Nikon 6mm = $140,000?

On 24/04/2012 5:21 a.m., RichA wrote:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk..._ 312353.html

If it's the same lens, then the price went up by (over) $100,000 in two
years.
http://www.petapixel.com/2010/05/26/...behind-itself/

On 2012-04-23 12:50:23 -0700, Me said:

On 24/04/2012 5:21 a.m., RichA wrote:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk..._ 312353.html

If

it's the same lens, then the price went up by (over) $100,000 in two years.
http://www.petapixel.com/2010/05/26/...behind-itself/

For

sale on eBay 2 years ago in leaner times, $34K might be the right price.
Now you have an English Nikon dealer placing his value on, perhaps not
the lens for sale on eBay, but the same model (together with a similar
Nikon "F"), though I suspect they are one and the same with a
pretentious collectors value set.

If the 2010 lens is the one sold to Gray Levett, and if it was sold to
him for £100K/$161K, then there was an opportunistic profit made.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Me" wrote in message
...
On 24/04/2012 5:21 a.m., RichA wrote:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk..._ 312353.html

If it's the same lens, then the price went up by (over) $100,000 in two
years.
http://www.petapixel.com/2010/05/26/...behind-itself/

I remember there was a demo photo taken inside St. Paul's Cathedral (right
under the centre of the dome) and indeed you could see the whole cathedral
and even the floor although the camera was pointing up!

"R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
...
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk..._ 312353.html

If it's the same lens, then the price went up by (over) $100,000 in two
years.
http://www.petapixel.com/2010/05/26/...behind-itself/

I remember there was a demo photo taken inside St. Paul's Cathedral (right
under the centre of the dome) and indeed you could see the whole cathedral
and even the floor although the camera was pointing up!


Seems like another example of being able to do something at any cost
regardless of real need. Still can't imagine why you'd want more than 180deg
field, with two camera's back to back whenever necessary.

A good example of how some collectors will want anything, at any price if
it's scarce enough though.

Trevor.

On 2012-04-24 00:39 , Trevor wrote:
"R. Mark wrote in message
...
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk..._ 312353.html

If it's the same lens, then the price went up by (over) $100,000 in two
years.
http://www.petapixel.com/2010/05/26/...behind-itself/

I remember there was a demo photo taken inside St. Paul's Cathedral (right
under the centre of the dome) and indeed you could see the whole cathedral
and even the floor although the camera was pointing up!


Seems like another example of being able to do something at any cost
regardless of real need. Still can't imagine why you'd want more than 180deg
field, with two camera's back to back whenever necessary.

Nothing wrong with pushing limits. And there may be some talented
photographers who can put such a lens to imaginative, creative use.

I was thinking that it could be best used for video making rather than
still images. With the 1080p full frame and used in action video _very
close_ to the subject in the action, it could be fantastic.

Why would 180° be a limit?


A good example of how some collectors will want anything, at any price if
it's scarce enough though.

It's their money.


--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Seems like another example of being able to do something at any cost
regardless of real need. Still can't imagine why you'd want more than
180deg
field, with two camera's back to back whenever necessary.


}Why would 180° be a limit?

Two camera's back to back give you 360deg, how much more do you need?

Trevor.

"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Seems like another example of being able to do something at any cost
regardless of real need. Still can't imagine why you'd want more than
180deg
field, with two camera's back to back whenever necessary.


}Why would 180° be a limit?

Two camera's back to back give you 360deg, how much more do you need?

Trevor.



Seems to me they might give you a 360-degree view but would miss a slice of
the actual scene the width of the distance between front elements?

--
Frank ess

On 2012-04-24 20:32 , Trevor wrote:
"Alan wrote in message
...
Seems like another example of being able to do something at any cost
regardless of real need. Still can't imagine why you'd want more than
180deg
field, with two camera's back to back whenever necessary.


}Why would 180° be a limit?

Two camera's back to back give you 360deg, how much more do you need?

That's not at all the point of such a lens, esp. when it's a fisheye.


--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

"Frank S" wrote in message
...
}Why would 180° be a limit?

Two camera's back to back give you 360deg, how much more do you need?

Seems to me they might give you a 360-degree view but would miss a slice
of the actual scene the width of the distance between front elements?

True enough, but it seems the demand for any more at exponentially
increasing prices, seems to be *very* limited. I can't say I'm surprised.

Trevor.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
}Why would 180° be a limit?

Two camera's back to back give you 360deg, how much more do you need?

}That's not at all the point of such a lens, esp. when it's a fisheye.

And the numbers sold, and the fact that it's not made any more, indicates
the level of demand. The images available would indicate why AFAIC.
*VERY* few would buy it at a tenth the price. Never had a need for any
fisheye myself though, far too specialised for most people, amateur or pro.

Trevor.