Talk:Nikon FE2

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 compact F-series SLRs a great success based on their collector value today. Time does not prove "Nikon's philosophy to be the right one." The fact that a Nikon FE, FE2 or FM2 has a good chance of working properly a quarter century after it was manufactured, combined with grossly inferior contemporary sales figures to the Canon AE-1, A-1 or AE-1 Program prove that Nippon Kogaku's philosophy to be exactly the wrong one: over-engineered and therefore overpriced for what the market would bear.

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. Nippon Kogaku's insistence on the highest possible quality was noble, but counterproductive when dealing with the ignorant beginner and/or fickle amateur photographer. A camera is to be used immediately - not displayed or shown off, or collected. 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 Paul1513 21:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 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

"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 similar competing designs from Canon, Minolta, Pentax. Tight tolerances, bearing-mounted film wind and shutter, machined metal components, higher-quality electronics, etc, etc. Though they had a fixed prism head and no mirror lockup, they had a number of professional features as standard equipment not always found on amateur cameras from other manufacturers. 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. Hence the term semi-professional - it reflects the real-life usage of these cameras.

"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.

Here is a fact: Canon built its amateur-level cameras cheaply, especially with regards to internal construction, in order to outsell Nikon. 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 an AE1 to work dependably on Everest. This is also why the Nikon FE2 is classed as a semi-professional camera, in order to distinguish its market niche from cheaper amateur-level competitors who were 'advanced' merely in metering options, not in quality or durability. This should be pointed out in any objective historical account of Nikon's FE-series cameras.

And there is certainly no need to use pejoratives such as "absurd Nikon traditionalists" and extoll Canon marketing each and every time someone else besides you has the temerity to add relevant historical and factual information about the subject to the article. -Tim 13 AUG 2006

Attention Editor 4.240.x.x
Due to the fact that you are an anonymous editor whose IP address frequently changes, it is hard for me to find a constant place to contact you. Therefore, please read the message I have left at User talk:4.240.186.92 so that we can resolve any communications issues during the mediation case. Creating an account would also solve this problem. Thanks! Shadow1 16:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a considerable degree of opinion and subjectivity in this discussion. Whilst I admitt the article does stray a little from neutral point of view I think the reposts are a gross over reaction and patently obviously starting from a hostile and extremist pro Canon stance. Have you actually used the FE2? I have and I've used the FE for thirty years too! As to what constitutes a "Professional" camera... well read the contemporary opinions and reviews of the FE2 in the photographic press for a rather different opinion to the diatribe above. "Over engineering" or making something "too good" is difficult to pass off as a design fault. As a matter of fact I know many pro photographers who prefered the FE or FE2 to the then Nikon flagship the F3. The F3 was common equipment amongst press journalists in the 1980s, however press journalists are not the only professional photographers and many other branches of professional photography did not require the facilities of the F3 and chose the FM/FE SLR family. Incidental information on the construction of the FE2. The FE2 has base, top plate, and external panels of steel rather than brass which was used on its filial predecessors. The only major fault with this camera is the inability to lock-up the aperture indexing lever. You can lock up this lever on the FE thus enabling you to use all the Nikkor Pre-AIS lenses which is unfortunately not an option on the FE2. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest nevertheless in my thirty+ years of photography I found most pro photographers used the Nikon system and pro photographers who used the Canon system were always complimentary and admiring of my Nikons as I was of the features of their systems. A pro photographer friend converted to Canon yet never lost his affection for the FE/FM series. I also know a few high-profile explorers and naturalists who swore by the Nikkormat EL/FE/FM series. So I dont think the FE2 and its predessesors weres in any way inferior or an "also ran" badly designed poor relation to the F3. They all had their place and their champions, so show a little camaraderie and respect. I'd never knock the Canon despite being a long term Nikon enthusiast using 7 such film SLRs from the F onwards. Nikon have made a couple of lemons but the FM/FE series are certainly not in that category, and it is misleading and partisan to suggest otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.131.79 (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this camera falls under the prosumer banner. Talking about the varying philosophies of camera makers is missing the point; Wikipedia is supposed to be for neutrally portrayed information, not "informed opinion" or dare I say it, fanboy bickering. Please clean up this page! 92.25.24.18 (talk) 07:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)