Aperture Rings - gone for good?

[musicaleCA]

True. As JerryPH noted, the newbies won't care less. I couldn't care less. Been there, done that (I did shoot some film as a child), and I'm quite happy with my in-camera aperture controls.

 

[CW Jones]

I disagree, I'm a major fan of using the aperture rings, feels more intuitive to me. Luckily I still get to use them because I shoot Pentax with Old super-takumar lenses So I don't mind that modern lenses don't have aperture rings.

cheers

That is the first thing I thought of when I say the title! my Pentax sf-10 and Takumar lenses!

 

[AlexColeman]

Awesome technical progress there.

Technological progress often requires the removal of support for prior iterations of technology, for example, Snow Leopard (10.6) removes support for archaic PPC, and modern cameras don't still use plates to make images, so often, technology, while moving forward, can't be expected to retain functionality with every previous version, that is progress, versus stagnation.

 

[Tasmaster]

Technological progress often requires the removal of support for prior iterations of technology

(emphasis mine)

Is it a trade-off to be able to have USM lenses at reasonable sizes and/or prices? That's the only technical reason i can think of. Remember, i don't miss the functionality, but i'd just like the ring to be there. I probably wouldn't miss it at all if most Nikon's G lenses didn't look fat and awkward next to their older D-type kin.

 

[Garbz]

If you're worried that it "looks" fat then you have got some very serious priority issues, but I agree the old D lenses look better IMO :lmao:

REQUIREMENT?
A counter example, the Nikkor 80-200mm AF-S f/2.8 D had an aperture ring, was smaller, and focused just as fast as the new Nikkor 70-200mm AF-S f/2.8 G VR. In fact the running theory is that the 80-200 AF-S was discontinued because other than the lack of VR it had everything the more expensive 70-200 had AND worked on any camera. It wasn't discontinued because it was old either; the earlier AF edition is still sold.

I don't see any "requirement" to remove the aperture ring. This is a business decision nothing more, just like not putting a $0.20 ring with a tab, with a $0.4 potentiometer on a cheap body like the D90 and below to break backwards compatibility with AI lenses. Or putting a small motor into a D40 (although size limitations may be part of that one so I'm less suspicious here).

 

[Tasmaster]

If you're worried that it "looks" fat then you have got some very serious priority issues

I always thought that how things look and what emotions they convey visually was kind of important in photography... maybe that is just me

I never said that i'm not using them! I even said they are more convenient, and if they take better pictures too then it isn't much of a choice. However, given two otherwise identical products, i would go for the better-looking one.


PS: Nikon themselves claim that they are about "forward compatibility". I don't know if they promised any different in the past.

 

[epp_b]

Garbz: nail, head, you hit it.

 

[Garbz]

What is forward compatibility, and how does it apply to the Nikon FE body that can't use the current lenses. You can't have forward compatibility without backwards compatibility. Again if there was a technical issue that the lens was somehow adversely affected by the presence of the ring then I would be more understanding.

But it isn't, so I'm not.

As far as I can see anyway. I'm open to corrections.

 

[Samriel]

Well, the old timers will say they want the rings, the newer ones will say they could care less.

I'm a fairly "new" photographer, but I regret that I won't be able to use newer Nikon lenses on my F-501, which I'm growing very fond of. I'd even be willing to pay extra for the aperture ring and DoF scale, though I don't believe it to be so much more expensive to produce.

 

[benhasajeep]

I agree and believe it all comes down to cost. It's just like one of my Jeeps. I had to have a clutch master cylinder replaced at Jeeps cost because they decided to use a plastic retaining nut vs. a metal one. They saved probably $.01 per vehicle by going with the cheaper option to use a plastic part. But had to pay for labor and the actual cost of the replacement part because the plastic one failed. Now their bean counters will say well we still saved money. As a penny saved per vehicle is thousands of dollars a year.

And Nikon is not concerned with new lenses on old bodies. The vast majority of their sales are going to be for new on new or fairly new equipment. The apperature ring and necessary parts may only cost $.40 but when you make thousands of lenses it adds up. But what gets me is they have decided to not include any distance information with the new lenses. Not even a couple charts in the lens manual. I can understand it costs a bit to put them on the lens (some don't have the room). But it would be extremely inexpensive to include it in the manual. Probably just fractions of a penny to do it.

But again, the majority of people buying the lenses don't use them, so why spend the money to do it. It's all a money issue!

 

[kundalini]

I could give a $h1+....... if it works, then it works. What is the debate? *scratches head*

 

[Garbz]

But again, the majority of people buying the lenses don't use them, so why spend the money to do it. It's all a money issue!

How about keeping the minority customers happy. After all they add backwards comaptibility to the D200 D300 D700 D3 and D3x for owners of AI lenses. So why not add backwards compatibility to keep the dying film business going.

Oh that's right it's dying

 

[Tasmaster]

What is forward compatibility, and how does it apply to the Nikon FE body that can't use the current lenses. You can't have forward compatibility without backwards compatibility.

Forward compatibility means that new products (cameras) will be compatible with older products (lenses). The Nikon FE is an example of how forward compatibility is not backwards compatibility: older products (cameras) are not compatible with new products (lenses). It's about as honest and straightforward as marketing terms can get.

How about keeping the minority customers happy.

You wish. I wish. But that only makes two of us, somehow i doubt they are going to do research and build production lines and generally have their whole company strategy trying to keep the two of us happy. Big companies need to make big money to stay alive. Even if they wanted to, they can't keep every minority happy*.

That's why specialist companies are small and stay small even when they are succesful and have a huge - relative to their size -queue of orders and looong waiting times - not to mention high prices. A company's size determines things that it can and cannot do.



* Incidentally, that statement is true for any kind of large community; the same goes for democracy, MMORPG companies, politics and religion, big car manufacturers, popular TV and movie franchises, anything big enough to have a minority of some kind.

 

[Garbz]

Oh right, forwards compatibility. I think I'll send my FE into their service department to be upgraded to current technology and have them future proof it for anything else they can come up with for the next 40 years. :lmao: Forwards compatibility is a joke, most companies can't think 2 years ahead. I doubt my Nikon D200 will be compatible with lenses that come out in 2020. That said I doubt it would still be working too. Quality is somethings that companies don't get these days either

I understand where you're coming from Tasmaster, but this is not about doing research or keeping production lines running. This is about keeping a very well documented piece of the lens that has been on every lens for the last 20 years, ON the lens. It's not like we're discussing them making old lenses that few people buy, and would likely not get a return on investment. Just to keep adding this these component to the current lenses to keep some long time customers happy. A few lines of software, a ring, and a mechanical stop to prevent the aperture opening beyond a certain position isn't a big drain on a company who's R&D budget probably easily exceeds the budget of my entire country.

This is what happens when management makes engineering decisions.

 

[Tasmaster]

I am not supporting how big companies work, i am just saying things the way they are. I do miss aperture rings but not for their functionality.

"Forwards compatibility", or any other not immediately clear term is just a careful wording that is vague enough and yet specifically exclusive, enabling a company (Nikon in this case) to make a very specific promise and keep it.

Like i said, those few customers that should be happy are just too few to justify the trouble. Also, no expense is small, no matter how big a company is - and i mean none at all. Even a free toothpick would matter - and people would complain if that was gone too :mrgreen: Remember how not long ago (maybe still?) you could buy a supercar costing a few hundred thousand euros in today's money and still get Ford Escort or Fiat Uno switches in it. I don't like this either, but it comes with the world we live in! There are exceptions, but there is a reason they are exceptions and not the norm.



It would be interesting to hear from a Canon user that was there when they switched to the EOS system.