What Nikon has done with the D3200

Bruce writes:

RichA wrote:
They eliminated the "caste system" that has existed in digital since
the dawn of the DSLR. Before digital, film was film. The lowliest
P&S could use the best film, for a modest investment. A $125 Pentax
K1000 could use the same film and get similar results to a $1000
Nikon F3.


Are you sure that the Nikon F3 cost EIGHT TIMES the price of a K1000?

The differential seems far too large to me.

Yeah. I'm sure it didn't, in fact.

However, the body became more important as auto-focus and auto-exposure
became key features. My N90 (first my first auto-focus) cost about
twice what any previous body had ever cost me.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

David Dyer-Bennet wrote in news:ylfkobqntp3x.fsf@dd-
b.net:

Bruce writes:

RichA wrote:
They eliminated the "caste system" that has existed in digital since
the dawn of the DSLR. Before digital, film was film. The lowliest
P&S could use the best film, for a modest investment. A $125 Pentax
K1000 could use the same film and get similar results to a $1000
Nikon F3.


Are you sure that the Nikon F3 cost EIGHT TIMES the price of a K1000?

The differential seems far too large to me.

Yeah. I'm sure it didn't, in fact.

However, the body became more important as auto-focus and auto-exposure
became key features. My N90 (first my first auto-focus) cost about
twice what any previous body had ever cost me.

The F3 was about $1000, and the cheapened version of the K1000 (plastic
top instead of metal, possibly made somewhere other than Japan) was at
one point in 1979 about $125 from New York dealers. Like Canon's cruddy
original Rebel series.