amateur."]
• Shell, Bob translator and Harold Franke. Magic Lantern Guides: Canon Classic Cameras; A-1, AT-1, AE-1, AE-1 Program, T50, T70, T90. Sixth Printing 2001. Magic Lantern Guides. Rochester, NY: Silver Pixel Press, 1995. ISBN 1-883403-26-X
• Stafford, Simon and Rudi Hillebrand & Hans-Joachim Hauschild. The New Nikon Compendium: Cameras, Lenses & Accessories since 1917. 2004 Updated North American Edition. Asheville, NC: Lark Books, 2003. ISBN 1-57990-592-7

Paul1513 18:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Your argument, succintly, is that the manufacturer's own market placement of a product is what matters for its classification, not whether its feature set or construction quality might have suited it better for a different placement. I agree with that, with the proviso that if a product was actually purchased and used by a different market segment than the manufacturer intended, and there are sources for that, that such use should also be documented.

Is there such evidence for the Nikon compact Fs? Possibly, but I think an important deciding factor is whether the FE got used by professionals MORE than other similarly-marketed 'advanced amateur' cameras. If it did, a mention should be made, but that should not change the initial description of its market segment.

It's certainly not unheard of for professional photographers to use amateur-level gear to a degree. Those who are really only 'semi-pro', especially; I define these as people who receive money for their photography but not enough to make it a career rather than a sideline. And amateur-level gear has its advantages, mostly in reduced weight and reduced cost, as well as being less of a magnet for thievery! It's possible that the compact F series' fairly robust construction got them more of this kind of use than, say, an AE-1.

The issue here is sourcing. Nikon sources, like the above, can be easily found to prove that Nikon considered it an 'advanced amateur' camera. If a source can be found stating that large numbers of professionals actually used the camera as well, then we can put that too. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"It is wrong to call the Nikon compact F-series SLRs "professional" (or even, as contributer X calls them, "semi-professional") level cameras."

No, they are semi-professional cameras, because although they have features and design that appeal to serious amateurs, they have a higher standard of internal quality (comparable to professional-level Nikon bodies of the era), MUCH higher in quality than amateur-level competing designs from Canon, Minolta, or Pentax. Tight tolerances, bearing-mounted film wind and shutter, machined metal components, higher-quality electronics, etc, etc. and were designed to operate in similar temperature extremes as were Nikon F/F2/F3. As a result, many professional photographers using Nikon F F2 cameras used FE or FE-2 bodies as backups, with many switching over to the compact body for all of their shooting. This is a matter of history. The reference to "semi-professional is entirely an apt one.

"Canon Camera's philosophy with their blockbuster A-series was the right one: carefully designing their SLRs with careful consideration to the exact needs of a carefully defined market."

This is what is called an opinionated viewpoint, not a fact. Your biased praise for Canon's marketing strategy in the 1980s belongs on the Canon page, not here. If necessary, one or two sentences more than suffices to indicate Nikon vs. Canon marketing approaches and very simple it is to describe: "Canon built its amateur-level cameras cheaply, especially with regards to internal construction, in order to outsell Nikon in overall volume, and this tactic proved successful."

Period. That is easily demonstrated with a teardown of the cameras involved. Canon's inexpensive A-series cameras in no way compare to the internal construction quality of the FE2. You'll never get a cheap Canon AE-1 to work reliably on Everest. This is also why the FE is a semi-professional camera, in order to distinguish its market niche. This should be pointed out in any objective historical account of Nikon's FE-series cameras. -Tim 13 AUG 2006

And there is certainly no need to use pejoratives such as "absurd Nikon traditionalists" every time someone adds historical and factual information about a Nikon body to the article.