|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nikon article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 List of products
- 2 Nikon name
- 3 Nikonos: Current or obsolete?
- 4 18-200mm AF-S VR DX Nomenclature
- 5 Pronounciation
- 6 Nikon Precision Inc.
- 7 Spin-off the product list?
- 8 Nikon and Hollywood
- 9 Microscopes!
- 10 Merger of Speedlight into this article
- 11 Proposed external link
- 12 Redundant images
- 13 Some old page history
- 14 Nikon Ohi Plant and NASA space cameras
- 15 History -- Digital Photography
- 16 Why no mention of rifle scopes?
- 17 A red link has been created based on the following.....
- 18 References needed
- 19 NPS
- 20 Nikon DLSR
- 21 Nikon sponsorship of Galatasaray SK Football Team
- 22 Voting about new Template:Nikon DSLR cameras proposals
- 23 Relationship to Mitsubishi
List of products
What about the nikon N75???? I do not see a page on that... Vesiv... In terms of listing products, I believe we should be careful. Only products that are very significant and noteworthy should be listed. I guess that would probably amount to a couple or a few of products, over the history. Maintaing a list of current products is totally outside the scope of Wikipedia. -- Egil 19:04, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Agree, changed, be brave! Edit when you think it should be done! Stefan 15:41, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
- My inclination would be to scrub most of the items (let alone the links to them) but I'm a newcomer here so I resisted the temptation. However, I did add some. The famed F-mount 105/2.5, for example, derives from Nihon Kōgaku's Leica screwmount Nikkor 105/2.5 -- yet screwmount lenses weren't mentioned. Indeed, Nikon's own rangefinder cameras and lenses weren't mentioned. So I put in mentions of Nikon S-mount, LTM, Bronica, etc. Hoary 14:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Maybe it's better to move the list of products to a separate page, since it'll be quite long once completed. -- Koffieyahoo 08:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- If someone wants to do that, it might be a good idea, although I think it's not too bad as it stands - Is there some guideline to max page size? Are we almost there yet? Maybe the other option is to produce some sort of compact table of products.
- However I think should get rid of the S models e.g. there is currently a Nikon D2Hs page and a link to a non existant Nikon D2H page. There is also a Nikon D70 and Nikon D70s page. The S model should be merged unless the differences can't reasonably be covered on one page. The S page should be a redirect to the main page.
I believe the name Nikon comes from Nippon Koroku or similar meaning Japan Camera Company, but I'm not sure of the correct spelling. Lee M 19:04, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- The change in name came well after the war. Offhand I don't know when so I'm making no change. "Nippon Kogaku" may have been the name inscribed on the products but a correct transcription from the Japanese would be "Nippon Kōgaku" so that's what I've corrected it to. Hoary 14:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm questioning the relevance or prominence of two things here... --Ds13 06:39, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- 1) Does the current long-exposure photograph (along with the "lightvector" and software package references) really enhance a Nikon page? It seems to me the connection between Nikon and the photo is fairly incidental or at least distracting for a high-level Nikon article. Perhaps a photo of a Nikon camera body or lens would be more appropriate? I've thumb'ed two possibilities here, but there may be better ones.
- 2) The current D2H text tells us the camera "is useful for being 'undigital' (http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~guy/mscprojects/) (achieving continuous analog reconstructive imaging)". The undigital concept and research link seems overly esoteric and if you visit the URL given, there are no D2H or even Nikon references that I can find.
- I also fail to see the value of the 'undigital' reference and web link. mvdhout 09:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nikonos: Current or obsolete?
Thought Nikonos underwater cameras went out of production. Could be wrong. Fg2 07:33, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, it's out of production. (But -- since Wikipedia isn't a camera retailer or wholesaler -- how does this make it "obsolete"?) Hoary 14:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
18-200mm AF-S VR DX Nomenclature
I am changing the nomenclature for the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR DX, which currently specifies it as 18-200 mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S VRII DX. This nomenclature currently in use is incorrect.
My basis for this is in Nikon's direct nomenclature for the lens as specified, among other things, on their webpage for the 18-200 VR, and the box and instruction manual of the lens itself.
Also, using a II in the name of a subsystem of the lens would not be appropriate, as several lenses have had a II designation applied to them for major overhauls, such as the changes of the 300mm, 400mm, 500mm, and 600mm AF-S telephotos, which affected the entire lens including in some cases the optical design.
This is the first version of this lens, and so it would not be in character to use a II in the name.
The full nomenclature of the lens on the Nikon website is: 18-200mm f/3.5~5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR DX and this is the version I will use in the article.
However, I will include in the main VR discussion that the 18-200mm and 105mm AF-S VR lenses use VR-II systems.
How to pronounce "Nikon"? "Nee-kon" (like in "needle") or "Nai-kon" (like in "night")? "N'i-kon" or "Ni-k'on"? Would be nice to put the correct transcription to the article as well.
Honeyman 22:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- In the United States, it's always pronounced your second way: NAI-kon. Reference: Paul Simon singing "I got a Nikon camera;" in his song Kodachrome (although he sings it in his slightly-odd accent).
- Atlant 00:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- The syllable NI in Japanese sounds similar to the English word knee. KON is one syllable similar to the English word con as in 'con artist'. Brettr 01:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, the second syllable is more like "cone" as in ice cream cone. I do translations for them: "Knee-Cone" --Everyguy 23:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Coming back from 3 years in Japan I must tell you that pronouncing japanese 'kon' as 'cone' is an American/Canadian affectation, and one that Japanese people find confusing. For example most Americans will pronounce the name 'Toshi' as 'Toe-shi' using the long 'o' sound (as in 'coat') rather than the short 'O' sound (as in 'box'). Listen to the .ogg file (spoken by a Japanese native) for an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
This ogg file here seems to point to the correct pronunciation being the "Nee-kon" way: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Nikon.ogg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aphanes (talk • contribs) 11:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Nikon has employees all over the world and they generally pronounce it the way it is pronounced in that region, i.e. European Nikon employees use the generally accepted European pronunciation (Nick-on), US Nikon employees say (Nai-kon), etc. The company doesn't force their own employees to pronounce it any particular way, so I think that wikipedia should just ignore the pronunciation issue. See  or  --rogerd (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Nikon Precision Inc.
Should Nikon Precision Inc. (NPI) have it's own article? Furthermore, NPI is just one of several semiconductor photolithography sales and service arms for Nikon Corporation in Japan (e.g. Nikon Precision Europe [although they share the same website], Nikon Precision Korea, Nikon Precision Taiwan, Nikon Precision Singapore, and Nikon Precision Shanghai). Maybe these, too, should have their own article. Or an umbrella article encompasing all; there are also the primary design and manufacturing facilities in Japan. Attempting to reconcile with the structure on Nikon's website at http://www.ave.nikon.co.jp/pec_e/network/index.htm .
Spin-off the product list?
The list of Nikon products is large and somewhat tedious. Can we spin this off into a separate article "Nikon products"? ...Ah, I just found the old page "List of Nikon products" which was merged into this article. However at the time of merger (in 2004) that article was only a stub, it's now become quite substantial. Does anyone else think the page should be revived, or should we just let sleeping dogs lie? Tocharianne 17:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Nikon and Hollywood
Have you noticed that every single film in hollywood only uses Nikon cameras? never do you see a canon, what is that about and can we add it to the article. only if the film has in sports do you see canons in the bg, but from jurasic park to the omen you only see Nikons.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 17:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Just thought I would point out that is a completely ridiculous statement for anyone reading this, Nikon cameras and lenses are not even the majority of what 'hollywood' uses for past and present productions. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Athiril
To the last commenter; I believe he ment "shown in the film" not "used to make the film". I also want to add that I have the same impression as HalaTruth; when SLR cameras are being shown (prominently) on screen, and the name isn't covered up (as is sometimes the case), it is quite often a Nikon camera. Now, if only someone were to dig up a source who mentions this... Katana (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
We really need to say more about Nikon's microscopes - Nikon are one of the Big Four (well, only four, really) microscope makers, along with Zeiss, Leica and Olympus. They really do make exceedingly good scopes - i have a few hundred thousand pounds' worth of their kit sitting a few metres away from me.
Merger of Speedlight into this article
- Merge--PremKudvaTalk 06:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Don't merge There can be much written about the Nikon flash systems, just as there is an article about the Canon EOS flash system (Speedlite). --rogerd 02:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Do not merge - The article needs to be expanded to be similar to the Canon Speedlite article. ɤіɡʍаɦɤʘʟʟ 23:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The speedlights article should be expanded rather than merged. The long list of speedlights in this article should be deleted - it has zero knowledge content. Paul Fisher 10:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
No the site is not very informative Compwhizii 19:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed picture of a Nikon D700 with lens and Motorrad-67 put it back, commenting, "[T]hen why not delete all photos of cameras?" Nice idea, but really now.... Articles should only have pictures which support understanding of the topic. The topic here is "Nikon." We have illustrations of an unadorned D3 body, and an outfitted D200. There's nothing more you can learn about "Nikon" from a picture of a lesser-outfitted D700 here. --Stybn (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Some old page history
See Talk:Nikon/History for some old page history that used to be at the title Nikon. Most of it has been history merged, but some of the history cannot be placed anywhere else. Graham87 14:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Nikon Ohi Plant and NASA space cameras
I've made a new page under Nikon Ohi Factory. Please have a look and expand if possible, the info can be merged too if it can't stand alone.
What do u think of a new section for NASA space cameras. Nikon has a signification involvement with NASA since the early Nikon Photomic FTN used in Apollo 15 to the latest order for Nikon D2xs. kchanyr 19:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kchanyr (talk • contribs)
History -- Digital Photography
1) The first line of this section -- "Nikon created some of the first digital SLRs (DSLRs) as research projects for NASA in 1991." -- seems clearly wrong. The article cited says the camera in question was developed by NASA, not Nikon. I think it's clear that NASA simply took a Nikon camera body and did their own digital modifications to it. If Nikon was involved at all, it was only peripherally.
2) The following sentence -- "After a late-1990s partnership with Kodak to produce digital SLR cameras based on existing Nikon film bodies, Nikon released the Nikon D1 SLR under its own name in 1999" -- is also wrong and incomplete. Nikon and Kodak did not really have a partnership -- Kodak simply bought Nikon bodies from Nikon USA and modified them in its own facilities. (see this article, based on interviews with Kodak's Professional Digital Still Camera personnel: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6463-7191)
On the other hand, Nikon *did* have a partnership to develop pro digital SLR still cameras, called the E2/E3, with Fujifilm *before* the D1 was introduced, so the D1 was not Nikon's first DSLR released under its own name. See Nikon's corporate history (for the year 1995):
- Thanks for all the great info. Please feel free to incorporate it into the article. --Stybn (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Why no mention of rifle scopes?
- I removed the rifle scope links since they were linkspam. Wikipedia is not a directory to help someone find rifle scopes. Article and links should be info on the company, not how to buy their products. Products should be referenced to neutral third party info on them. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Cleaned up allot of WP:PEACOCK and unreferenced statements. Tagged others since there are long sections of claims and analysis with nary reference in sight. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Should Nikon Professional Services (NPS) be included in the realm of this article? AFAIK it is not a subsidiary, but it does, in some ways behave like one. J Y Chan 16:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanjyj (talk • contribs)
- Nikon Professional Services is a really important item. Very useful and active service for professionals. Was Nikon the first company starting such a global and extensive service? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Nikon sponsorship of Galatasaray SK Football Team
An editor introduced a section on Nikon sponsoring a football time. I removed it on the grounds that Nikon has many sponsors many things. A Nikon webpage includes information about how to request sponsorship. The editor reinserted the material. I looked at the editor's contributions, and the editor's significant focus is Galatasaray SK. I removed the material a second time with an edit comment to seek consensus on the talk page. The editor reverted without coming to this talk page.
I believe the material is WP:UNDUE. Nikon's interests are widespread, it sponsors many activities and events, and this particular sponsorship does not seem that significant outside of soccer/football. Nikon has become the official photo/camera sponsor of the team. The soccerex site states, "The Japanese firm has been a strong supporter of football, with many years of involvement in the Asian game through partnerships with events such as the Asian Cup and Asian Champions League." Although it may be the first Turkish sponsorship or first team sponsorship, the impact appears to be more about G SK than Nikon.
- Commenting on the agreement, Nikon Middle East FZE Managing Director Takashi Yoshida emphasized the global importance of the sponsorship agreement and said: “We are glad and honored to become an official sponsor of Galatasaray which is one of the most successfull and well-known football clubs not only in Turkey, but also among Europe and the Middle-East countries with its supporters, increasing day by day. Turkey has been the strategically very important market for Nikon with its young and hardworking population. As Nikon family, we chose Galatasaray which we are perfectly sure about its brand value and we believe that we are going to implement such good and successfull works together with passion, friendship and precision. As Galatasaray chose us, we chose Galatasaray as our partner. We say ‘I am Galatasaray’ and we support our team.”LardoBalsamico (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
None of the three sources appear independent. The first is G SK. The second is Nikon. The third, soccerex, is sparse, and primarily quotes Nikon and G SK.
I believe the material should be removed.
Sponsorship statements are needed for the WP:BALANCE, especially when comparing companies
Ads aren't favored by me: Often sponsorship is mostly that.
But many other articles about companies partly widely list sponsorships, so there has to be a balance, even between different companies (articles).
Old and irrelevant items have to be removed, additionally everything violating WP:WEIGHT and WP:VALID, even compared with others, e.g. ExxonMobil. A good example is Boeing. Tagremover (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Vote for delete of section 'sponsorship'
Balance: Articles for Sony, Leica and Olympus do not mention sponsorship. Canon mentions sponsorship of The Red Cross and World Press Photo, the latter of which can actually be called both internationally relevant and overall 'important', as opposed to this Nikon sponsorship.
Notability: Galatasaray are unlikely to be known outside Turkey, unless you are specifically interested in European soccer (I'm speaking as a male European). Katana (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Voting about new Template:Nikon DSLR cameras proposals
Relationship to Mitsubishi
I think it's incorrect to say that Mitsubishi Group is Nikon's "parent" company. Mitsubishi Group, according to their own web site, doesn't own the companies that are a part of it. It is a consortium, not a corporation. "Membership" is about subscription to a shared business philosophy, not about ownership. Nikon is an independently owned company, it has no parent company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)