Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
Film SLR's
FE2 - Digital Equivalent
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Retro" data-source="post: 486733" data-attributes="member: 37517"><p>After my first post, I remembered that the Df was intended to be a digital FE2, but I forgot about it because of its price tag, and the fact that it really doesn't fill the position in digital photography today that the FE2 filled in 1985, compared to the F3 and F4.</p><p></p><p>The FE2 was released at $550US, a week's wage for some of us back then. The D7200 retails for $1,196, also a week's wage for some of us. With inflation, and looking at cost alone, it is the same camera. Correct me if I'm wrong, be I think the FE2 was a semi-pro camera, often stored in a pro's camera bag as a back up to the F3, and I'm sure many National Geographic photos were taken with an FE2. I'm sure the D7200 occupies the same roll today. A pro can put an FX lens on a D7200 and get some stunning photos.</p><p></p><p>This was really the reason for my first post. Being DX the D7200, in my mind, can't compare to a film camera. Being $3,000 the Df, in my thinking, also cannot compare to the FE2.</p><p></p><p>It seems to me that the Df is the professional photographer's vacation toy. He uses his D810 or D3 all day, and when he goes out for a day of relaxation he takes his Df.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Retro, post: 486733, member: 37517"] After my first post, I remembered that the Df was intended to be a digital FE2, but I forgot about it because of its price tag, and the fact that it really doesn't fill the position in digital photography today that the FE2 filled in 1985, compared to the F3 and F4. The FE2 was released at $550US, a week's wage for some of us back then. The D7200 retails for $1,196, also a week's wage for some of us. With inflation, and looking at cost alone, it is the same camera. Correct me if I'm wrong, be I think the FE2 was a semi-pro camera, often stored in a pro's camera bag as a back up to the F3, and I'm sure many National Geographic photos were taken with an FE2. I'm sure the D7200 occupies the same roll today. A pro can put an FX lens on a D7200 and get some stunning photos. This was really the reason for my first post. Being DX the D7200, in my mind, can't compare to a film camera. Being $3,000 the Df, in my thinking, also cannot compare to the FE2. It seems to me that the Df is the professional photographer's vacation toy. He uses his D810 or D3 all day, and when he goes out for a day of relaxation he takes his Df. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
Film SLR's
FE2 - Digital Equivalent
Top