Aperture Rings - gone for good?

[benlonghair]

Two things I miss from my SRT 201: Focusing screen (which can be fixed) and aperture ring. The ring wouldn't be a big deal if I had a second wheel, but as it stands I have to use the mod-button to do the aperture. Oh well, maybe I'll just upgrade to a D300

 

[Early]

Let's get real! Nikon brought out the G lenses because they already had too many aperture ring lenses out there. It was an economic necessity for them.

 

[Joves]

I don't miss the aperture ring as much as I miss scales.

Apparently photographers don't need those confusing scales on lenses anymore. :er: Heck, I would be even happy if they would just put them in the manuals. But, of course they would have to print another page or two. So, they don't. :er:

I have to agree. I dont care that they eliminated the f-stop ring but, they also eliminated the distance scales. It wouldnt bother me too much about the distance scale if they would put split prisms or, micro prisms back in for manual focusing. No I take that back, I want the distance scales back.

 

[Andrew Boyd]

Well, if you think about it, true "shutters" are gone too. A traditional mechanical film camera had a shutter that moved at an actual 1/500th of a second for that exposure; now what we have is a shutter CURTAIN that basically gets out of the way so an electronic SIGNAL can be transmitted to a CCD for 1/500th of a second....
Personally I am not nostalgic about any of this. Notice any real change in your ability to create images? Isn't what really matters--what's between your ears--unchanged, or even better with the advent of immediate feedback via the screen on the back of your camera?
I love it all.:mrgreen:
Andrew Boyd
TheDiscerningPhotographer.com

 

[Garbz]

Let's get real! Nikon brought out the G lenses because they already had too many aperture ring lenses out there. It was an economic necessity for them.

Can you explain this? Too many aperture ring lenses out there? Why not say there are too many lenses with glass out there. It makes no sense I guarantee there isn't a soul out there who is upgrading their lens because of the lack of aperture ring.

Well, if you think about it, true "shutters" are gone too. A traditional mechanical film camera had a shutter that moved at an actual 1/500th of a second for that exposure; now what we have is a shutter CURTAIN that basically gets out of the way so an electronic SIGNAL can be transmitted to a CCD for 1/500th of a second....

False. This is only employed in very cheap cameras as a way to get around putting very expensive mechanical shutters in, and as a wicked side benefit allows insane flash sync speeds. Digital cameras still very much require the full shutter to prevent a visual effect called blooming and thus increasing the image quality. These days only entry level cameras use this method, and it was only in the very early days (Canon 1D) that pro level cameras did this.

Also what I'm describing isn't nostalgia. It's outright functionality. My 18-70mm doesn't work on my film camera. It has no aperture ring.

 

[blash]

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.

No it does not. Snow Leopard removes PPC support because Apple didn't want to spend development manhours creating and supporting an entirely different code structure. The photographic equivalent would be if Nikon once made but now decides to no longer make Minolta-mount lenses, because that's a very small market these days.

Thank you for defending planned obsolescence. If you want to go buy new equipment every few years because your equipment is "obsolete" then be my guest, but I will go and sink some money in the used market (i.e. where Nikon doesn't get any money from the sale) because that's the only place to find a real all-manual mechanical camera anymore.

I have an F100 though so I personally don't care about aperture rings. When I do get my FM or similar body, I'll be using my 50mm f/1.4 AF-D with some black and white in there - the classic art photography combination. But I don't see why Nikon had to scrap the nicer bodies and the 50 cent aperture rings on pro glass - just a way to force people to upgrade their film bodies if they want to use new lenses.

I can, however, see a reason for it on the consumer side - see Apple design priciples. Apple's design principles were to eliminate as many buttons, knobs, dials, etc. as possible to make it simpler for people to use. At some point, the soccer mom would use a hypothetical AF-D kit lens on her new DSLR, accidentally unlock the ring and then get frustrated when the camera throws a fit since the ring isn't locked and the soccer mom doesn't know what's wrong or how to fix it. Unfortunately, at some point where we stopped making quality equipment, users stereotypically got stupider. But such stupid users are not the type to buy pro glass (they don't buy any more glass, period - just leave the kit lens on forever) and there's really no excuse for not including aperture rings on pro glass.

 

[RJohnston]

Some say "you can't teach an Old Dog new tricks."
BUT I say, it depends on the Dog. This 80 year old Dog loves setting aperture and speed with a wheel on the camera.

Can see them through the viewfinder on my D200 and do not have to take my eyes off the subject to set them. It is all a matter of adjustment. Do anything daily for 12 weeks or create a habit and you feel like you have been doing it that way for a lifetime.

Still use some of my old Nikon lenses on the camera, it makes no difference to me if set on the lens or in the camera. Old Dogs can learn new tricks, Ive been learning them for many decades.

 

[epatsellis]

Can see them through the viewfinder on my D200 and do not have to take my eyes off the subject to set them. It is all a matter of adjustment. Do anything daily for 12 weeks or create a habit and you feel like you have been doing it that way for a lifetime.

Still use some of my old Nikon lenses on the camera, it makes no difference to me if set on the lens or in the camera. Old Dogs can learn new tricks, Ive been learning them for many decades.

Of course I can see the set shutter speed and aperture on my ancient F2 as well (F3, F4, etc as well)

While i dont' have a preference either way, the general build quality has declined drastically as well, and when we're talking several weeks wages for a lens, I'd prefer a manufacturer that acknowledges the fact that you're spending a pile of money, and treat you with the conmensurate respect in exchange for hard earned money. But then again that would be the "old school" way of doing business.

Interesting (and not really off topic) I recently had an issue with my Sinar, after 8 weeks of phone tag and chasing everybody in the service/parts department, I'd had enough. I fired off a letter to the CEO of SinarBron and told him how disappointed I was, having used Sinars for the better part of 2 decades and always receiving nothing short of stellar service from them. I got an email reply back at 9:00 that evening, and had a VP of something or another calling me the next day to make it right. Some times you need to be a squeeky wheel.

 

[Battou]

I has a lens with an aperture slider I has a couple actually.


Personally I perfer the aperture rings my self, especially with my perferred system, gives me far more control under awkward circumstances such as reverse lens where there is no communication between body and lens.

 

[Garbz]

Blash, that is correct in every way. I have had people ask me about it, and then say it's stupid that they need to lock it at f/22. I say, it has a lock, set it once and forget it. Even the soccer mums will change their windows background to one of their little kids. There's no reason they shouldn't be able to "set up" a big and "complicated" DSLR too.

Can see them through the viewfinder on my D200 and do not have to take my eyes off the subject to set them.

I can see the aperture through my viewfinder on my Nikon FE too. Ever wonder why there's two sets of numbers on the aperture ring?