Temporary page for the Nikon FE2 mediation case.
Point of View
editPaul1513
editList comments here.
Contributer 4.240.242.96 seems to hold extremely strong feelings on which Nikon cameras are good and which are bad. In his/her enthusiasm, he/she is unwilling to allow anyone to present statements that deviate in any way from his/her own viewpoints in the Nikkormat and Nikon F2, EM, FG, FM, FE, FM2, FE2, FA and FM3A articles.
To this end he/she has been deleting my opposing viewpoints without checking my references; adding his/her viewpoints without providing supporting references; deleting all my referenced factual statements that tend to disprove his/her views, but keeping any that are supportive; deleting my actual reference entries so that no one can check them for themselves; and deleting my explanations in the Talk pages of why I made edits to his/her edits in the articles thereby obliterating my dissent. For example: the Nikon FA was a bad camera; ergo a referenced statement quantifying the modest but real improvement of early matrix metering systems over older centerweighted meters was deleted, but one saying that matrix metering was still not perfect stayed. Most people do not believe that the FA was a bad camera: the FA won a 1984 European Camera of the Year award, prompting Nippon Kogaku to issue a commemorative gold plated FA model. (However, I am unclear what judging body gave out this award, which is why I didn't mention the gold FA in the FA article.)
Contributer 4.240.242.96 is even sometimes illogically arguing both sides, depending on which way would agree with his/her views. For instance, the fact that the Nikon EM had a successor, the Nikon FG, is a sign of failure; proof that the EM was a bad camera. But the Nikon FE being succeeded by the Nikon FE2 is a sign of success; proof that the FE was a good camera. They were both just evolutionary improvements to keep pace with the marketplace, just as the Canon AE-1, Pentax ME Super and Konica FS-1 were followed by the AE-1 Program, Super Program and FT-1, respectively.
I have tried to accommodate contributer 4.240.242.96 by incorporating passages explaining opposing viewpoints on open issues, and adding referenced explanations to the Talk pages on why I made changes, but he/she responded by deleting my explanations and saying that I was pushing an agenda. Contributer 4.240.242.96 is especially irate over my sometimes positive comments on Nikon's greatest rival, Canon, and their contemporary A-series SLRs; going through great contortions to allow only positive Nikon versus negative Canon comparisons – or just eliminating all comparisons. The Canon A-series were the dominant SLRs of their time and are necessary to any proper appraisal of the zeitgeist.
I even agreed with contributer 4.240.242.96 on many points by weaving his/her ideas into my parts of the articles, but I was still berated because I was too soft in my enthusiasm. For instance, I agree with contributer 4.240.242.96 that a Nikon compact F-series SLR has a better chance of working today after twenty or thirty years, without requiring maintenance or repair, than a Canon A-series SLR, because of the difference in internal construction quality. But this is not a guarantee. I added a large paragraph to the Nikon FM, FE, FM2, FE2, FA articles explaining that they were very durable, but since I was not completely uncritical, it were replaced by one that was much more one-sided (and not supported by any references).
Let me discuss the Nikon FM2/FM2N in more detail. Yes, the FM2 was an excellent, praiseworthy camera. But, it was just not a professional level camera. Even in some common situations, such as shooting in the rain, the FM2 was a poor choice – no weatherproofing. Yes, an FM2 would probably survive a trip to the Sahara or Everest, but it was not the professional's first choice. Nippon Kogaku rated the compact F-series at its normal amateur level durability: 75,000 picture cycles before breakdown. A pro Nikon has been rated at 150,000 cycles for decades. If I remember correctly, the FM2 was never qualified for spaceflight by NASA; the pro level Nikon F3 was.
Even on seemingly innocuous things, contributer 4.240.242.96 insists on having it his/her way. I am bewildered that he/she keeps editing "Nikon-designed, Copal-made focal plane shutter" down to "Nikon-designed focal plane shutter" in the Nikon FM2, FE2 and FA articles. I have at least six different references confirming that these shutters were indeed designed by Nikon and made by Copal. Is contributer 4.240.242.96 also going around Wikipedia deleting all references to Sony making the CCD for Nikon's digital SLRs? Both Copal and Sony are premier companies in their industries and it does not reflect negatively on Nikon to use their services.
I think that the root of our disagreement may be that contributer 4.240.242.96 is viewing the pros and cons of these cameras from an absolutist collector's point of view. I think that this is a mistake. The value of a Nikon camera should not be judged exclusively by its value as a collectible. Nothing should judged solely by what collectors think of it twenty, thirty or forty years after it was manufactured.
Nikon cameras are intended to be working cameras and the Nippon Kogaku/Nikon company is a profit making enterprise in a competitive industry. Therefore, instead standing in today and looking backwards, I ask everyone to stand in yesterday, look around and think about other very important questions: What market segment was Nippon Kogaku targeting with each camera (unlike Leicas today, Nikons have almost never been targeted at collectors)? Was each camera commercially successful, and did making or not making sales goals help or harm NK's profits and market share? How did the camera compare to the competition; not just in quality, but was it a landmark in technology or sales (this greatly impacts the future health of the company)? Could the camera take good pictures under the anticipated operating conditions (even considering taking an amateur level camera to the top of Everest is plainly unwise)? Were buyers generally satisfied with their camera purchase (the consumer should be the primary judge of the price to performance ratio)?
A possibly overwrought analogy: Vincent van Gogh didn't paint "Sunflowers" so that an eccentric Japanese gazillion collector could pay $80 million for it a century after his death. He wanted to sell it to put food in his mouth. The fact that van Gogh only managed to sell one painting in his lifetime indicates an obvious contemporary rejection of his style – no matter how much it is admired today. It also meant that he lived and died in abject poverty.
The historic record is very clear; the decade circa 1975-1985 marks a major turning point in the long running rivalry between Nikon and Canon for Japanese camera supremacy. During this decade Nippon Kokagu K. K. and Canon Camera Co. consciously chose different engineering strategies for their SLRs, which can very simplistically be called a high road for Nikon and a low road for Canon. And what were Nikon and Canon's market share and consumer reputation before versus after this period? As a Nikon fan, it pains me to admit it, but Nikon reigned supreme in 1975, while by 1985 Canon had gained ascendancy (certainly in the amateur market; the pro market took a little longer). (The Canon AE-1 seems to have had a 25% market share all by itself and Canon's "It's so advanced, it's simple." slogan was hard to avoid.) It is misleading and one-sided to praise the Nikon compact F-series for their durability, but ignore their commercial difficulties.
As I said above, yes, a Canon AE-1 or AE-1 Program probably didn't reach its twentieth birthday in as good a shape as a Nikon FE or FE2. However, history shows that most camera buyers DID NOT CARE and (given realistic needs of consumers) did not need to have cared. Between 1976 and 1987, SLRs sold by the millions to low level amateurs attracted by fantastical visions of artistic greatness created by very ingenious ad-men. But, in reality, any SLR was far too much camera for them. They left the market as soon as they figured that out. (The "natural" US market for SLRs seems to be have held steady at about 750,000 per year for 40 years.)
My experience in the mass market is personal, but not atypical or abnormal. I cared about quality, so I did buy a Nikon FE2. It still works, thanks to three repair sessions, but is now in retirement. A friend did not care; he bought a Minolta X-700, because lower price and a program mode were more important to him. He only used it for a year (it was not broken). My sister chose a Pentax Super Program because of lower price and a program mode, too. Five years of on and off use, and into the closet. A boss bought a Pentax K1000 for price alone (well, there was that vision of being an artist too). I only saw her with it for a year. My other sister did buy a Nikon, but it was an FG for, yes, lower price and a program mode; plus to borrow my lenses. She took photography more seriously and used it for thirteen years. Still works. An uncle had earlier bought a Nikon EM, for inexpensive convenient snapshooting. One vacation season and then point-and-shoots. There was a neighbor with a Canon AE-1. I don't know why he chose it but he kept it for at least four years. After that, he turned to video. I didn't know anyone with an Olympus. A classmate acquaintance with well-to-do parents had a big Nikon FE2 rig: body, flash, motor drive and a brace of lenses. I was quite jealous – my summer job proceeds couldn't cover anything that complete. Virtually all other camera users I knew used non-memorable point-and-shoots.
Although I am often frustrated, shocked and/or appalled at the cr*p most amateurs will accept in a camera or a photograph, it is a cold, hard fact that they do not care about construction, optical or even image quality, are unwilling to learn about composition and are blissfully ignorant about shutter speeds and f-stops. All they want is a (barely visible) image, convenience and low price above all. It is not a sin to give these amateurs what they want so that the company can stay in business. Amateur level quality is no problem for an amateur. It is useless for either contributer 4.240.242.96 or I to get upset over this. I just bite my tongue, go out and shoot more pictures. It is not as though Nikon ever abandoned the high end market; anyone can still buy a Nikon F6 today, if you are willing to pay US$2700.
I wish to apologize to contributer 4.240.242.96 for using the phrase "absurd Nikon traditionalists" in the Nikon FG article. It was poorly phrased and misinterpreted as a personal insult. I thought that I had made it clear that the FG was an beginner level camera and that it was obvious that a traditionalist could not be a beginner. The point I trying to get across was: "in a strange turn of events, some experienced but conservative Nikon users got very upset over a camera meant for beginners."
Anonymous user
edit"In his/her enthusiasm, he/she is unwilling to allow anyone to present statements that deviate in any way from his/her own viewpoints..." in the Nikkormat and Nikon F2, EM, FG, FM, FE, FM2, FE2, FA and FM3A articles."
Not true. Not at all. But there is no need for an extended (and redundant) essay on Canon/Nikon marketing strategies on each and every individual Nikon camera model pages. Perhaps Paul1513 should be given a new page entitled "Nikon 1970s marketing philosophy and why it was a failure." In a camera model review, one or two sentences would suffice. Nikon built most its 35mm SLR cameras to a much higher standard, Canon did not, in order to outsell Nikon. Nikon's attempt to duplicate inexpensively-made cameras like the AE1 with the Nikon EM, FG, and FG-20 was a commercial failure - this is irrefutable. 'Nuff said!
Facts are not in dispute here, as Paul1513 alleges. The facts are known, but which ones should be given emphasis, and how should they be INTERPRETED? Many of my facts are well documented in the very same Nikon circles, books, and documents cited by Paul1513. I also my have my experience in 25 years of 35mm photography and camera repair. That doesn't make me 'absurd', or a 'traditionalist', but it does mean I know what I'm talking about.
I also have had my comments reverted or deleted wholesale without notification by Paul1513. My issues with his re-writing of Nikon history are more fully detailed in my reponses on the Nikon FE and FE2 discussion page, so I won't repeat them again. I understand that for some reason he considers Canon marketing important on a Nikon model page, and is a fan of certain low-level or obscure Nikon models, but a balanced judgment needs to apply. If Paul extolls the matrix metering of the (unsuccessful) Nikon FA, that is fine, but he should also leave in the fact that such metering was primitive, proved less than satisfactory to many owners, and that the additional electronics affected the FA's reputation and reliability. A visit to the photo.net archives or kyphoto's camera repair forum will turn up YEARS of comments on these issues. Readers should also be aware of the historical FACT that while many professional photographers (Galen Rowell, Robert McQuilkin, etc. ad nauseum) chose to use the better Nikon compact SLRS along with or in place of the Nikon F/F2 for professional use, nothing remotely similar took place with professionals trading the Canon F1 for the AE-1, Pentax LX for the Pentax ME Super, etc. There's a REASON.
Now, I would not object in the least to Paul1513 adding each and every one of his opinions and yes, his interpretations of Nikon history to the current Nikon model wikis, with the proviso that my information not be deleted, and that each individual article not be completely drowned in a sea of extended and redundant prose concerning Nikon vs. Canon marketing, Canon camera sales, and the 1970s amateur photography market.
-Tim 24 August 2006
Discussion
editNow, if I'm understanding this correctly, some of Paul1513's more pro-Nikon edits have been removed by Tim. While I don't necessarily agree with the constant changing of Paul1513's comments on the talk page, I do see Tim's point. Some of your edits, Paul1513, while not bad in any way, seem just a bit too detailed, giving some the impression of a pro-Nikon stance. However, Tim, that doesn't necessarily give you the right to remove the edits. Instead of simply walking the 3RR line on this issue, why not work together to develop edits that both of you are able to agree on? Certainly if you both have your own knowledge of Nikon cameras, you could develop edits that would be well suited to the articles in question and also would not provoke any further reversions. Shadow1 17:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
-Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. - Tim 25 AUG 2006
Hi Shadow1! Hi Tim (it's good to know your name)! It's Paul1513. I'm sorry for the delay in responding.
I would love to seek a middle ground with you, Tim. Perhaps Shadow1 can continue to mediate.
Do you wish to begin with some small points; such as the "Nikon-designed, Copal-made focal plane shutter" phrasing mentioned above, that I think you made an error in opening the Nikkormat article by saying "Nikkormat (Nikomat in Japan)" - Nikomats were also sold in Europe - or that you insist on using the present tense, while I insist on the past tense.
Also, when you reverted, Tim, you deleted large amounts of simple technical information, such as: "In [the FE2's] manual mode, a black needle pointed out the shutter speed recommended by the built-in, open aperture, through-the-lens (TTL), silicon photodiode (SPD) light meter, with its classic Nikon 60/40 percent centerweighting, while a translucent green needle showed the actual camera set shutter speed. The photographer would adjust the shutter speed to freeze or blur motion and/or the lens aperture f-stop to control depth of field (focus) until the needles aligned. In automatic mode, the FE2's black needle indicated the shutter speed automatically set by the electronic microprocessor in response to the light reaching the meter. The green needle just indicated that the FE2 was in 'A' mode." What was wrong with this? You also deleted a couple of photos I donated to Wikipedia.
Or, would you, Tim, like to tackle what you pinpointed as our biggest problem immediately; that we do not yet agree on the "balanced judgement [that] needs to [be] appl[ied]." I think that you are going too far in your praise of Nikkormats and the Nikon FM, FE, FM2/FM2N, FE2 and FM3A, and too far in your condemnation of the Nikon EM, FG and FA. I believe that you are unbalanced in holding Nikkormats and the Nikon FM, FE, FM2/FM2N, FE2 and FM3A above criticism, thereby misleading readers into thinking that everyone was impressed by them or that they could realistically meet the toughest professional standards. I agree that they are more durable than regular amateur level SLRs (including Canon's), and that some professional photographers have used them. I have repeatedly called each "one of the finest SLRs of its generation." I would like to see acknowledgment that most amateurs found that durability too expensive or preferred gee-whiz features instead. I disagree that durability trumps all other factors. In addition, instead of your interpretation of the Nikon FM, FE, FM2/FM2N, FE2, FA and FM3A as semi-professional level cameras, I want the articles to defer to Nippon Kogaku/Nikon's own judgement that they were advanced amateur level cameras that could not be expected to withstand the rigors of heavy daily professional use.
Conversely, I believe that you are unbalanced in holding the Nikon EM, FG and FA beneath contempt and misleading readers into thinking that they are plastic lumps incapable of producing a good photo. I agree that the EM and FG were commercial duds and have only amateur level durability. I would like to see acknowledgment that most of the amateurs who bought them found them good (I'm not asking for "excellent") cameras anyway. If you check the edit history of the EM article, you'll notice that other contributers have disagreed with your overly harsh criticism. (By the way, why is it OK for you to discuss the EM/FG's sales difficulties, but not OK for me to discuss the FE/FE2's.) I agree that the FA's matrix metering was not perfect and caused electronics reliability woes. I would like to see acknowledgment that the FA was mechanically sound and that its metering was still slightly more accurate than centerweighted metering. Again, durability is not to only issue to consider. What say you, to my questions in the Point of View above?
Tim, you also mentioned "an extended (and redundant) essay on Canon/Nikon marketing strategies on each and every individual Nikon camera model pages." This topic may be too limited to deserve it, but I think that the essays are important. I created an extended Design History section when I wrote each substantive article (I was 198.83.X.X. before I was Paul1513) to give each camera some context. They did not only mention Nikon and Canon, but Pentax, Minolta and Olympus too (even Ricoh a couple of times). Canon is only mentioned more often because Nikon and Canon were the biggest players. Do you wish to remove all historical analyses from all of these articles and limit them to purely technical information? Personally, I think that would destroy most of the usefulness of these articles and turn them into spec sheets. For most people, a good camera is more than just a list of specs, as your passion over these articles proves. (Shadow1, do you have further comments about this too?)
We may be experts on SLRs and their history, Tim, but I did not assume that readers of these articles knew anything about them. Instead, I assumed that if someone was looking up these cameras, he/she would appreciate some background in addition to specifications. I tried to be thorough, not only in marketing, but also in features evolution - you'll notice that I even specified that these were FILM cameras in the intros, because I knew that people would actually forget what film was in the foreseeable life of Wikipedia. Naturally, the articles lengthened. I think I made the right choice; these articles regularly hit in Google's top five under the appropriate search terms. However, Tim, if you can condense the information, that's OK by me.
About redundancy, if you look carefully at the articles, I'm sure you'll see that huge chunks of all of them are boilerplate text - in the intro and Features sections too. I admit it: these cameras are so closely related that I got lazy and reused text to avoid writing the same thing ten different ways. If you want, Tim, we could consolidate the individual Nikon FM, FE, FM2/FM2N, FE2, FA and FM3A articles into one big "Nikon compact F-series SLR" article to eliminate redundancy, a la the Nikkormat article. I have been wondering about this for months and I have one 90% done already, if you want to review it. The Nikon EM and FG could be combined too. The individual articles would be reduced to squibs with links to the combined one. ("The Nikon F-X was a member of the Nikon compact F-series of 35 mm SLR cameras; click HERE for main article.") Shadow1, would this be better?
About the Nikon FA: I did "leave in the fact that [its matrix] metering was primitive, proved less than satisfactory to many owners, and that the additional electronics affected the FA's reputation and reliability." I said "As the first generation of matrix metering, AMP was hardly foolproof. For instance, holding the FA vertically instead of horizontally might cause the meter to give different readings of the same scene" and "problems with all of the sophisticated electronics meant that … the FA picked up a reputation for unreliability (for a Nikon) and ultimately did not sell as well as hoped." I also left in that the Nikon FG and Series E lenses lost money and I never claimed that professional photographers used the Canon AE-1 or Pentax ME Super. I don't understand, Tim. What is the problem?
Or perhaps, Tim, you have something else entirely that you would like to focus on first?
One last thing, Tim. Why are you so angry with me? Maybe it's just your writing style, but I am disturbed by the rage I feel in your words. When I read "'Nuff said!" it felt like you were screaming at me to shut up. I offered you an apology earlier for an inadvertent insult, but it seems not to have been enough for you. I do not believe that "traditionalist" is an insult; I would happily accept that I am a photographic traditionalist. What else can I do?
Tim, I have sympathy your positions, because it is 90% the same as mine. It's just that you are far too possessive of the small points that separate us. I ask you to consider my comments sympathetically too. I am sure that we can reach across the last 10%. Please take this as the compliment it is meant to be, but I can easily imagine you with a nice Nikon F2 Photomic.
Shadow1; may I restore my Talk comments or do you want to do that yourself? I would append Tim's rebuttal to follow mine. Also, how do I restore the photos I donated to Wikipedia that Tim deleted when he reverted the FE2 and FG articles? Lastly, I'm sorry for not being clear: Tim has actually accused me of "vandalism" and "agenda pushing by Canon fanatic" for trying to moderate his praise and criticism by pulling them more toward the middle and having Canon references that do not always end with Canons (especially the AE-1) looking grossly inferior to Nikons. For instance: "Like other first generation autoexposure SLRs, the Nikkormat EL was a conservative evolutionary design. They can all be described as mechanical cameras with electronic controls grafted on. In this way, they are more experimental prototypes than successful cameras. Autoexposure SLRs would not really come into their own until the revolutionary Canon AE-1 came out in 1976." was not the praise Tim wanted. Paul1513 17:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would be happy to continue mediation, Paul1513. As for your "talk page comments", I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to, but feel free to restore them!
- I believe that if you both want to merge all of the articles into a "superarticle," I would recommend creating the superarticle page first, then adding in the {{mergefrom}} and {{mergeto}} templates, as described in the merging process available at WP:Merge. I am available to assist you both in this process, if that becomes the consensus, although be aware of the potential consequences of merging an article. Finally, about the images: Assuming that the images have not been deleted since you uploaded them, you can go back in the article history to retrieve the image links from the old article. Again, this is all based on whether you both have reached consensus on this issue. Shadow1 17:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Shadow1, this is Paul1513 again. When I asked if I could restore my Talk comments, I meant those comments I added to the Talk pages of the various articles under dispute to explain why I edited Tim's additions. Tim took exception to my comments and edited them so much as to virtually delete them (and did actually delete them in one case). I want to make sure that I don't need to discuss this with Tim. Paul1513 20:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Yes, you should restore the comments. Shadow1 17:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as there is no further discussion on this issue, I'll close the case. Shadow1 17:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Shadow1, this is Paul1513. If you close this case, does that mean that Tim's edits stand or may I make edits. I don't want Tim's edits to be the final word, just because he stalled (if he is stalling) the case to a standstill. Paul1513 20:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)