Difference between revisions of "Talk:Nikon FM3A"
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
==Minimal Space Lubrication== | ==Minimal Space Lubrication== | ||
| − | Refers to Nikon's now almost-forgotten practice on older (F3, F2, FM, FM3a, etc) mechanical SLR film cameras of designing and manufacturing mechanical tolerances to be as tight as possible consistent with proper functioning. This design imperative meant minimal area available for lubrication, in turn | + | Refers to Nikon's now almost-forgotten practice on older (F3, F2, FM, FM3a, etc) mechanical SLR film cameras of designing and manufacturing mechanical tolerances to be as tight as possible consistent with proper functioning. This design imperative meant minimal area available for lubrication, requiring smaller amounts of lightweight lubricants, and this in turn required more precisely machined mechanical parts made of wear-resistant alloys. This Nikon practice differs considerably from competitors (Minolta, Canon) who often built their mechanical SLRs with greater tolerances for adequate functioning, and packed the resultant voids with grease. In very cold temperatures, the non-Nikon cameras tend to seize up while the Nikons continue to operate. It is no coincidence that camera techs 'winterising' 35mm SLR cameras for extreme cold weather inevitably chose the Nikon. Conversely, in very hot climates, the excess grease in non-Nikon mechanical cameras tends to melt and flow out from the camera, often combining with sand and grit to jam the mechanism. -Glen. |
Revision as of 21:49, 26 May 2006
"Minuscule" sales?
Though FM3a sales remained steady, they were miniscule compared to Nikon's other cameras
Compared to the sales of this or that digital P&S, no doubt they were. But compared with sales of the F6 or even the F100? At least in possibly atypical Japan, I don't think so. I very often saw (see) them, and Nikon advertised them a lot; it's hard to believe that a company such as Nikon would waste money on the lavish advertising of something that wouldn't sell.
I could very well be wrong. Is there any evidence either way? -- Hoary 04:30, 26 May 2006 (EDT)
Best answer I can give is that based on U.S. camera retail sales, the FM3a was a very minor player in overall Nikon SLR sales, averaging perhaps a few hundred to a few thousand units a month compared to the average Nikon SLR and DSLR at 20,00-90,000 units a month. This is bolstered by the fact that all Nikon FM3a production could be handled on small assembly lines in Japan that did not run full-time, and the camera was never offshored as say the N70 was to Thailand or more recently, to China. Nikon has never denied claims that they did not actually make any consistent profit on FM3a sales. I will see if I can come up with some further information -Glen.
Minimal Space Lubrication
Refers to Nikon's now almost-forgotten practice on older (F3, F2, FM, FM3a, etc) mechanical SLR film cameras of designing and manufacturing mechanical tolerances to be as tight as possible consistent with proper functioning. This design imperative meant minimal area available for lubrication, requiring smaller amounts of lightweight lubricants, and this in turn required more precisely machined mechanical parts made of wear-resistant alloys. This Nikon practice differs considerably from competitors (Minolta, Canon) who often built their mechanical SLRs with greater tolerances for adequate functioning, and packed the resultant voids with grease. In very cold temperatures, the non-Nikon cameras tend to seize up while the Nikons continue to operate. It is no coincidence that camera techs 'winterising' 35mm SLR cameras for extreme cold weather inevitably chose the Nikon. Conversely, in very hot climates, the excess grease in non-Nikon mechanical cameras tends to melt and flow out from the camera, often combining with sand and grit to jam the mechanism. -Glen.
