|
Post by belgiumreporter on Nov 24, 2015 8:40:35 GMT -5
Ever since the Nikon F was introduced in 1959 there was a demand for "cheaper" nikon cameras. Nikon responded to these needs by introducing the nikkorex 35 in 1960. There was no nikon badge on the camera as nikon wanted to make clear that there's a significant diffrence between the F and the nikkorex. The catalogue price for an F with 50mm f2 and plain pentaperism was in 1960 15.500 Belgium francs, while the nikkorex with build in meter and a fixed 50mm f2.5 was 5900 Belgium francs allmost a third of the price of the F ! Still there was no comparison possible between the two the nikkorex was a recipe for disaster cheaply build( by Mamiya) the nikkorexes all five versions of them ( 35-35II-F-zoom and 35 auto) turned out to be very unreliable cameras that did more damage than good for the Nikon brand.It took Nikon till 1965 to come up with a decent "budget" nikon in the form of the nikkormat Ft wich was basicly a metered F body with fixed prism. This time they've got it right, though "budget must be seen in perspective, rather less expensive. In the catalogue of 1966 the Ftn had a list price of 23.400 Belgium francs, while the nikkormat listed at 18.500 Bfr ( same as a pentax spotmatic) The nikkormat line ran from 1965'till 1978 by wich time, in 1977 the EL2 finally recieved the Nikon badge wich it deserved in 1978 the nikon FE replaced it and made an end to the line of nikkormats. Nikon never made the same mistake again and even their 1979 budget EM series turned out to be fine cameras. Nikkorex a recipe for disaster the first 1960-35 and the last 1964-auto 35 Nikkormat FT, Ft2, EL, ELw and Nikon EL The workhorses for pro's and amateurs alike. Instead of buying a Tn prism for my F i got myselve a (black) Nikkormat Ft2 this gave me the advantage of having two body's wich in 1974 came in very handy when using color and B&W film.
|
|
|
Post by belgiumreporter on Nov 26, 2015 14:05:59 GMT -5
Here's the page in the 1961 catalogue The same catalogue, Leica did know it's place back then and prices where a bit more whitin reason.
|
|
|
Post by paulhofseth on Nov 26, 2015 16:01:03 GMT -5
Maybe economic wobbles due to losses on the Nikkormat was why I managed to buy a very cheap 21\4 in the late 60es.
It was reasonably, but not overwhelmingly sharp - but provided nice starburst decorations when the sun was in the picture. (I concocted an adapter for Leica, never had a Nikon)
p.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Nov 29, 2015 0:00:50 GMT -5
Maybe economic wobbles due to losses on the Nikkormat was why I managed to buy a very cheap 21\4 in the late 60es. It was reasonably, but not overwhelmingly sharp - but provided nice starburst decorations when the sun was in the picture. (I concocted an adapter for Leica, never had a Nikon) p. What makes you think Nikon lost money on the Nikkormat. It was a very profitable camera series for them even after problems with the EL.
|
|
|
Post by paulhofseth on Nov 29, 2015 7:36:48 GMT -5
Possibly misreading Belgium reporters text on nov.21. here
p
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Nov 29, 2015 9:13:31 GMT -5
It was felt in the camera trade that Nikon had made a mistake with a cheaper version of the F, it cost sales of the F, as people bought the just as competent Nikkormat. Obviously swings and roundabouts, what they lost on the F, they gained on the Nikkormat, but at the expense of gaining quite a lot of basic customers who were not really interested in buying Nikon brand Lenses etc. Nikon made a good margin on the Nikkormat, a lot of parts were bought in, to minimise disrupting the F production. Many customers were put off by the general perception that Nikon brand was expensive, and it took a long time for sales to match other budget models from top makers.
Stephen.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Nov 30, 2015 2:59:05 GMT -5
It was felt in the camera trade that Nikon had made a mistake with a cheaper version of the F, it cost sales of the F, as people bought the just as competent Nikkormat. Obviously swings and roundabouts, what they lost on the F, they gained on the Nikkormat, but at the expense of gaining quite a lot of basic customers who were not really interested in buying Nikon brand Lenses etc. Nikon made a good margin on the Nikkormat, a lot of parts were bought in, to minimise disrupting the F production. Many customers were put off by the general perception that Nikon brand was expensive, and it took a long time for sales to match other budget models from top makers. Stephen. I am not certain on what you base your information on. My experience of Nikon goes to extensive contacts with Nikon in Japan and USA, Japanese and Australasian retailing. Nikon always had problems supplying Nikon Fs to meet demand. The camera was due to be released in third quarter 1958 and it slipped to 1959. In 1969 the Japanese press were in arms that there was a 3-4 month wait for an F body. The F2 was originally slated for a 1969 release and even with their new factories coming on Nikon had serious supply problems with the F and F2 until the end of 1973. The Nikkormats were always planned as a mid-upper mass market SLR that could take most of the Nikon system. Its positioning was the same as the Nikon rangefinders for example against the Canon rangefinders of the late 1950s. It was never intended to be a budget model and Nikon never considered it had stolen sales from the F. Nikon had learned the problems of using other companies (Mamiya/Ricoh) and the damage they could cause to reputation and the Nikkormat provided a good balance against the F. There are often internet statements that are in reality unfounded concerning who built what and the level of subcontracting. There were not many parts bought in and those that were inconsequential.
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Nov 30, 2015 8:19:40 GMT -5
I think you are reading more into what was posted than there really is, my experience was selling Nikon in the 70's, and the thoughts are a reflection of mine and many others in the trade. In saying that Nikon never considered it to be taking sales, well Nikon worldwide may have been different, but in the UK this was the opinion of Nikon reps, fellow managers, and the owner of our shops.
Bought in parts was widely reported by Modern Photography, not to knock Nikon, but pointing out that the Nikkormat stretched the factories to the limit, and Nikon wanted to make sure the buying public did get the impression the F series was being downgraded. The Reps pointed this out, and it was discussed at length with them to preserve sales of the F, whilst selling the Nikkormat as heavily as possible. Almost every F owner bought a Nikkormat.
Stephen.
|
|
|
Post by yashica1943 on Dec 3, 2015 9:51:53 GMT -5
My wife had a Nikon EM from about 1985-1995, I used it from time to time. Then I was using a Canon AE - 1 followed by a Minolta 9000. I had used various Nikons on a photographic course, in about 1980 FE & FM I think, I liked them a lot and thought them to be top cameras that I couldn't afford at the time. I never considered our Nikon EM to be a very good, reliable camera.
|
|