NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: stenrasmussen on January 26, 2017, 22:35:50
-
Recent information about Nikon's share of total camera sales (especially their lower end DSLR's), their drastic reduction of number of Nikon Ambassadors, promised DL line not delivered, lack of (real) mirrorless products, Nikon management asleep or just too tied up in old thinking, etc. makes me wondering.
Waddaya think folks?
Moderation: I have edited this post - If you have a problem with that Sten, please write to me or anyone from the team. Thanks :)
-
I don't really know what DL is.
I really don't miss any mirror-less options from Nikon - The New Fuji GFX looks amazing so does their X series.
Their old Nikkro rangefinder lenses will definitely not be up to current standards except for the very vintage look if used on FF, the old Leica M lenses are also struggling on the new sensors and Leica seems to have stopped at 24MP for 'full frame' sensors SL and the new M10.
I think it's vise of Nikon to continue with DSLR FX DX and the lovely little Nikon1
-
Recent information about Nikon's share of total camera sales (especially their lower end DSLR's), their drastic reduction of number of Nikon Ambassadors, promised DL line not delivered, lack of (real) mirrorless products, Nikon management asleep or just too tied up in old thinking, etc. makes me wondering.
Waddaya think folks?
Moderation: I have edited this post - If you have a problem with that Sten, please write to me or anyone from the team. Thanks :)
That's fine. The T-man quote was too controversial.
-
I think it's vise of Nikon to continue with DSLR FX DX and the lovely little Nikon1
For taking Nikon 1 serious I'd ask for a 1-lens with macro capability (still none - maybe the AF is not good enough) and a well thought follow-up somehat professoinal version of the V1 (electronic viewfinder, EN-EL15, improved handling and better cache and preemptive save capabilities.
-
All I want is an AW-2 with a fish-eye lens!
The rest I have :)
-
For taking Nikon 1 serious I'd ask for a 1-lens with macro capability (still none - maybe the AF is not good enough) and a well thought follow-up somehat professoinal version of the V1 (electronic viewfinder, EN-EL15, improved handling and better cache and preemptive save capabilities.
Handling is always in the eye of the beholder as it were, but no doubt this aspect could be emphasised a bit stronger. With the 1V1, you have a very nicely looking camera that uses EN-EL15, has super-fast AF and shooting rate, and is let down by some quite amateurish design flaws in the operations department.
-
All I want is an AW-2 with a fish-eye lens!
The rest I have :)
The patent for a fisheye lens for the AW series has been published.
-
Why does Nikon still push out new low end DSLRs when their sales are so bad?
What is Nikon doing to counter-act the mirrorlessers?
Where is the PF technology going next?
And where is that hybrid viewfinder?
-
Handling is always in the eye of the beholder as it were, but no doubt this aspect could be emphasised a bit stronger. With the 1V1, you have a very nicely looking camera that uses EN-EL15, has super-fast AF and shooting rate, and is let down by some quite amateurish design flaws in the operations department.
What i hate with te 1V1 is the too easily moving mode dial. And I had expected a better 60 fps burst functionality (like Casio had shown before)
In fact I use it solely as a 2,7 crop camera and with the electronic shutter when silent operation is required. for me it works on superteles and tripod but fails with 70-300 and monopod because the whole thing is too lightweight
-
As those low-end designs basically are design replicas and manufactured by robots, my guess is they still earn healthy money on that product line.
Mirrorless is still an open playing field, sales are not massive, and sooner or later Nikon finds it opportune to enter the game.
-
What i hate with te 1V1 is the too easily moving mode dial. And I had expected a better 60 fps burst functionality (like Casio had shown before)
In fact I use it solely as a 2,7 crop camera and with the electronic shutter when silent operation is required. for me it works on superteles and tripod but fails with 70-300 and monopod because the whole thing is too lightweight
Your objections mirror mine. However, one can use epoxy to ensure the mode dial literally is stuck in a specific position ... As to light weight, Erik made a motor grip for my 1V1 that added more heft and improved handling.
I like the low price making it easy to experiment with replacing the mount for something more universal (either M42 or 52 mm thread).
-
I belonged to the the first buyers what I rarely do (FT1 was not available and required a FW upgrade then) and payed a overpriced super-price then for V1 and two lenses ;-)
Still see it as subsidy to help nikon after the 2011 earthquake hitting Sendai facility
-
Why does Nikon still push out new low end DSLRs when their sales are so bad?
What is Nikon doing to counter-act the mirrorlessers?
Where is the PF technology going next?
And where is that hybrid viewfinder?
Leica has looked into a hybrid finder and their conclution is it will not work to any satisfaction, it will be a big compromise for both the optical- as well as the electronic viewfinder.
I believe they are right,,, IMHO they have the best EVF in the SL and the best OVF in the M for their purpose.
I'm sure Nikon has come to the same conclusion for the current state of technology.
PS thanks for accepting my moderation-censorship.
-
Second-hand 1V1 cameras are becoming very cheap.
I did test it at the launch time, but bought the first one a year later when they had fallen in price. Have some of them now, assigned to different tasks. One is permanently set up with the 50/0.75 Rayxar. Another with the 28/1.8 Ultra-Micro-Nikkor.
Battery longevity used to be lousy, but the new Li-20 generation of the EN-EL15 drastically changed that.
-
I was an early buyer of the V1. I feel it could have been an outstanding camera, but the handling issues and the high price damaged it. A lost opportunity.
-
Handling is always in the eye of the beholder as it were...
The problem is that Nikon is now in the eye of the shareholder as it were... :o :o :o
-
where is Nikon heading? The same way that Leica went if they won't do something "exciting" :o :o :o
-
Leica has looked into a hybrid finder and their conclution is it will not work to any satisfaction, it will be a big compromise for both the optical- as well as the electronic viewfinder.
I believe they are right,,, IMHO they have the best EVF in the SL and the best OVF in the M for their purpose.
I'm sure Nikon has come to the same conclusion for the current state of technology.
PS thanks for accepting my moderation-censorship.
Well, Fuji made it work. Leica makes great lenses but as far as their digital cameras they always seem to be 1-2 generations behind; poor resolution screens, noisier sensors, etc. They rely on the mechanical bits but "struggle" with the electronics. I am absolutely convinced that Nikon could make a HVF (hybrid view finder) if they wanted. They are sadly stuck in the old mud.
-
I feel a very negative attitude,,, and somehow a urge to put companies down, what a waste of energy!
-
I think it's prudent to voice a concern over Nikon's current path. They are losing market share in a declining market, which can't be good.
Thom Hogan relates Nikon's issues to their management and their policies.
Canon is the very clear leader, and according to mr. Hogan "industry standard". :o
-
What do you think will happen by raising concern?
-
What do you think will happen by raising concern?
A more positive development for Nikon, and maybe even the camera market.
-
The camera market, in all segments, is in a slow decline and nothing appears to be able to reverse that trend. The smartphones probably will take over much of today's user base.
-
Reading this topic has reminded me of one of the reasons for my move to the Fuji camp. I also didn't like the road that Nikon was taking and that what seemed to me that their lenses were getting to be on the bloated and so heavy, whereas the cheaper stuff was a bit to plastic fantastic for my liking! What a shame!!!
And I still don't understand the supposed benefited of short eye reliefs.
-
Reading this topic has reminded me of one of the reasons for my move to the Fuji camp. I also didn't like the road that Nikon was taking and that what seemed to me that their lenses were getting to be on the bloated and so heavy, whereas the cheaper stuff was a bit to plastic fantastic for my liking! What a shame!!!
And I still don't understand the supposed benefited of short eye reliefs.
and low magnification. Nikon D800 was 0.71x magnification in the viewfinder, and that was all you got for manual focusing. The now 45 year old Olympus OM-1 offered 0.9x magnification albeit with a short eye relief. Nikon makes short eye reliefs, but you get the same low 0.71x magnification. Cost cutting? ???
Well, all that's history for me, now that I can zoom in to 10x magnification with the EVF in my full frame Sonys, one of which was announced more than three years ago... LOL 8)
-
I thought Nikon did well in the DSLR market (not numbers but products).
The D5, D500 are top of the bill. D810, D750 although at the end of life are still top.
We've got outstanding lenses with the 200-500, 19PC, 105E, 24-74E, 70-200E, 16-80E and earlier with 300PF and superteles.
Main problem for me is QC and price (except 200-500).
-
Of the various EVF-equipped cameras I've used over the years, the Panasonic GH-2 had the best and most intuitive handling of finder magnification. I got rid of the Sony A7 rapidly as its general handling was awful and the finder extremely tiring to my eyes. Perhaps if humans instead of robots should design their cameras, the handling of this brand can improve? A pity as their basic concept showed promise.
The newest Fujis might be on to a better track, but their EVFs still give me a headache.
-
Black out times with the electronic viewfinders are unbearable long IMHO completely useless and slow come to mind describing them.
I just had my Leica M9 upgraded to M9-P, new sensor, display top bottom and rear replaced. that's a camera launched in 2009, they still offer full support/repairs, they replace the sensors free of charge due to some problems in the cover-glass that they have now solved, and also supply constant firmware updates,,, all this talk about obsolete cameras makes me laugh, the D810 being at the end of it life,,, ridicules. I have no need for replacing either of them.
-
I feel a very negative attitude,,, and somehow a urge to put companies down, what a waste of energy!
Not negative at all Erik. What I am aiming at is the "the world is too fast for us and it is nothing we can do to keep up".
Look at Nikon's latest D3400...what on earth is that for...SnapBridge? First make the app work, THEN apply it.
The Df...although a great camera, what's the point at advertising how good it was that "real" photographic style was finally back when such an essential part as a focussing screen is fixed?
The DL line: *poof* ...nowhere to be seen...
Coolpixers: let's see...iPhone, Galaxy...
Etc., etc...
They do have the D5/500 and the D810 and they are great. The D750 is great too but with some unnecessary quirks like that noisy, clunky shutter. Can't be that difficult to construct because Canon has managed.
Fuji has wrongs, and so do the others too.
-
I thought Nikon did well in the DSLR market (not numbers but products).
The D5, D500 are top of the bill. D810, D750 although at the end of life are still top.
We've got outstanding lenses with the 200-500, 19PC, 105E, 24-74E, 70-200E, 16-80E and earlier with 300PF and superteles.
Main problem for me is QC and price (except 200-500).
They are losing market share, and that in a declining market, and that is a really scary position to be in. Canon rules the roost in the DSLR world now.
-
Sorry - my glass is half full not half empty.
-
Fuji's hybrid viewfinders have terrible quality compared to pure optical or pure EVF. It would be a total loss for me if Nikon went with such a poor compromise. Interchangeable viewfinders or an accessory EVF makes more sense to me as the quality of the image could be excellent instead of low contrast, washed out look of a hybrid.
-
Nikon never was leading the mass market. But they dont have the Crown in the upper-class they used to have until the 1980s.
And when Sigma holding a more quality oriented aproach Nikon has to react for not being outpeformed when it comes to lenses
-
Nikon never was leading the mass market. But they dont have the Crown in the upper-class they used to have until the 1980s.
And when Sigma holding a more quality oriented aproach Nikon has to react for not being outpeformed when it comes to lenses
Canon put USM motors in their lenses, and propelled them to the no. 1 position.
-
Canon put USM motors in their lenses, and propelled them to the no. 1 position.
True, the USM motors amongst others made them get the leading place in pro segment where Nikon had the lead
In mass market Minolta was the opponent
-
I wonder what the longevity of those USM motors is?
-
Nikon could quake the photoworld a bit by:
- Stop making the lower end DSLRs and replace these with well thought out APS-C mirrorless
- Put most emphasis on pro (D5/500/810'ish) DSLRs with modular camera/viewfinders and built in GPS/Bluetooth.
-
I wonder what the longevity of those USM motors is?
Would be interesting to know, but this isn't CanonGear. :D
-
I thought Nikon did well in the DSLR market (not numbers but products).
The D5, D500 are top of the hill. D810, D750 although at the end of life are still top.
We've got outstanding lenses with the 200-500, 19PC, 105E, 24-74E, 70-200E, 16-80E and earlier with 300PF and superteles.
Main problem for me is QC and price (except 200-500).
This is how I see it, too, Chris.
First of all, I don't really like much of what Thom Hogan has to say (nor the way he says it).
People are confusing "market share" with "quality products."
(E.g., porsche may not have the same "market share" as Toyota, but which company produces better cars ... and which ones would you rather drive? ;) )
Canon has come out with 3 iterations of the Mark V since the D810 has come out, and none of them is as good an overall camera as the D810.
By contrast, when Nikon comes out with a new product, it renders the Canon equivalent essentially obsolete (as the D810 obliterated the 5D III ... and as Canon's 7D MK II has not a single feature as good as the Nikon's new D500).
I do agree with posters that Nikon should stop making "budget DSLRs" ... they are a wasted effort. Modern cell phones are more convenient and essentially do just as good a job for casual photography.
[For example, my own brother and his family recently planned a European trip. I told them they should invest in a quality camera to document it. After shopping, and shopping, his whole family concluded 1) didn't want to spend the extra money, 2) they didn't want to have to "carry" an extra camera, when 3) they each already had "cameras" in their high-end cell phones. Better still, they each 4) could instantly share their phone-taken photos with friends on Facebook, whereas they have to "go develop" photos taken with a separate camera.]
The truth is, 99% of the population doesn't need a DSLR anymore, because the cell phones now offer excellent image quality, and cell phones are also MORE CONVENIENT for 100% of the population to use as well.
Probably less than 1% of the population is interested enough in photography, these days, to buy expensive cameras and lenses with their cell phones being so good and so handy.
(Let's face it, a camera is a hassle to use, compared to a cell phone. "Processing images" is a hassle to do, compared to instantly sharing images online with a phone.)
Of the very limited number of people, who are so interested in photography that they need truly specialized equipment, and are willing to take all the extra steps that good photography requires, Nikon makes the best overall DSLR products ... in the most important segments ... and they pair those leading DSLRs with the best long-primes ... and comparable "other lenses" with anyone.
Not everyone can afford a Porsche, but those who can "don't care" that Toyota has a "better market share" in the overall auto world.
-
One reason for the decline in marked share, may be related to Nikon not being able to relate to the enormous hype around the mirror-less ILC.
The mirror less may have smaller camera bodies, but if they use a 35mm sensor the lenses tend to be of the same size and weight as the "traditional" DSLR lenses.
If Nikon had optimised their DX lens offerings, they would have had the same offer as Fuji, even with the mirror in the camera.
I have several Nikon 1 cameras, they work fine for travel, pressed also for some sort of sport, and with the CX 70-300 wild-life is possible, but I do agree on all the comment about the user interface, we can hope they will do a V4 with a DSLR user interface, including the flash DSLR flash system.
I the meantime I do the half full analogy, concentrate on what they do well instead of focusing on the thing that should be improved, as I cannot change them ;)
The big deal in mirror-less is that they are cheaper to produce as they have a lot less parts in them and they need less adjusting during manufacturing.
We do however pay more for the mirror-less cameras.
I do some sports photo, mainly cross country skiing, and here I have used D700 and D300s for some years, this year the D300s has been replaced with a D500.
I have also used the D500 together with the 10-24 and the 16-85 zooms for travel, this is actually a compact and lightweight setup, I admit this is not f2.8 lenses, but the pictures as OK. This setup is lightweight enough for me to take it instead of the V1. I admit that for the same weight I could have had a lens kit to use from super wide to wildlife, the attached photo is taken with a V2 and CX70-300. Being of the bus tour not for photographers, the Nikon 1 system was fine.
-
I wonder what the longevity of those USM motors is?
in comparison to SWM - is there a significant difference or not?
That#d be the question
-
Nikon could quake the photoworld a bit by:
- Stop making the lower end DSLRs and replace these with well thought out APS-C mirrorless
- Put most emphasis on pro (D5/500/810'ish) DSLRs with modular camera/viewfinders and built in GPS/Bluetooth.
Nikon can't stop selling their lower end DSLRs, since they are one of Nikon's sources of revenue.
The simplest mirrorless strategy I can think of, is to start out with a short flange mount big enough to support full frame in the future. Whether they start with APS-C sensors or 35mm format ones should be up to Nikon's sound judgement.
Nikon will probably go on selling DSLRs for many years, particularly the high end stuff like D810 and D5 and future follow-ups. What would probably go away first would be APS-C DSLRs, but only once a new source of income is established. Nikon should already be working on that.
You need to consider the income statement and Nikon's ledger too!
-
Fuji's hybrid viewfinders have terrible quality compared to pure optical or pure EVF. It would be a total loss for me if Nikon went with such a poor compromise. Interchangeable viewfinders or an accessory EVF makes more sense to me as the quality of the image could be excellent instead of low contrast, washed out look of a hybrid.
I agree completely.
Another compromise in the hybrid solution is magnification, which is down to 0.6x, and I believe the eye point is shorter too. Much better to make good OVFs (F3HP) and EVFs (Fujifilm GFX 50) as separate solutions.
-
As usual these type of discussions tend to end up in defending personal choices in camera gear.
Looking at where Nikon is now I am perfectly happy with their offer in camera's and lenses at different sizes and capabilities.
But we cannot deny Nikon is losing marketshare vs. its competitors and will have to change its roadmap - especially at the lower end - to be successful in future.
They have all the technology in house to be competitive and bend the trend. And mirrorless will not be the only future, but certainly a big part of it.
-
Nikon can't stop selling their lower end DSLRs, since they are one of Nikon's sources of revenue.
The simplest mirrorless strategy I can think of, is to start out with a short flange mount big enough to support full frame in the future. Whether they start with APS-C sensors or 35mm format ones should be up to Nikon's sound judgement.
Nikon will probably go on selling DSLRs for many years, particularly the high end stuff like D810 and D5 and future follow-ups. What would probably go away first would be APS-C DSLRs, but only once a new source of income is established. Nikon should already be working on that.
You need to consider the income statement and Nikon's ledger too!
Well, wrt. lower end DSLR sales I just heard that neither Canon's or Nikon's line sell much.
-
Well, wrt. lower end DSLR sales I just heard that neither Canon's or Nikon's line sell much.
According to CIPA figures lens sales are split abou 50/50 between 35mm format and sub-35mm formats. Canon and Nikon have a share each in both parts.
-
Some food for thought for all the Fuji lovers on this forum.
https://petapixel.com/2017/01/27/x-trans-promise-problem/ (https://petapixel.com/2017/01/27/x-trans-promise-problem/)
-
As usual these type of discussions tend to end up in defending personal choices in camera gear.
Well, that is to be expected.
People tend to put their money where their preferences are, do they not?
Looking at where Nikon is now I am perfectly happy with their offer in camera's and lenses at different sizes and capabilities.
Agree. Their offerings for both are at the top of the heap, quality-wise.
If you go to LenScore (http://www.lenscore.org), Nikon makes 4 out of the Top 10 of the very best prime lenses ... while Zeiss only makes 2, Leica only 2, Canon only 2.
If you look deeper, Nikon makes 9 of the Top 20 prime lenses ... while Canon makes 6, Zeiss makes 3, and Leica stays put at 2.
If you go to SenScore (http://www.senscore.org), Nikon has 6 out of the Top 10 Full-Frame Cameras, Sony has 3, and Canon only 1.
If you look at the Top 10 APS-Cs, Nikon makes the Top 5 in a row, with Pentax making 3 and Sony only having 2 (and the D500 isn't even in their database yet).
Nikon's D500 just won DPReview's best over all "high-end camera" award for 2016 ... and their "best overall product, period" award as well.
But we cannot deny Nikon is losing marketshare vs. its competitors and will have to change its roadmap - especially at the lower end - to be successful in future.
Nikon already is successful ... they may not be "the biggest" or "the most profitable" ... but they are the leader in top-shelf quality products in many categories.
I disagree with you as to low-end cameras; I think Nikon needs to DUMP the low-end market altogether. It is a loser market, period, in the age of "badass cell phone cameras."
They have all the technology in house to be competitive and bend the trend. And mirrorless will not be the only future, but certainly a big part of it.
Their technology already has Nikon at the top, in quite a few categories ... and they are far and away at the top in AF tech too.
I do agree, they should enter the top-shelf mirrorless marketplace.
-
Arend. Thank you 😊 very interesting article.
John, you are one of the few referring to LenScore. Definitely my preferred.
http://www.lenscore.org
-
I like lenscore. Shows that my choice could not be too bad.
Dont weigh tests too much though.
-
Scores on resolution etc is but one side of optics.
-
Scores on resolution etc is but one side of optics.
Huh? "But one side" :o
If you actually take the time to look, you will see LenScore measures Resolving Power, Contrast, Color Transmission, Bokeh, Distortion, Light Falloff, Flare, Lateral Chromatic Aberration, and Longitudinal CA ...
Each category can be measured and compared individually ... with the "LenScore" being the sum-total quotient across the board.
What else do you want? ::)
-
John, you are one of the few referring to LenScore. Definitely my preferred.
http://www.lenscore.org
Mine as well.
I like the way they measure lenses (all through the same sensor), and the way they categorize everything is handy so a person can see the marks in the categories most important to them (resolution, bokeh, ca, etc.)
-
Huh? "But one side" :o
If you actually take the time to look, you will see LenScore measures Resolving Power, Contrast, Color Transmission, Bokeh, Distortion, Light Falloff, Flare, Lateral Chromatic Aberration, and Longitudinal CA ...
Each category can be measured and compared individually ... with the "LenScore" being the sum-total quotient across the board.
What else do you want? ::)
The housing, handling, appearance, price, build...
-
The housing, handling, appearance, price, build...
"Appearance" can be seen with any photographs online.
(For that matter, the photos of each lens are also provided on LenScore.)
"Price" is easily found everywhere online ::)
"Build quality, housing, and handling" are semi-objective, mostly subjective considerations which are also available, virtually everywhere, via blogs, vendors, and columns, etc. ... none of which have the qualitative resources of LenScore.
It seems like you've never actually gone through this site, to understand it's function, and/or that you're nitpicking just to nitpick. this is the kind of statements we urge contributors to avoid.
-
In addition to the obvious aspects mentioned by Sten, there is the fact that a lot of numbers each of which might be informative, when taken together needs a dimensional reduction in order for the human mind to grasp and compare. Doing so means information is lost again and one might end up with a metric of little importance. This is quite familiar to scientists in most fields of research.
-
"Appearance" can be seen with any photographs online.
(For that matter, the photos of each lens are also provided on LenScore.)
"Price" is easily found everywhere online ::)
"Build quality, housing, and handling" are semi-objective, mostly subjective considerations which are also available, virtually everywhere, via blogs, vendors, and columns, etc. ... none of which have the qualitative resources of LenScore.
It seems like you've never actually gone through this site, to understand it's function, and/or that you're nitpicking just to nitpick. this is the kind of statements we urge contributors to avoid.
No I am sure you are right.
-
Some food for thought for all the Fuji lovers on this forum.
https://petapixel.com/2017/01/27/x-trans-promise-problem/ (https://petapixel.com/2017/01/27/x-trans-promise-problem/)
Just another blogger seeking clicks.
"And recently most manufacturers have ditched the AA filters on their Bayer sensors"
Most? Ditched? Really?
-
With the increase in pixeldensity the AA filter is indeed gradually disappearing.
I guess you have no counterarguments on what he is really talking about.....
-
I read the article and yes, it is possible to provoke trouble from the X-trans but so can be done with every technology (ref. the dynamic range discussion, raw converters, thickness of the low-pass filter, stabilisation, 12- or 14-bit, etc). What really matters is: If it floats your boat it is more than good enough. I love (and still own) Nikon gear, but for now Fuji suits me best.
-
With the increase in pixeldensity the AA filter is indeed gradually disappearing.
I guess you have no counterarguments on what he is really talking about.....
The exaggerated statement I quoted is a give away that the author is trying to make an impact rather than provided a considered analysis.
His diagram of the X-Trans array is misleading because it shows large green squares surrounded by smaller coloured squares - in fact, each of the large green squares should by four regular squares.
He criticises the X-Trans on the basis of strangely exposed in camera jpegs shot in poor light, while admitting that raws can be converted well. It is true that some convertors (e.g. Adobe) do a less than stellar job on X-Trans, but others such as Iridient and Photo Ninja do an excellent job. So the source of the problem is the convertor, not the sensor as such.
The internet is full of bloggers who try to create attention by inaccurate, misleading or deliberately provocative statements. Mostly they are not worth detailed analysis. I have not spent a huge amount of time on this article, because the above issues tell my there are better things to do with my time.
Does the article match your experience of the X-Trans?
-
Why does Nikon still push out new low end DSLRs when their sales are so bad?
What is Nikon doing to counter-act the mirrorlessers?
It's because the of the low-end dSLR's success that Nikon was paralyzed in the mirrorless market. One of the things that Nikon's Naoki Kitaoka boasted about last year was ‘we're not seeing cannibalization between the DSLR and the Nikon 1: the customer is completely different.' Avoiding cannibalization is why Nikon went with a 1" sensor and a high price point for the 1 series. In doing so, Nikon's marketing department forgot a fundamental truism. It's better to cannibalize your own market share than have someone else come in and take it from you. They also forgot just how difficult it is to sell a reduced size "luxury" product in the United States.
In my opinion, most of the lower sales of consumer dSLR's is due to a combination of fashion and market saturation. Simply put, a lot of consumers already have a dSLR that does what they ask of it. They'd rather spend their money on phones, drones, or other high tech toys. But while sales are down in percentage, the absolute numbers absolutely dwarf sales of professional and prosumer gear. This gives the consumer group a lot of power, which is why we end up with a never ending series of 18-xxx lenses.
I'm not sure that Nikon's in a precarious position yet -- it may just be that the inevitable end to the boom has come. But if they end up in a precarious position, it won't be the first time that Nikon's marketing department lead them there. Nikon initially treated technologies such as autofocus, TTL flash, and VR as "sizzle" -- they didn't think that pros wanted or needed them. As a result, the F4 generation of cameras were a disaster for them in market share, and Canon had the stabilized telephoto market to themselves for nearly a decade. The second time was when dSLR's were just taking off. Canon's first Digital Rebel had the under $1000 market to themselves for an entire Christmas season, while Nikon tried to sell the less capable D100 for $1500. As for professional cameras, Nikon's announcement of the 4 megapixel D2h was rapidly eclipsed by an 8 megapixel 1.3 crop Canon.
At both times, Nikon eventually stopped the bleeding. The F5/F100/F80 series of cameras were excellent and well received. The D2x was solid. The 18-70mm f/3.5~4.5 was so much better than Canon's 18-55mm of the time that the "me too" 6MP D70 competed successfully against 8MP Canon cameras. And the 18-200mm generated actual excitement for Nikon for the first time in years if not decades.
I actually look at lenses like the 105mm f/1.4 the 200-500mm, and the new 70-200mm VR-III as hopeful signs. It looks like Nikon is trying to establish it's professional products at a higher quality level than Canon. But the perception of the 24-70mm VR may indicate a misstep, no matter what the technical reality may be. But whether they realize it or not, Nikon and Canon are facing a real challenge from Sigma and Zeiss. While brand loyalty helps, if you're Nikon or Canon you can't afford to only offer the 3rd (or 4th or 5th) best 85mm 1/4 or 50mm f/1.4 lenses.
As for myself? Like those "consumers," my basic needs are more than met by my current gear. I will eventually want to upgrade my wide-angle zooms and perhaps my 150-500mm Sigma, but I'm in no hurry to do so. Instead, I'll be watching the EVIL market with an eye towards replacing my V1. But as long as the "cannibalization" mindset holds, it's unlikely to be with a Nikon.
-
Rather than a 1" camera, I would just put the money toward a new iPhone. 1" compacts (with or without lens mount) have had their time.
-
It's because the of the low-end dSLR's success that Nikon was paralyzed in the mirrorless market. One of the things that Nikon's Naoki Kitaoka boasted about last year was ‘we're not seeing cannibalization between the DSLR and the Nikon 1: the customer is completely different.' Avoiding cannibalization is why Nikon when with a 1" sensor and a high price point for the 1 series. In doing so, Nikon's marketing department forgot a fundamental truism. It's better to cannibalize your own market share than have someone else come in and take it from you. They also forgot just how difficult it is to sell a reduced size "luxury" product in the United States.
In my opinion, most of the lower sales of consumer dSLR's is due to a combination of fashion and market saturation. Simply put, a lot of consumers already have a dSLR that does what they ask of it. They'd rather spend their money on phones, drones, or other high tech toys. But while sales are down in percentage, the absolute numbers absolutely dwarf sales of professional and prosumer gear. This gives the consumer group a lot of power, which is why we end up with a never ending series of 18-xxx lenses.
I'm not sure that Nikon's in a precarious position yet -- it may just be that the inevitable end to the boom has come. But if they end up in a precarious position, it won't be the first time that Nikon's marketing department lead them there. Nikon initially treated technologies such as autofocus, TTL flash, and VR as "sizzle" -- they didn't think that pros wanted or needed them. As a result, the F4 generation of cameras were a disaster for them in market share, and Canon had the stabilized telephoto market to themselves for nearly a decade. The second time was when dSLR's were just taking off. Canon's first Digital Rebel had the under $1000 market to themselves for an entire Christmas season, while Nikon tried to sell the less capable D100 for $1500. As for professional cameras, Nikon's announcement of the 4 megapixel D2h was rapidly eclipsed by an 8 megapixel 1.3 crop Canon.
At both times, Nikon eventually stopped the bleeding. The F5/F100/F80 series of cameras were excellent and well received. The D2x was solid. The 18-70mm f/3.5~4.5 was so much better than Canon's 18-55mm of the time that the "me too" 6MP D70 competed successfully against 8MP Canon cameras. And the 18-200mm generated actual excitement for Nikon for the first time in years if not decades.
I actually look at lenses like the 105mm f/1.4 the 200-500mm, and the new 70-200mm VR-III as hopeful signs. It looks like Nikon is trying to establish it's professional products at a higher quality level than Canon. But the perception of the 24-70mm VR may indicate a misstep, no matter what the technical reality may be. But whether they realize it or not, Nikon and Canon are facing a real challenge from Sigma and Zeiss. While brand loyalty helps, if you're Nikon or Canon you can't afford to only offer the 3rd (or 4th or 5th) best 85mm 1/4 or 50mm f/1.4 lenses.
As for myself? Like those "consumers," my basic needs are more than met by my current gear. I will eventually want to upgrade my wide-angle zooms and perhaps my 150-500mm Sigma, but I'm in no hurry to do so. Instead, I'll be watching the EVIL market with an eye towards replacing my V1. But as long as the "cannibalization" mindset holds, it's unlikely to be with a Nikon.
This is a great post.
Agree with pretty much everything.
If you look at what Nikon is doing with its newest best gear, it is ahead of every other manufacturer.
Best base ISO camera; best high ISO camera; best AF capability; every FL super-telephoto lens is "best in class" ... and they just came out with the 105mm f/1.4 "The New King."
Sigma to me is more of a threat (as you say to both Nikon and Canon), because they are offering great lenses at great prices ... whereas Zeiss offers great lenses at astronomical prices.
Let's face it, "the ability to take good photos" is no longer a novelty ... anyone can do this now, with a damned cell phone.
The ability to take GREAT photos still requires a camera (be it mirrorless or DSLR) ... especially macro and sports/wildlife.
With cell phones eating up low-end market, ALL camera manufacturers would be well advised to dump the low-end of their arsenal, and (pardon the pun) "focus" on making the best photography equipment possible ... that no "phone" will ever be able to duplicate.
Jack
-
Looking at my statistics (Lr: number of picture taken / withheld by camera model), I notice that the share of pictures withheld with smartphones is increasing year on year, exceeding now 10% of my production. Main raison being, the on-hand availability, together with the improving quality and the facility to transfer and process the pictures immediately (Lr Mobile). If this is already my case, imagine what the trend is with "non-photographers". In addition, I'm using drones for about 7 years; started as a simple curiosity; now the quality is there and affordable: DJI Mavic Pro, 12Mpx DNG quality pictures, which will also make an additional dent into my personal DSLR market share. What else ? May be a (very) partial return to film camera to exploit my underused Leica M6, together with the project to digitize my film library (Epson V8xx planned). This is my personal trend. But for me, Coolpix like cameras are definitely out. And if I watch my children, the trend is even stronger. Difficult to bring them to the DSLR world, although my son is a good photographer.
Now, I'm far from sure that my personal trends are a proxy for the market ...
With regard to mirrorless, I had the chance to do a quite lengthy excursion with the Leica SL and Sony Alpha (thanks to a friend who has the largest retail shop in Geneva and is an NPS and Sony agent) I have big difficulties with viewing through an EVF, at least it is not for me. The advantages are apparently more on the side of the manufacturer, from a economic point of view, enabling to produce cheaper cameras.
-
The mobile phones will undoubtly eat well into the compact/enthusiast 1" sensor segment. If Sigma and Tamron continous to offer lenses like they have lately, both the big boys need to get their act together and do more of the AF-S 105/1.4, EF 11-24/4, etc. Weather sealed, well corrected pro glass is absent across much of their lines. The modern world won't wait I'm afraid.
-
Does the article match your experience of the X-Trans?
Thanks Anthony for your second reaction that is actually a counter argument that makes sense to me. And no I don't have enough eperience with X-Trans to validate his experience. Only brought the article in to try to balance the discussion on directions brands are taking (and that probably failed).
-
Looking at my statistics (Lr: number of picture taken / withheld by camera model), I notice that the share of pictures withheld with smartphones is increasing year on year, exceeding now 10% of my production. Main raison being, the on-hand availability, together with the improving quality and the facility to transfer and process the pictures immediately (Lr Mobile). If this is already my case, imagine what the trend is with "non-photographers". In addition, I'm using drones for about 7 years; started as a simple curiosity; now the quality is there and affordable: DJI Mavic Pro, 12Mpx DNG quality pictures, which will also make an additional dent into my personal DSLR market share. What else ? May be a (very) partial return to film camera to exploit my underused Leica M6, together with the project to digitize my film library (Epson V8xx planned). This is my personal trend. But for me, Coolpix like cameras are definitely out. And if I watch my children, the trend is even stronger. Difficult to bring them to the DSLR world, although my son is a good photographer.
Now, I'm far from sure that my personal trends are a proxy for the market ...
With regard to mirrorless, I had the chance to do a quite lengthy excursion with the Leica SL and Sony Alpha (thanks to a friend who has the largest retail shop in Geneva and is an NPS and Sony agent) I have big difficulties with viewing through an EVF, at least it is not for me. The advantages are apparently more on the side of the manufacturer, from a economic point of view, enabling to produce cheaper cameras.
The advantage of the EVF is definitely on the side of the user. There is no way I can be sure of getting correct manual focus with a DSLR OVF. With an EVF, offering a focus magnifier and peaking both easily accesible, manual focusing is a breeze for me. An optical rangefinder (Leica M) works fine to, but not DSLR OVFs. Compared to film SLRs, the OVFs in DSLRs have declined in quality. And yes, I've waisted money on alternative focusing screens to no avail.
So, don't suggest that the EVF is there only for the benefit of the manufacturer. You're wrong in that false assumption. Don't assume that one size fits all.
Nikon offers no full frame mirrorless, and I left Nikon behind.
-
So, don't suggest that the EVF is there only for the benefit of the manufacturer. You're wrong in that false assumption. Don't assume that one size fits all.
Nikon offers no full frame mirrorless, and I left Nikon behind.
If you have read to the end, you would have noticed that I emphasised only expressing my personal view, in my particular context (action photography), and that this was not meant to be the UNIVERSAL TRUTH. And if I need absolute certainty about sharpness with my DSLR, there is something called LifeView which gives me all what I want. In the perspective of the purpose of this thread, I didn't want to elaborate further into what I don't like in EVF.
-
If you have read to the end, you would have noticed that I emphasised only expressing my personal view, in my particular context (action photography), and that this was not meant to be the UNIVERSAL TRUTH. And if I need absolute certainty about sharpness with my DSLR, there is something called LifeView which gives me all what I want. In the perspective of the purpose of this thread, I didn't want to elaborate further into what I don't like in EVF.
Din't assume I didn't read to the end.
-
Not good news...
http://nikonrumors.com/2017/02/13/nikon-reports-extraordinary-loss-fundamental-company-wide-restructuring.aspx/
-
May be not so bad. Nikon finally decided to do some fundamental company re-engineering. They also cancelled the DL line http://nikonrumors.com/2017/02/13/nikon-cancels-all-three-dl-cameras-because-of-profitability-concerns-no-word-on-future-development.aspx/
-
Cancelling the DL line is probably a wise decision in the longer run. However also a pity as I had set my eyesight on the DL 18-50. Oh well. Money can be spent in other manners, no doubt.
-
This is bad indeed as there is poor demand for these cameras. they also somewhat overlap with some compact cameras that they have at the moment :o :o :o
personally, when I held the DL cameras last year at CP+ i really do not know if these will sell, specially for the price that Nikon is asking for. You can even find my videos on youTube. The only one I liked was the small one.
it just made sense to cancel this but the money spent is just wasted. i hope that Nikon redirects the cash for that on a ground breaking and epoch-making product (like the digital SP Rf camera ::) )
-
QUOTE
one can use epoxy to ensure the mode dial literally is stuck in a specific position
Can I suggest that you just roll an "o" ring over the knob. It will sit at the bottom between body and dial and make it quite stiff to move..but you can if you want .
I think you are looking at 20mm x 2mm but I sold my D3300
-
Cancelling the DL line is probably a wise decision in the longer run.
Still, since the prototypes were used by Drew Gurian for the advertising campaign, the results looked very nice to my eye, and I had thought of buying the DL24-85 model. There have been no new models in Nikon 1 series in a while. I wonder if that line is sacked as well. Nikon is saying the J5 is selling well in some markets but how long will it be before that sensor is offered in a camera with a reasonable user interface and EVF option?
If Nikon has decided to focus its development resources on DSLRs and a future FX mirrorless then perhaps this is a good thing, to consolidate the product line and focus on more high end offerings. However, I don't think the idea of a CX compact camera is a bad one. To me it is a great pity that this product line was discontinued without giving it a chance in the market.
-
Still, since the prototypes were used by Drew Gurian for the advertising campaign, the results looked very nice to my eye, and I had thought of buying the DL24-85 model. There have been no new models in Nikon 1 series in a while. I wonder if that line is sacked as well. Nikon is saying the J5 is selling well in some markets but how long will it be before that sensor is offered in a camera with a reasonable user interface and EVF option?
If Nikon has decided to focus its development resources on DSLRs and a future FX mirrorless then perhaps this is a good thing, to consolidate the product line and focus on more high end offerings. However, I don't think the idea of a CX compact camera is a bad one. To me it is a great pity that this product line was discontinued without giving it a chance in the market.
To me Nikon 1 is a dead duck - always has been.
Pity for the DL, but as Bjorn said, "Oh well. Money can be spent in other manners, no doubt."
I would have seriously considered the 18-50 too.
What I don't understand is why Nikon keeps making compacts at all.
-
Now, that is easy. AS R & D costs have exploded in the last decade, something has to pay the expenses and the compacts have been the literal milk cow providing the income to drive product development. Not any more, apparently.
R & D might be 30-40% of the overall costs for a new product. Nikon reps I spoke to in conjunction with the D3 launch in Japan in 2007 hinted at around 25-30% already then. Only product line that should be lower is the endless 'evolution' of DX entry models, either camera or 18-xx lenses. They probably are designed by robots ordered to prune the feature set one by one. Remove two, add one just to give impression of coming up with something 'new'.
Sometimes, for the low-volume products such as esoteric long lenses, one might wonder whether these ever will be profitable on their own. Probably not.
-
Nikon's sale of compacts is almost exactly halved from fiscal year 2016 to fiscal year 2017, see this from Nikon, http://nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/result/pdf/2017/17_3qf_d_e.pdf (http://nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/result/pdf/2017/17_3qf_d_e.pdf). They go from 6.23 million to 3.15 million units in the DSC compact segment. The fall in the compact market is really brutal, and the other manufacturers must be hard hit as well.
This is sad, since it looked like the DLs would be very nice compacts. I would have liked the DL 18-50. :(
iPhone and Huawei seems to have nice cameras....
-
I would imagine people waiting for the DL cameras to come to the market must have accounted for at least some part of the reduced compact camera sales experienced in 2016. If there is a high profile launch, people get excited and then disappointed when it is not followed up with product availability.
Nikon also made a DX compact camera (Coolpix A) which had nice image quality but it was discontinued. I guess it could not be moved at a price which was profitable for Nikon. I didn't buy it because the AF was slow. I gather the DL cameras, like Nikon 1, would not have suffered from this particular problem.
I have an iPhone 6 which has a nice camera to begin with but a slight knock lead to loss of focusing ability in the camera and thus the camera became useless. Fixing it consisted of replacing the phone in its entirety. Very expensive. These cameras integrated into thin smartphones have gotten a lot better than they used to be, and they are good for e.g. quickly copying notes and sending them by e-mail, but I wouldn't use them for photography as an artistic pursuit myself. The focal length is fixed for one thing and while the image quality is good for some purposes the user interface, time response and image quality in print isn't that great. Ruggedness is extremely poor in my experience.
Nikon seems to be failing to implement a practical and easy to use wireless transfer of images to mobile devices; they get a lot of criticism for their mobile apps and especially Snapbridge. This could seriously affect their image and camera sales as other manufacturers seem to be doing this part better. In desktop applications, the loss of Capture NX2 and its half-hearted (or quarter-hearted?) replacement (NX-D) have been disheartening. Lack of efficient, reliable, live view AF in DSLRs is one area where Nikon is seriously lagging and as live view AF is the heart of a successful mirrorless product, it has greater implications on Nikon's perceived ability to lead technology development than its practical significance in DSLRs is. Nikon should invest in
- software development and take testing seriously
- make a proper wifi implementation in all cameras
- implement AF similar to Canon's dual pixel AF in live view and video
- make at least some cameras with competitive video dynamic range
- make better manual focusing especially in their less expensive lenses
- launch a successor to the D810
- launch a DX or FX compact camera with fast AF
- if they can do the AF bit above, launch a DX or FX mirrorless ILC system
- facilitate reading of full EXIF data with all the camera specific functions in third party software including Adobe
But above all they should test their products, including software, extensively, before launching it on the market.
For me Nikon DSLR products work very well. Mainly I am disappointed with their software, lack of fluid wireless connectivity, poor manual focusing in some of their AF lenses, and lack of reasonably fast live view AF. For my applications the image quality Nikon DSLRs is excellent and the usability for most applications is very good.
-
Cancelling the DL line is probably a wise decision in the longer run. However also a pity as I had set my eyesight on the DL 18-50. Oh well. Money can be spent in other manners, no doubt.
I had actually pre-ordered the DL-18-50, and waited patiently for 4 months, before finally asking for my money back.
I, too, would have loved this camera ... however, as I had already ranted a few pages ago, I think this is ultimately a wise decision on Nikon's part.
There is simply no escaping the fact that, in the days of high-quality cell phone cameras, point-and-shoot (and other low-end cameras) are dying and will soon me dead. Just as digital photography essentially killed film photography, so too will modern cell phone photography kill "low end" cameras and lenses. Cell phones are simply more convenient, and as discussed you can immediately share online (Facebook, etc.), which you can't do with a low-end camera (even a "premium" P&S).
The ONLY cameras and lenses that will survive are going to be the highly-specialized models that can do things no cell phone will ever be able to do (extreme macro, extreme sports and wildlife dexterity, etc.). High-end optics and camera systems will become increasingly valuable and costly ... while "average" quality cameras and optics are, literally, becoming a dime-a-dozen ... and will get less-and-less expensive.
-
According to Nikkei newspaper (something like the Japanese Wall Street Journal) reported that Nikon tured out to see more voluntary retirements than the company had expected. There could be significant loss of the R&D section as well.
I would fear that the cancellation of DL might lead to the discontinuation of Nikon 1 series which I still consider a potent format for the still/movie hybrid camera.
-
The cell phone camera has many limitations. Long focus and shutter lag. Image quality can be ok if only viewed on other mobile devices; not good in print. No wide angle, no long lenses, no optical zoom (in the models that are popular, the lens has to be ultra thin). Fragile optics; a slight knock can throw off the focusing system and misalign the elements. Very expensive to repair (repair = replacement of the entire phone). Very limited exposure controls available if any. Any dedicated that solves some of those weaknesses is and will continue to be valuable. People might not get it, though.
-
I like Nikon's high line and enthusiast line offerings. I they can make a profit from things like D3 D500 D600 and all the 1.4 and 1.8 glass I own and continue to buy I am more than happy to help them.
I hope Akira's timely translation does not mean the rats leave the struggeling ship...
-
Well if Nikon stops the coolpix p3xx series or P510 without replacement and the DL series is not entering the market then one should not wonder whether there are losses beyond those having decreasing market as origin:
I wanted to buy a good coolpix as a present, ended witha Canon Powershot finally.
Wonder whether we will see a medium format Nikon - probably not because they are lacking the capacity to develop and sales losses does not make that situation better
-
No MF Nikon. No experience in the field. Good LF glass long ago. No cameras. No chance.
The best FX system in the market already costs a lot of money to keep.
-
The masses (read: ex-coolpixers) who provided Nikon with a substantial profit have simply kept up with technology and demand devices which are merging photography with the internet. Wifi and a SIM card are absolute requirements. PERIOD. Nikon MUST adjust and deliver. PERIOD. And these features must work at the push of ONE button. PERIOD.
Crank out 2 mirrorless (one normal and one "deluxe) models with zoom optics. The announced DL line had sensible zoom ranges.
Then follow up with 2-3 state of the art DSLRs AND mirroless models.
Go simple, and please stop all half decent solutions.
-
I don't think most people would want to pay for additional SIM cards to give their cameras direct access to mobile broadband network. If they're going to send large files through it the operators will want real money for it. I think the wifi to cell phone approach is easier, and less expensive for the users and for the camera manufacturers as well. If the connectivity to phone is well implemented, it should be sufficient. Problem is that Nikon wants to charge a lot for their best wifi.
-
I don't think most people would want to pay for additional SIM cards to give their cameras direct access to mobile broadband network. If they're going to send large files through it the operators will want real money for it. I think the wifi to cell phone approach is easier, and less expensive for the users and for the camera manufacturers as well. If the connectivity to phone is well implemented, it should be sufficient. Problem is that Nikon wants to charge a lot for their best wifi.
I think they will. This is a feature already in use by broadcasting companies to send live video for news broadcasts. NRK, the Norwegian counterpart of YLE in Finland has used it for several years. Even multiple SIMs in one unit. This should be a pro feature in cameras like D4/D5. Now the iPhone crowd (includes me :) ) can post pictures to the internet way ahead of professional press photographers.
WiFi is too limited.
-
A SIM card slot was on my wish list for the upcoming D5. 4G and the future 5G networks are capable of handing large files at close to no cost.
-
I was referring to consumers who use smartphones and compact cameras. For professional applications it is a different matter and the additional cost of cell phone connection is not as important as speed at least in news broadcast applications. However, (still) photography is more meditative in nature and strong images typically require careful editing (at the very least, selection) to be effective. If the images are edited before transferring, this is best done using a computer, not in camera. I don't see the difference in time that important; choosing the wrong image in haste can greatly reduce its effectiveness in conveying the message. At least I have lost the best image of a series in some situation as the user interface and screen size of the camera are not ideal for editing and I mistakenly deleted the wrong image. I think it is much better not to try editing in camera and leave that for the computer. However, if the photographer has to submit all the images then I suppose real time transfer might be valuable (if the staff do the editing). I personally think sending all images is just silly but I know that is what some are expected to do. I can't imagine any task more tedious than looking through some photographer's images in real time without any prior selection of what is important.
-
Canon still has their "Direct Print" button, maybe it's time for an "Upload to FB" or "Upload to Snapchat" button :)
Millennials want to take a selfie or scenic shot of where they are, select a cool filter and upload the image to the social medium where their friends hang out.
They live in the now and want to share the now.
A SIM card isn't necessary, most smartphones have a MiFi function so can share their internet connection over wifi. Cameras do need a selfie touch screen, an assortment of open and closed social media apps which automagically take care of the resizing and uploading.
-
It is hard for Nikon to compete in a market where instant uploading is key.
Instant uploading is for journalism or for people who want to use photographs as a form of social communication. The latter, in particular, have little interest in quality, and smartphones work well for them. Nikon cannot compete in that space.
-
Really, what Nikon should be doing is converting ALL of their low-end, BS "consumer cameras" into high-end cell phones, with Nikon-quality mini-lenses.
The NikonPhone series sounds like a winner to me ;D (You heard it here first, folks 8))
-
Canon still has their "Direct Print" button, maybe it's time for an "Upload to FB" or "Upload to Snapchat" button :)
Millennials want to take a selfie or scenic shot of where they are, select a cool filter and upload the image to the social medium where their friends hang out.
They live in the now and want to share the now.
A SIM card isn't necessary, most smartphones have a MiFi function so can share their internet connection over wifi. Cameras do need a selfie touch screen, an assortment of open and closed social media apps which automagically take care of the resizing and uploading.
Too complicated! As Sten said, at the push of one button. Shared WiFi is several buttons. And yes, the camera would need to run Android in a sandbox. Sony already does this, except for the SIM card.
Check out the Apps you can run on your Sony A7RII.
-
This may be just the tip of the iceberg!
-
It is hard for Nikon to compete in a market where instant uploading is key.
Instant uploading is for journalism or for people who want to use photographs as a form of social communication. The latter, in particular, have little interest in quality, and smartphones work well for them. Nikon cannot compete in that space.
Nikon pro cameras have the adequate communication accessories at their disposal such as the WT-6; these are not cheap, nor easy to implement, but they guarantee reliable communication. Claiming that photo journalism does not need quality, and can work it out with a smartphone, is a little bit shortsighted, if not exaggerated, no?
My wish is that WT-x like devices are directly integrated into the professional bodies and can rely on existing robust communication infrastructures e.g. GSM and therefore the need to integrate - inter alia - SIM card slot devices. May be you should have a look at the workflow of big agencies, where quasi instantaneous communication / transmission is of the essence.
As Illka mentioned, no everybody needs this. A landscape / nature photographer can probably do it whitout .
A last word: photography is predominantly social communication. What else should it be ?
-
Nikon pro cameras have the adequate communication accessories at their disposal such as the WT-6; these are not cheap, nor easy to implement, but they guarantee reliable communication.
Well, there are four reviews at B&H Photo-Video website, all giving 1 star for the WT-6, and claiming that they encountered problems. On Amazon it looks a bit better and a few users have gotten it to work but again there are reports of not getting it to work and the connection being cut off. To be honest with this kind of reviews, I would hesitate to buy this accessory. It is also not clear whether it works with the D810 and UT-1 like WT-5 does.
From what I've seen, studio photographers generally use a cable for displaying the images on a larger screen even if they have wireless available in the camera. If wireless worked well, I am sure they would use it.
Claiming that photo journalism does not need quality, and can work it out with a smartphone, is a little bit shortsighted, if not exaggerated, no?
"The latter" refers to the second part of the sentence i.e. social use, not photojournalists. :) That said, I guess some PJs also use cell phone cameras nowadays for some situations where they want to really blend in.
My wish is that WT-x like devices are directly integrated into the professional bodies and can rely on existing robust communication infrastructures e.g. GSM and therefore the need to integrate - inter alia - SIM card slot devices. May be you should have a look at the workflow of big agencies, where quasi instantaneous communication / transmission is of the essence.
From what I've understood, most of the hardware support for wireless communication is built into the D4(s)/D5, and the WT-5/6 unit is needed to take the signal and antenna out of the metal chassis to be able to get enough range (100m+) for the communication e.g. in a remote camera use situation at sports arenas etc. The WT-7 is much bigger than the WT-6 because the D500 has less of the needed electronics built in. The WT-7 seems a bit of a hack job given that it requires cables to communicate with the camera and has no tripod socket. Nikon should think about compatibility of these accessories across cameras; the WT-6 for example should plug onto any of their professional cameras directly.
However, it does not support GSM. I guess since Sony does make cell phones as well, they have the expertise to implement this whereas Nikon may not find it in house. Some kind of collaboration would be a good option if Nikon can't recruit the right people. Perhaps Nikon doesn't see this as important enough to recruit the best people to do it.
A last word: photography is predominantly social communication. What else should it be ?
There is slow communication and fast communication similar to slow food and fast food. ::)
I think we need better quality and better thought out images, and preferably fewer images, not more. The world is already enamored with fast and easy, and this takes a big toll on quality.
However, the majority may not see it this way. Better software support is needed for those cameras which support built in wireless. I don't think the level of software support Nikon provides for wireless communication on smartphones is even 10% of what would be regarded as "acceptable". This must be hitting Nikon's reputation hard and their sales as well. For professional users, an arcane interface to wireless communication is perhaps more acceptable as they set it up once and then it is used. But it seems from the reviews of the WT-6 that not everyone makes the grade.
-
Illka, thank you for the elaborate answer. I agree with most of it. Two remarks: (1) I mentioned first "WT-6" and later "WT-x": I should have better used the latter one, as I was referring to the more generic signification; BTW I have none of these devices. (2) "the need for an external appendix because of the metal body": hmm, Canon was able to integrate its GPS device into its latest pro-body; cars are generally "all metal" and most of these have no visible communication devices aka antennas anymore.
-
Too complicated! As Sten said, at the push of one button. Shared WiFi is several buttons. And yes, the camera would need to run Android in a sandbox. Sony already does this, except for the SIM card.
Check out the Apps you can run on your Sony A7RII.
I understand Sony can do this because they have an Android smartphone business and the people and expertise is found in house. But for Nikon they would really need to hire some people from the outside to be able to do this quickly. Also I imagine they could run into patents and licensing etc.
Personally I would appreciate easy transfer of images on my iPhone, with one button, as you said. I'm familiar with my phone so uploading images from its memory online or e-mail would be easier than using a different user interface and apps on the camera. I use WhatsApp, iMessage and e-mail depending on whom I am communicating with, and I doubt that Nikon would be able to access the iMessage system if they put GSM support in their cameras. They would probably have their own social media site for photos and it is just not necessary or helpful since users of other brands' cameras would not use the same sites. Thus one more player would just complicate matters. I want to use the smartphone and tablet as hubs for social use of images and text.
I think if smartphone manufacturers helped a bit by either implementing dual channel wifi support (one between camera and phone, the other between phone and internet access) or even just allowed GSM to connect to internet while wifi is used for the camera, which currently does not seem to be happening (use wifi for anything, no internet access is available). This is why Nikon implemented a bluetooth / wifi hybrid system which is giving them a lot of flack. But I think the problems can be solved it's just that they should not have released immature technology and software to the market.
-
Really, what Nikon should be doing is converting ALL of their low-end, BS "consumer cameras" into high-end cell phones, with Nikon-quality mini-lenses.
The NikonPhone series sounds like a winner to me ;D (You heard it here first, folks 8))
I said that ten years ago on the old site. Noone listened. The could be the No camera-phone-camera-maker today.
-
Nikon needs its own software department with people, that actually knows how to make good software. This has been discussed to death already. They need this software know how, before they can even begin to do GSM/SIM/4G/5G/WiFi/BT. They do neither WiFi nor BT well today, and they need more software know how.
Again cameras with SIM cards and 4G is the quickest way to send photos to an editor, not going via a smartphone. Sending photos to an editor from a camera via 4G should be like selecting them and push send, just like you would push "Print". The LCD on the camera should of course be a retina grade OLED super high res thing. All of this should be there in expen$ive pro cameras like Nikon D5/Canon 1DX.
-
Physics hasn't changed, an external antenna outside of the metal chassis gives a better connection and avoids interference with the other functions of the camera.
The 5D Mark IV built in wifi's range is about 15 meters as far as I've been able to find the information (I can try to verify this). Their accessory wifi device (WFT-E7) increases this range by a factor of 10 and speed up to 150Mbps. So the external device does provide additional range and possibly is faster (?).
The integrated antennas appear to be located right under the plastic surface of the camera:
http://www.canon-europe.com/cameras/eos-5d-mark-iv/connectivity/
and probably are indeed not inside the metal housing (it would create a Faraday cage blocking transmission of radio signals, and possibly the wifi signal, if strong, could create interference with the internal functions of the camera as well). I am sure this would be possible for Nikon also to do in the D810's successor as they have done in some of their cameras (D7200, D750, D500). However, for one reason or another, Canon didn't implement built in wifi in their 1D X II or 5Ds.
Anyway, the WT-6 is a small perturbation just outside of the camera and should not get too much in the way of normal use of the camera. It's much smaller than Canon's external module. Here is a pic of the Canon external WiFi module mounted on the 5D III:
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/accessories/wft_e7_wireless_file_transmitter.do
Seems similar to the WT-7 that Nikon offers for the D500.
-
Nikon needs its own software department with people, that actually knows how to make good software.
I completely agree but it seems they are not doing anything about it. Nikon software has always been with occasional glitches but today it is a total disaster.
I think if Nikon added Android based OS to run apps and connectivity they would be totally out of their league in software development and we could expect the cameras not to be reliable any more. I have a Sony Android-based TV and it is extremely sluggish in response to the remote controls, and hangs quite often, sometimes needs a reboot (basically I can never guess what will happen when I press a button, and how long the response will take). What is good about Nikon's current firmware is that they have very rare glitches and high reliability of operation. They know how to write firmware for their cameras but it if it is all to be based on around Android, good bye any hope of a reliable working camera. We have to be realistic about what to expect from Nikon.
-
Nikon did make an Android based compact camera, but apparently no one cared.
As for the Wifi function, it is not likely that the flagship models employ the powerful wireless system integrated in them. As Nikon's flagship models are traditionally used in Japanese Self-Defence Forces, the strong electro-magnetic shielding is paramount: they have to function flawlessly even in the severest attacks of electro-magnetic field in the aegis ship, for example. The strong shielding should also be of great importance when these cameras are used in the Space Shuttles or the ISS.
I would have to agree with the disastrous software. The wifi enabled pre-SnapBridge cameras are totally orphaned. Airnef works fairly good, but the genuine WirelessMobileUtility for the smartphones are almost useless.
-
Nikon did make an Android based compact camera, but apparently no one cared.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-coolpix-s800c/10
"Mediocre photo quality; photos are soft and noisy, with strong highlight clipping at times
Terrible battery life
Wi-Fi has very poor reception, occasional connection problems
Buggy playback mode sometimes displayed photos out of order, or not at all
Camera not fully functional until Android is booted (which takes 30 seconds if camera has been off for a while)
Running outdated version of Android
No manual controls, save for white balance
Hard to see subjects on OLED in low light"
So, problems, problems, problems. This one in the conclusions is particularly striking "Since Wi-Fi is the main way in which the S800c can share photos, I was disappointed at how poorly implemented this feature is. Reception is truly awful, and I experienced a handful of connection problems at various times."
If Nikon experiences difficulties selling their products, they should look in the mirror. They always state in their financial statements how the camera market is sluggish but it is of course sluggish if the products are poorly made and do not function correctly. Poor wifi is now becoming a pattern with Nikon with Snapbridge in the D500 and the Keymission getting crushing reviews from users. It's extraordinary that they would put out such products without proper testing.
-
Nikon did make an Android based compact camera, but apparently no one cared.
As for the Wifi function, it is not likely that the flagship models employ the powerful wireless system integrated in them. As Nikon's flagship models are traditionally used in Japanese Self-Defence Forces, the strong electro-magnetic shielding is paramount: they have to function flawlessly even in the severest attacks of electro-magnetic field in the aegis ship, for example. The strong shielding should also be of great importance when these cameras are used in the Space Shuttles or the ISS.
I would have to agree with the disastrous software. The wifi enabled pre-SnapBridge cameras are totally orphaned. Airnef works fairly good, but the genuine WirelessMobileUtility for the smartphones are almost useless.
Cameras for NASA and navies around the world with uber-sensitive radars is a special application, and those clients can probably pay for special versions of the cameras they use.
Nikon has basically orphaned Snapbridge as well, since they fail to update it as soon as there's a new version of iOS.
-
Potentially strong magnetic field can exist withing the terrestrial area. A pro phog who used a Canon flagship model (1Ds III, if I remember correctly) once reported in his blog that it stopped working while he was working in the machine room of a data center, and it started to work again when he went out of the room. Areas around the high-voltage power lines may also cause problems.
-
Potentially strong magnetic field can exist withing the terrestrial area. A pro phog who used a Canon flagship model (1Ds III, if I remember correctly) once reported in his blog that it stopped working while he was working in the machine room of a data center, and it started to work again when he went out of the room. Areas around the high-voltage power lines may also cause problems.
A camera could be shielded in a Faraday cage when necessary. A pro should be able to take the necessary precautions. You can't stop or halt a lot of sensible applications of cameras, due to to such rare usage cases.
-
Having the WT-6 on the D5 is hardly a serious annoyance, it's just a tiny thing on the side. Encasing the camera in a metal housing would likely not work. It would limit access to controls, and huge gaps would be needed for the lens, hands, LCD etc., preventing it from being effective against external EM interference. If you're on a ship, or in an aircraft, there may not be any space to play with extra gear especially if they interfere with normal operation. Having a tiny bulge on the side of the camera for those who need wireless is clearly the lesser issue to deal with.
People routinely use flash and other gear in photojournalistic work, and these are much bigger than the WT-6.
Android would likely impose large battery power demands and a long start-up time, potentially interfering with the photographer's ability to capture the moment. It simply isn't worth it just to get internet access and some apps.
-
To steer this thread a little bit back on track;
- what do you suggest Nikon should do in order to regain lost pride and territory?
-
What really gets me is the amount of "know it all" people who can analyze Nikon from the comfort of their cushions to deliver rubbish advise.
Hell, Nikon is so stupid that they should hire Thom and Tony and Ming and Dick and Harry as they seem to know everything about high finance, stock shares movement, company politics, product development and how to cook a burger.
It is alright to voice a personal take on things. But please, do not write gospel. Nikon management are not official morons.
P.S. I, personally, do not like or want EVF and video or cyber transfer of pictures and do not give a rat ass about MTF and MDF and MIT and Lateral CA with Vertical CA and concentric CA and mishmash CA.
I mean really, you want to take pictures or have a mental brainstorming whether the far right pixel at coordinates 104/2005 is sharp or not?
I just want a camera that works.
end of rant.
-
+1
-
What the hell! +2 ;)
-
What really gets me is the amount of "know it all" people who can analyze Nikon from the comfort of their cushions to deliver rubbish advise.
Hell, Nikon is so stupid that they should hire Thom and Tony and Ming and Dick and Harry as they seem to know everything about high finance, stock shares movement, company politics, product development and how to cook a burger.
It is alright to voice a personal take on things. But please, do not write gospel. Nikon management are not official morons.
P.S. I, personally, do not like or want EVF and video or cyber transfer of pictures and do not give a rat ass about MTF and MDF and MIT and Lateral CA with Vertical CA and concentric CA and mishmash CA.
I mean really, you want to take pictures or have a mental brainstorming whether the far right pixel at coordinates 104/2005 is sharp or not?
I just want a camera that works.
end of rant.
As we are a free community here at NG with a polite tone, it is no intention to try and tell Nikon what they should do. And gospel is a highly personal thing anyways.
Your last sentence re. a camera that works is also at the core of this discussion :)
-
They should not release products which do not work correctly in any aspect of the specified features. The products should simply always work and be easy to use. This includes software. I do believe apart from the infamous wifi and software in general, Nikon does achieve this in their mid to higher end DSLR products for the most part. For example, I've found the D5 to be very functional and reliable and their new flash (SB-5000) to function flawlessly as a radio controlled remote by itself or in combination with older units. If Nikon were to test all products to the same level of reliability, they could eventually become a reputable brand again. No products should be released which do not always work. Test it until it does match these requirements. I've been extremely pleased with the 105/1.4 as well, it works well together with the D5 and images are near perfect optically and in focus with very high reliability.
Spend a few extra months testing a product before releasing. Make sure that users don't run into problems. People will buy if the stuff works well.
-
As we are a free community here at NG with a polite tone, it is no intention to try and tell Nikon what they should do. And gospel is a highly personal thing anyways.
Your last sentence re. a camera that works is also at the core of this discussion :)
I think Ethan's rant was against the "Thom Hogan" types who try to act like "The Gospel" for Nikon ...
To steer this thread a little bit back on track;
- what do you suggest Nikon should do in order to regain lost pride and territory?
I think Nikon is on the right track by delivering the class-leading D500 and D5, as well as the entire class-leading FL ED series of lenses, which are superior optically (and lighter) than their counterparts.
I think moving away from low-end "burner" cameras and P&S's is a good shift as well, given what's been stated.
I believe coming out with a new class-leading upgrade to the D810 will breathe a lot of life into the public perception also :)
Moving forward, there are some good thoughts about simply making online connectivity a top priority rather than an incidental afterthought ...
To this I would like to see Nikon enter the "uber lens" race with Zeiss, and offer standard lenses with the same FL ED technology, but be all manual.
One of the things that made the Ai-S lenses so great is the fact they're manual and built to last for generations. This same truth is underscored by Zeiss.
By contrast, while the new 105 f/1.5 ED is a very nice optic, "today," I think we all know it is not "built to last" like a Zeiss (or even an Ai-S) is built to last.
- There is a truism that bears consideration: "When times get tough, people gravitate to quality."
To me, it is not important that Nikon have "the biggest share of the market," or that they be "the biggest company."
What is important to me is knowing that, when I make a several-thousand-dollar purchase, that I am making a long-term investment, by purchasing the best possible lenses (quality-wise) that I can afford, and mounting them on the best possible cameras I can afford.
Part of what's "best" isn't just its performance "today" ... but knowing that the (lens/camera) will LAST and keep performing for a long time.
Thus, what will keep me loyal to Nikon will be dedication to quality, not necessarily quantity.
-
To sum it up for me: I am happy with the Nikon stuff I have and hope that Nikon will continue to make tools I really like to use every day for my work and my leisure. I do not use video nor Coolpixels not Nikon Ones nor low end plasicky DSLRs.
I hope Nikon will continue to make my happy. Then I will continue to give them my money.
-
To me, it is not important that Nikon have "the biggest share of the market," or that they be "the biggest company."
What is important to me is knowing that, when I make a several-thousand-dollar purchase, that I am making a long-term investment, by purchasing the best possible lenses (quality-wise) that I can afford, and mounting them on the best possible cameras I can afford.
Part of what's "best" isn't just its performance "today" ... but knowing that the (lens/camera) will LAST and keep performing for a long time.
Thus, what will keep me loyal to Nikon will be dedication to quality, not necessarily quantity.
That seems to perfectly describe my interests. To me "long term investment" means that it continues to be satisfying.
-
Seems to be universal agreement here.
People spend $$$$$ on Zeiss and Leica, not because they're "the biggest companies," but because they want to get quality products ... that hold their value ... because they are good and they last.
To me, it is a fool's errand for Nikon to try to offer low-budget gadgetry and try to compete with the "make everything" paradigm.
I believe they will be more profitable concentrating on LESS products, but products that are the best in their respective markets, and built to last.
Their best cameras and lenses prove they can do this ... so they should stick to this, and only this, type of effort and investment ... as no one gives two $#!^$ about tiny, bs DSLRs or point-and-shoots anymore.
Because cell phone + internet connectivity are phasing out low-end (and, to some degree, even mid-level) photography needs for people, Nikon needs to concentrate on the best cameras and lenses they can make ... while upgrading/improving on seamless PC/online connectivity.
Budget lenses are now virtually disposable and no longer appealing. Today's iPhones, Samsungs, and Google phones actually produce better results and are thus more appealing to 99% of the population (who only want to take and share common, every-day photos) Because of this, the low end camera market is dying and will never recover.
Only the best camera/lens options remain appealing to legitimately-aspiring photographers, because they do what cannot be done using "more convenient" cell phones as tools.
-
Interesting, Tony Northrup says almost everything just covered, in a video made today:
https://youtu.be/1uyJVCHDlzU
Long, but worth the watch.
-
After hearing Nykon five times in the first minute I gave up :D
-
I just want a camera that works.
We all do, but we are just a minority of the minority in the bigger scheme of things.
The bulk of the revenue was in compact digital cameras which now shifted to smartphones causing problems for Nikon and the like. Within the DSLR and mirrorless class only a small percentage is pro or enthusiast, the bulk is populated with non-skilled consumers whom like to take nice pics of their kids or want to take a "real" camera on their holiday trips.
Pro sport photographers and enthousiast were ambassadors for the brand to lure in the masses into buying the consumer models, commercials telling them how simple it was to make great images did the rest. With the bulk of the revenue gone prices of the pro cameras skyrocket to cover all the R&D costs by themselves, etc.
The good news is that Nikon has a rock solid lineup with the D500, D810, D5, Df, etc and keeps coming with great and interesting lenses to keep the attention of the (semi) pro crowd. Not sure though if this will be enough to keep afloat...
ps This is just my perception of things, not to be read as fact ;)
The pic below is fact however, the actual graph is 10 times higher btw when showing the actual number of smartphone cameras sold.
-
I hope they will stand...
-
... as no one gives two $#!^$ about tiny, bs DSLRs or point-and-shoots anymore.
I do. And I know some others.
Only the best camera/lens options remain appealing to legitimately-aspiring photographers, because they do what cannot be done using "more convenient" cell phones as tools.
Are you saying that there's no point in buying anything between the "best" camera/lens combination and a cell phone ?
-
Of course, not. There is a camera for all occasions and all seasons.
-
I do. And I know some others.
Statistics show you're in the vast, vast minority.
Are you saying that there's no point in buying anything between the "best" camera/lens combination and a cell phone ?
I am saying cameras like the D500 and D750 are between "the very best" (D5 and D810) ... and should be all the 'lower' a modern, elite camera company should worry about.
-
Very categorical. The real world holds more nuances.
-
I share the views of Jan Anne and the merit of putting it into a larger context. Let's hope for the best, and just a reminder that Nikon did a great job in the segment in which they should concentrate from now on.
-
Very categorical. The real world holds more nuances.
True, but it's not Nikon's job to develop R&D on every possible camera "nuance."
Wasting time on low-end means they'll be outdated almost as soon as they get released.
By contrast, even 3 years later, the D810 is still up front with the rest of the best ... because of how good it was when initially released.
The D500 and D5 will remain peerless for another 2-3 years ... especially the D500.
That is the only kind of camera worth spending R&D on these days, IMO.
-
just a reminder that Nikon did a great job in the segment in which they should concentrate from now on.
Agreed.
-
Interesting, Tony Northrup says almost everything just covered, in a video made today:
https://youtu.be/1uyJVCHDlzU
Long, but worth the watch.
very interesting Jack. Thanks for this link
Additional to may of the suggestions in this thread, my personal take on this is the future focus for Nikon must centre on how to attract new DSLR uses who embrace the Nikon system. The swelling group of consumers are the cell phone dependents i.e children and teenagers. Many of these who've grown with cellular comms with integral multimedia capabilities in a cell phone are already budding photographers. They have spending power, can secure loans etc and desire a "serious" camera. Retro is still Cool etc for this generation.
With the legacy of the F-mount and recent top of the range DSLRs [D500, D810 and Df] and their recent best Nikkors, Nikon are in a unique situation. Poised to embrace and extend the clint base of their SLR system....
My summary of the Take-Home suggestions this video discussed :
1. Innovative Retro style camera body - building on the Df and better. The Cool camera the cell phone-dependent aspires to own
2. Sensor Stabilization. Will make VR superfluos, simplifying lens design and cost. The lens returns to its singular twinned tasks - Image quality and focusing mechanism
3. Eye Autofocus will revolutionize portrait & wildlife photography and much of action photography
4. Image Stacking that works seamlessly with AF
5. Image Averaging enablng ISo 25 etc
6. Silent Shutter
7. Top of the Range Screen quality. You See the Image You Will Get
8. Snapbridge. Fix it!! Fix it asap! So 1 Click of a button sends jpg to cell phone of one's choice. Background transfer of raw images to HDD in vicinity or solid-state drive [in one's near vicinity] receives auto backup as you shoot. And leave it to these 3rd devices to handle the core task of mass transfer to servers etc
9. Software. Redesign and fix DSLR operating system so it = iPhone quality; searchable menus should be standard feature.
10. Enable 3rd party Apps to work with Nikon OS. This will embrace and extend adoption of Nikon system
1st and Foremost, implementing the above suite of features will generate client enthusiasm. Focusing on core corporate strengths while sorting out software / user interfaces that meet the client's expectations, which are very high.
Thus, it is especially the young Nikon client who buys into the system and plans to grow their personal inventory.
Speaking for myself, ~3 decades back and earlier, Many of us on NG started exactly in this way. This unique opportunity for Nikon to embrace millennial consumer and extend the users of this age group demands mechanisms that engage and promote emerging photographers. Discounts for the 'Under 25' is one obvious tactic. Above all mentorship is the obvious way forward. Discover, adopt and facilitate role models, which will need a re-think of who qualifies as a Nikon Ambassador.
In quite a few countries, what calls itself Nikon "Support" will have to rebuilt and retrained in its entirety.
kind regards
woody
PS Will not the established Nikon user will be utterly ecstatic to see at least the main advances summarized above!
-
......................................................
PS Will not the established Nikon user will be utterly ecstatic to see at least the main advances summarized above!
Exactly!
Nice post Woody and good points all.
-
That is the only kind of camera worth spending R&D on these days, IMO.
Problem is that this segment of Nikon's products probably can't support itself in isolation. Factories make optical materials in quantity and if this quantity is cut by 95%, for example, it may become prohibitatively expensive to maintain consistency of materials in smaller quantities and thus in the end it may not be possible to make a quality end user product for a competitive price without the support from the consumer products. When Nikon creates new technologies, be it for optics or camera bodies, they need to sell a large quantity of products that utilize that technology in order to be profitable.
Furthermore the high end products are difficult to sell without less expensive products in the same lineup that serve as a ladder which allows consumers to spend money in a gradual manner. I know some people who started with D70, then went with D200 or D300, and finally D8x0 or even D5. Today that might be D3x00 -> D7x00 -> D6x0 -> D500/D810 etc. People just can't cough up that kind of money to start with a D810 or D500, when they are unsure of whether they will like photography in the long term and are just starting out. Without entry level products, Nikon won't get as many new users as they used to.
In practice Nikon must maintain some kind of stepping stones for beginners in the system. Perhaps the D3x00 and D5x00 can be merged into one product. I quite frankly wish they would do away with the pentamirror viewfinder entirely. Perhaps the D7200 could be added with a tilt/swivel screen. I think Nikon ought to make a few more intermediate/high end DX lenses and I am sure money can be made in this segment since third party manufacturers seem to have found it worthwhile. If I'm not mistaken the D7x00 have been extremely popular and thus this is definitely a product to continue making. I don't know if it is inexpensive enough for beginners. Perhaps used market can help with that.
-
"3. Eye Autofocus will revolutionize portrait & wildlife photography and much of action photography"
reminds me of canon elan :o :o :o
-
I really have absolutely no issues at all with the D810 in any way except I would love to see it in a D5 body. I use the grip with the D5 battery work around - I come from D1, D1X, D2Xs, D3 and D3X,,,
Likewise the performance of the current 1.4 G AFS are fully acceptable and get the job done, for faster speed the 2.8 AFS primes and Zooms deliver.
Sure some of the old AF-D classics are over due for an update - I'm confident they will be here at some point most of them or replaced by even better offers.
All the wishful thinking and more or less unsolvable technical dreams are funny to read; Nice to have gadgets/functions but mostly not needed or directly unwanted for my work/hobby.
Actually I by far prefer to shoot my Leica M9 - I have the option to select an ISO value, aperture, camera selects WB a shutter time, or I dial it in and I manually focus on the subject and - Click - That's it,,,
I don't need anything else - Simple as that! The whole experience is so relaxed and simple that Photography itself becomes alive,,,
The continues complaining form the 'see me' bloggers is understandable, they suck the life out off having fun with photography due to a constant search for bigger, better, faster, smaller and lighter misconception.
Currently there is camera gear that fits all aspects of photography. The marked is full of options, if Nikon doesn't have it Fuji Leica or some other company for sure does.
If Nikon is not heading in your direction shift platform or add another platform - Most of us here have several platforms due to different tools for different jobs - There will never be one universal do all camera that fits all,,,
Nikon for sure will be able to adapt to the marked situation, just like many other companies in other segments have been forced to due to the more or less predictable technical evolution, I don't believe we will see a 'Kodak-collapse',,,
Choose the right tool for the job shoot some images and enjoy.
-
"3. Eye Autofocus will revolutionize portrait & wildlife photography and much of action photography"
reminds me of canon elan :o :o :o
No, Eye AF is when the camera focuses on the eye of the subject in portrait photography. This is implemented in the D750 and D810, custom menu b4/b5. Works really well according to reports on fredmiranda.com. This technology is present also in most mirrorless cameras. Nikon uses the colour matrix sensor in combination with the AF sensor to do this. Nice with the new 105/1.4 and the 58/1.4 lenses.
-
I hope they will stand...
Scary graph. I don't think it's caused by the extraordinary loss take, since the lion share of that was announced in November of 2016. I rather believe that Nikon losing market share in a declining market is the culprit, and this tendency has got worse than estimated in November. They need to get on the offensive again.
-
No, Eye AF is when the camera focuses on the eye of the subject in portrait photography. This is implemented in the D750 and D810, custom menu b4/b5. Works really well according to reports on fredmiranda.com. This technology is present also in most mirrorless cameras. Nikon uses the colour matrix sensor in combination with the AF sensor to do this. Nice with the new 105/1.4 and the 58/1.4 lenses.
The D500 and allied line of DSLRs sorely need this for wildlife photography :-)
-
Problem is that this segment of Nikon's products probably can't support itself in isolation. Factories make optical materials in quantity and if this quantity is cut by 95%, for example, it may become prohibitatively expensive to maintain consistency of materials in smaller quantities and thus in the end it may not be possible to make a quality end user product for a competitive price without the support from the consumer products. When Nikon creates new technologies, be it for optics or camera bodies, they need to sell a large quantity of products that utilize that technology in order to be profitable.
Tough Challenges here!!
Furthermore the high end products are difficult to sell without less expensive products in the same lineup that serve as a ladder which allows consumers to spend money in a gradual manner. I know some people who started with D70, then went with D200 or D300, and finally D8x0 or even D5. Today that might be D3x00 -> D7x00 -> D6x0 -> D500/D810 etc. People just can't cough up that kind of money to start with a D810 or D500, when they are unsure of whether they will like photography in the long term and are just starting out. Without entry level products, Nikon won't get as many new users as they used to.
This is vital when the buyer selects hers/his 1st SLR BUT don't remove core innovative features from entry level models. Admittedly, there be tough challenges here to keep the cost of the entry camera down; it is logical to enable full backward compatibility with all lenses since AI, and especially enable AF in entry DSLR for the early AF lenses [excluding F3-AF]. ~10 years ago, I experienced this gap in my D60 and it was more than frustrating. I felt ripped off as a devout Nikon client of 20+ years with an emasculated F-Mount !!!
Comparability with ~60+ years of Nikkors sets Nikon apart from all its competitors, especially for the emerging photographer.... Bizarre that Nikon does market this unique strength as a sine qua none .... inclusive of all the cutting edge innovations
Yet Nikon have succeeded with affordable lenses. 75-150 AIS E / 28-200 G 70-300 G zooms and 50 f1.8D for full frame cameras and 18-55 & 18-200 for DX
Perhaps a viable business model is to lay out the option for affordable upgrades after 1-2 years of ownership. Centred on the attractive trade in..... Nikon then refurbishes said trade-in body for resale With Full Warranty until the model in question has become obsolete. I do just this with the Used market for lenses; camera trade-ins are usually left too long.
In practice Nikon must maintain some kind of stepping stones for beginners in the system. Perhaps the D3x00 and D5x00 can be merged into one product. I quite frankly wish they would do away with the pentamirror viewfinder entirely. Perhaps the D7200 could be added with a tilt/swivel screen. I think Nikon ought to make a few more intermediate/high end DX lenses and I am sure money can be made in this segment since third party manufacturers seem to have found it worthwhile. If I'm not mistaken the D7x00 have been extremely popular and thus this is definitely a product to continue making. I don't know if it is inexpensive enough for beginners. Perhaps used market can help with that.
Yes - This is 100 % vital if the more affluent Client buys the D810 / D5 equivalent after some years on from first buy into Nikon. It makes sense for the Nikon business model to prioritize recruiting & embracing emerging photographers who will mortgage whatever they can, as Nikonitis gains its hold on the client....
-
I really have absolutely no issues at all with the D810 in any way except I would love to see it in a D5 body. I use the grip with the D5 battery work around - I come from D1, D1X, D2Xs, D3 and D3X,,,
Likewise the performance of the current 1.4 G AFS are fully acceptable and get the job done, for faster speed the 2.8 AFS primes and Zooms deliver.
Sure some of the old AF-D classics are over due for an update - I'm confident they will be here at some point most of them or replaced by even better offers.
All the wishful thinking and more or less unsolvable technical dreams are funny to read; Nice to have gadgets/functions but mostly not needed or directly unwanted for my work/hobby.
Actually I by far prefer to shoot my Leica M9 - I have the option to select an ISO value, aperture, camera selects WB a shutter time, or I dial it in and I manually focus on the subject and - Click - That's it,,,
I don't need anything else - Simple as that! The whole experience is so relaxed and simple that Photography itself becomes alive,,,
The continues complaining form the 'see me' bloggers is understandable, they suck the life out off having fun with photography due to a constant search for bigger, better, faster, smaller and lighter misconception.
Currently there is camera gear that fits all aspects of photography. The marked is full of options, if Nikon doesn't have it Fuji Leica or some other company for sure does.
If Nikon is not heading in your direction shift platform or add another platform - Most of us here have several platforms due to different tools for different jobs - There will never be one universal do all camera that fits all,,,
Nikon for sure will be able to adapt to the marked situation, just like many other companies in other segments have been forced to due to the more or less predictable technical evolution, I don't believe we will see a 'Kodak-collapse',,,
Choose the right tool for the job shoot some images and enjoy.
Remember Nokia? Great products and still they collapsed in an alarmingly short time span.
-
Scary graph. I don't think it's caused by the extraordinary loss take, since the lion share of that was announced in November of 2016. I rather believe that Nikon losing market share in a declining market is the culprit, and this tendency has got worse than estimated in November. They need to get on the offensive again.
Nikon's stock price has been at this low a level previously in November, so whatever increase there was in the meanwhile must have been due to expectations that were higher than they are now. In June 2016 the stock price was considerably lower than it is now. For the past three years Nikon stock has remained fairly steady and its current value is close to this long term average.
-
Nikon's stock price has been at this low a level previously in November, so whatever increase there was in the meanwhile must have been due to expectations that were higher than they are now. In June 2016 the stock price was considerably lower than it is now. For the past three years Nikon stock has remained fairly steady and its current value is close to this long term average.
I know, and Nikon is a tech stock, which means it can fluctuate. Many of these changes are short term, and the latest increase to around 1800 followed by the subsequent drop can be due to speculation as well.
-
Problem is that this segment of Nikon's products probably can't support itself in isolation. Factories make optical materials in quantity and if this quantity is cut by 95%, for example, it may become prohibitatively expensive to maintain consistency of materials in smaller quantities and thus in the end it may not be possible to make a quality end user product for a competitive price without the support from the consumer products. When Nikon creates new technologies, be it for optics or camera bodies, they need to sell a large quantity of products that utilize that technology in order to be profitable.
Furthermore the high end products are difficult to sell without less expensive products in the same lineup that serve as a ladder which allows consumers to spend money in a gradual manner. I know some people who started with D70, then went with D200 or D300, and finally D8x0 or even D5. Today that might be D3x00 -> D7x00 -> D6x0 -> D500/D810 etc. People just can't cough up that kind of money to start with a D810 or D500, when they are unsure of whether they will like photography in the long term and are just starting out. Without entry level products, Nikon won't get as many new users as they used to.
In practice Nikon must maintain some kind of stepping stones for beginners in the system. Perhaps the D3x00 and D5x00 can be merged into one product. I quite frankly wish they would do away with the pentamirror viewfinder entirely. Perhaps the D7200 could be added with a tilt/swivel screen. I think Nikon ought to make a few more intermediate/high end DX lenses and I am sure money can be made in this segment since third party manufacturers seem to have found it worthwhile. If I'm not mistaken the D7x00 have been extremely popular and thus this is definitely a product to continue making. I don't know if it is inexpensive enough for beginners. Perhaps used market can help with that.
Trouble is, your recollection of how 'you' (and others) began in the DSLR world presupposes that was the only way IN to the DSLR world. Back then, cell phones weren't smart phones, so DSLRs (even entry ones) could take better photos than cell phones.
Today, phones like the Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, Google Phone, and iPhone 7 cost more than most entry level DSLRs ($650-$850) ... and they come with badass cameras :o
So what's the point in buying a limited DSLR, when your cell phone costs more and takes some really cool photographs?
(This is exactly why my own brother, and his family, decided against buying a low-end DSLR or P & S for their trip to Europe--they weren't into photography enough to buy a really nice camera, and they didn't want to carry anything "extra"; they concluded that their own cell phones, which they already carry, were sufficient, and which could immediately share with their friends & family, by text or by Facebook post, their ongoing adventures ... which no "entry camera" could do.)
With cell phones being nearly $800, why create BS cameras less than that, which require post-processing and "extra steps" to take in order to share photos?
The D7200 would be the "lowest" camera it makes sense to sell, at $990. It's good enough to justify buying and better than a cell phone, to where is justifies spending extra time post-processing. The D3400 series is a waste of time IMO. Who is going to buy this little plasticky $500 toy ... when they're already carrying an $850 iPhone Plus with a very competent camera?
It only makes sense to offer something better than any smartphone out there, if you're going to inconvenience people by not having the ability to text their photos to friends/family, and not having the ability to immediately share photos on Facebook, which is the reality of all current cameras right now. [If you think the $1900 D500 is "too high" to start people off on for a DSLR ... then the $990 D7200 is the lowest I would go, when people already have $650-$850 cell phones (with great cameras at the-ready), sitting conveniently in their pockets or purses right now.]
As it stands, why would they want to add a $550 toy camera, and a $200 toy lens, to put around their necks, when they already have more expensive cell phones? :-[
The only people who are going to buy cameras in the future are going to be buying something way beyond what their cell phones can do ... and it will be the 1% of the human population truly interested in photography. The rest of the population already has everything they need in a camera, right in their iPhones or Androids.
Jack
-
Trouble is, your recollection of how 'you' (and others) began in the DSLR world presupposes that was the only way IN to the DSLR world. Back then, cell phones weren't smart phones, so DSLRs (even entry ones) could take better photos than cell phones.
Entry level DSLRs take comparable image quality and have many of the lens options available as a D500, it's just that the D500 makes it easier to get good action photos and provides more direct controls and a better viewfinder. A cell phone camera is always limited to a moderately short focal length lens (or two fixed lenses in some cases) and there is no timing precision to speak of (the photo is taken when the phone is ready to do so, and the subject may or may not still be there), so in those respects an entry level DSLR provides a lot more than any cell phone as a camera.
I look at young people and they don't have money to jump into a D500 or D810. They start with the cheap stuff and move up. I know many people who need a superwide or tele, and fast primes and low light capability and they can at best buy a second hand D7100 and some third party lenses. But that is a lot better than a cell phone camera for what they are going to do with it.
Today, phones like the Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, Google Phone, and iPhone 7 cost more than most entry level DSLRs ($650-$850) ... and they come with badass cameras :o
Well as I've said before all it takes is a slight knock to throw the iPhone 6's camera out of alignment and after that all I got was blur, blur and blur. Most people whom I know don't spend more than 200-300€ on a phone if they have to pay for it themselves; if they get it from their employer, then it can be an iPhone, or if they are somehow infatuated with Apple products. But most people that I know don't use phones with especially good cameras. They're just garden variety Androids that get a lot of beating up as they tumble along the carrier's life. Because the phone gets dropped and beat up all the time, it can't be an expensive model.
I think most of my friends consider that I was crazy to buy an iPhone 6, and perhaps they're right; I just wanted the photographer's ephemeris and some other applications and a fluid user interface with few bugs.
But 600€ is a lot for a phone with 16GB of memory.
So what's the point in buying a limited DSLR, when your cell phone costs more and takes some really cool photographs?
You can go on a safari with a D3x00, get a 55-300mm and get some shots that you could never get on any cell phone, ever, and get bitten by the bug. Next you're shopping for a 150-600, a used 300/4, and D7200. Although I said young people don't have money, the thing is that once they get bitten they will find a way, but not before they know how much they love photography. And there is no way to find out until they buy something moderately capable and give it a try.
which could immediately share with their friends & family, by text or by Facebook post, their ongoing adventures ... which no "entry camera" could do.
It is highly inadvisable to talk about your travels in social media in real time while you're still away. You may think all of your social media "friends" are your friends, but there is always a chance that someone empties your home while you're traveling. The police warn about it so it must have happened to some people. I don't see what the purpose of doing it in real time is, in any case. But in my culture showing off is not seen as a positive.
One can always take some time to consider what one is doing and make a more ambitious and interesting travel documentary with a dedicated camera. It makes traveling more interesting.
With cell phones being nearly $800, why create BS cameras less than that?
Most people don't buy that expensive phones. And the phone is what they need anyway, it is not a discretionary purchase but a necessity. Furthermore there is no telephoto or superwide angle capability in a smartphone. There is no indoor available light imagery with frozen movement and acceptable noise. There is no precise timing so the human expressions are way off from what the photographer intended. A lot of things simply cannot be captured with a cell phone.
The D7200 would be the "lowest" camera it makes sense to sell, at $990.
For me it would be the one, but it's still too expensive for many. Think about if you live in India and your salary is $500 in a month (that may be the average salary in a well-to-do city). You probably still want photographs. I photographed a wedding in India a few years ago and there were were several local professional photographers present using basic consumer Nikon DSLRs.
The D3400 series is a waste of time IMO. Who is going to buy this little plasticky $500 toy ... when they're already carrying an $850 iPhone Plus with a very competent camera?
Apple has 10-20% worldwide market share in smartphones. Competitors make phones that are far less expensive and those are the ones most people outside of the USA buy and use.
-
To put things slightly more in perspective, the most robust Nikons I have used are the Nikon F2 Titan and the D40x. I use currently a D3200 for all things UV and a D5300 for my IR shooting, with a D40x as backup.
If the images don't come out as I wanted, the camera is the last thing to complain about.
-
9. Software. Redesign and fix DSLR operating system so it = iPhone quality; searchable menus should be standard feature.
10. Enable 3rd party Apps to work with Nikon OS. This will embrace and extend adoption of Nikon system
You've made many logical and hard-to-argue-with suggestions here.
However:
In the 4.5 years I owned my two D3's, I used to tell people that the Nikon D3 was the only computer (microprocessor, really) controlled product I have ever had or used that never, ever had any kind of reliability problems.
The D800's that I've had since have each mysteriously locked-up a couple of times each....fortunately not recently.
The prospect of introducing defect ("bug") populated OS software to a camera that I have to use is not a cheerful one.
-
IMO Nikon is likely to restructure, perhaps separating the semiconductor business from cameras and consumer optics. One, the other, or both will probably be acquired by larger companies.
-
Nikon for sure will be able to adapt to the marked situation, just like many other companies in other segments have been forced to due to the more or less predictable technical evolution, I don't believe we will see a 'Kodak-collapse',,,
This pretty much clears the air of the rest ...
-
Entry level DSLRs take comparable image quality and have many of the lens options available as a D500, it's just that the D500 makes it easier to get good action photos and provides more direct controls and a better viewfinder. A cell phone camera is always limited to a moderately short focal length lens (or two fixed lenses in some cases) and there is no timing precision to speak of (the photo is taken when the phone is ready to do so, and the subject may or may not still be there), so in those respects an entry level DSLR provides a lot more than any cell phone as a camera.
I look at young people and they don't have money to jump into a D500 or D810. They start with the cheap stuff and move up. I know many people who need a superwide or tele, and fast primes and low light capability and they can at best buy a second hand D7100 and some third party lenses. But that is a lot better than a cell phone camera for what they are going to do with it.
Well as I've said before all it takes is a slight knock to throw the iPhone 6's camera out of alignment and after that all I got was blur, blur and blur. Most people whom I know don't spend more than 200-300€ on a phone if they have to pay for it themselves; if they get it from their employer, then it can be an iPhone, or if they are somehow infatuated with Apple products. But most people that I know don't use phones with especially good cameras. They're just garden variety Androids that get a lot of beating up as they tumble along the carrier's life. Because the phone gets dropped and beat up all the time, it can't be an expensive model.
I think most of my friends consider that I was crazy to buy an iPhone 6, and perhaps they're right; I just wanted the photographer's ephemeris and some other applications and a fluid user interface with few bugs.
But 600€ is a lot for a phone with 16GB of memory.
You can go on a safari with a D3x00, get a 55-300mm and get some shots that you could never get on any cell phone, ever, and get bitten by the bug. Next you're shopping for a 150-600, a used 300/4, and D7200. Although I said young people don't have money, the thing is that once they get bitten they will find a way, but not before they know how much they love photography. And there is no way to find out until they buy something moderately capable and give it a try.
It is highly inadvisable to talk about your travels in social media in real time while you're still away. You may think all of your social media "friends" are your friends, but there is always a chance that someone empties your home while you're traveling. The police warn about it so it must have happened to some people. I don't see what the purpose of doing it in real time is, in any case. But in my culture showing off is not seen as a positive.
One can always take some time to consider what one is doing and make a more ambitious and interesting travel documentary with a dedicated camera. It makes traveling more interesting.
Most people don't buy that expensive phones. And the phone is what they need anyway, it is not a discretionary purchase but a necessity. Furthermore there is no telephoto or superwide angle capability in a smartphone. There is no indoor available light imagery with frozen movement and acceptable noise. There is no precise timing so the human expressions are way off from what the photographer intended. A lot of things simply cannot be captured with a cell phone.
For me it would be the one, but it's still too expensive for many. Think about if you live in India and your salary is $500 in a month (that may be the average salary in a well-to-do city). You probably still want photographs. I photographed a wedding in India a few years ago and there were were several local professional photographers present using basic consumer Nikon DSLRs.
Apple has 10-20% worldwide market share in smartphones. Competitors make phones that are far less expensive and those are the ones most people outside of the USA buy and use.
Nice rebuttal. Except I'd like to see the stats on iPhone + Samsung + Google Phone ownership, combined, as all of them take entry-level+BS lens DSLR-quality photos in ideal conditions. (If not better.)
Moving on, I don't have the energy to offer a counter-rebuttal, line-for-line, except to say a few words:
Most people who can afford a $6500-$20,000+ African safari aren't the types to be struggling to decide between a D3400 and a D7200 ... although, I suppose, maybe one guy spent virtually his last $6500 and only has a few pennies left. Unlikely, but possible. There are so many circumstantial possibilities, it gives a guy a headache to imagine them all ... which brings us to another principle:
- "A man with one watch knows what time it is; a man with many watches is never sure." :)
By Nikon ceasing to try to make "every camera level," and instead narrowing its focus to only a few very-high mid-level, to the high-end of its arsenal, everyone is guaranteed quality. Thus I remain firm in my view that the "entry level" concept needs to be upgraded significantly from the "gee, my first camera experience" mentality ... to an "I can already take photos any time I want to, and pretty damned good ones, with my cell, so convince me WHY I need to buy a DSLR + lenses" mentality ...
I would also like to add that, if a person gets "hooked" on DSLRs ... he almost immediately regrets buying a cheap camera + lens. I remember when I first bought the Canon 50D, I regretted my decision within 2 months, but already had $1500 into the camera, and a couple-thou in so-so lenses.
It would have been far preferable (and more satisfying) for me to have simply saved up for a few months longer to buy top-tier equipment. The satisfaction simply lasts longer.
Thus, I believe a person receives a better "buying experience" when aiming as high as his personal budget will allow.
Pardon me for another saying,
- "The bitterness of 'poor quality' remains long after the sweetness of 'low price' is forgotten."
So I respect your view, and agree with it somewhat, but in the end I think it's better just to stick to quality when times get tough ... which they definitely are for the DSLR market.
-
Everything has more or less been said. On my side ? A binary approach: smartphone (iPhone 6s Plus) and FX cameras (D5, D610); D90 given to my son, Coolpix 7900 given to my daughter, but they almost never use these, preferring to rely on their better smartphones (iPhone x). My little world is may be not a proxy for the bigger one, but I give it some taught.
Personal, I have always aimed for the best (and most expensive - starting with a Nikon F2 AS - and it has never been a disappointment, even when my wallet was much much thinner in the early days. "You have to be rich to buy cheap" they say. The only exception was during the beginning of the digital era, where I bought some cheaper cameras, because I wanted first to have a toe in the water, and professional DSLR cameras being too expensive for the delivered quality.
-
My first digital camera was the Nikon D1 - It's very difficult to put people into fixed behavioural patterns to prove a point,,,
-
If your statement is a reply to mine, I'm afraid I dont get your point. 🤓
-
It wasn't
-
My first digital camera was the Nikon D1 - It's very difficult to put people into fixed behavioural patterns to prove a point,,,
I would guess you used less expensive film cameras some time before that and didn't jump into photography by buying the D1 straight away as your first camera. Of course, I can't know that for sure.
I was not trying to draw a pattern that everyone follows. I was just reporting what people whom I know to have gotten into photography have done in the past 10-15 years. Not one of them went into high end products straight away. Of course, students in some photography schools are exposed to medium format digital in the school studio but most of them work on their tasks with used, older, less expensive models in the beginning even though it will be their profession. Lots of wedding photography is shot on consumer DX gear. It does the job and is economically sensible.
There is always the exception but most young people have time but very little if any money, and when they later on approach middle age they have some money but very little (free) time, so unless they are shooting professionally, the first time when many people could buy high end gear is after their kids have left their parents home. Of course there are exceptions but even for most professional photographers they need to be very prudent with the money they spend to make ends meet. I recall reading that the average salary for a professional photographer in my country is a little over 2000 EUR (before taxes etc. are subtracted). 5000€ camera bodies just don't enter the picture for many.
-
F4E and F5,,, ::)
-
Recent information about Nikon's share of total camera sales (especially their lower end DSLR's), their drastic reduction of number of Nikon Ambassadors, promised DL line not delivered, lack of (real) mirrorless products, Nikon management asleep or just too tied up in old thinking, etc. makes me wondering.
Waddaya think folks?
I thought on this forum one did not criticize Nikon! Whatever they do is right!
One can only hope that Nikon will find a way out of the current situation. I for one don't want Nikon to have the biggest market share. I would rather Nikon products are the best!
Regards
Dibyendu
-
.... I would guess you used less expensive film cameras some time before that and didn't jump into photography by buying the D1 straight away as your first camera. Of course, I can't know that for sure
....
F -> F2-_> F3 -> F4S -> F5 -> D1 and so on.
I thought on this forum one did not criticize Nikon! Whatever they do is right!
....
Feel free to criticise Nikon when criticism is due. They are not infallible even they do have a record of making great products. Same applies to any other camera or lens maker.
-
Cameras have always been following a broad path which satisfies requirements for quality and convenience. It is broad because there are different balancing points for different types of photographers. There is a third dimension to this which is price, and price determines the number of photographers at a given point.
In the past we saw medium format roll cameras take over from sheet film, because they were more convenient and had "good enough" quality.
We saw 35mm become dominant over medium format as film improved and the ability to interchange lenses easily (and get long reach) made it more convenient.
We saw digital dominate over film as the convenience and immediacy trumped initial quality issues.
We saw point and shoots become decimated by the phone cam as convenience can't be beat (even at the cost of lack of quality)
And now I think for the most part that the DSLR is going to go the way of the medium format camera. Large heavy expensive lenses, pentaprisms and flipping mirrors deliver more than enough quality for most, and less than enough convenience.
The future is clear to me that my DF is as archaic as my Rolliflex, speed graphic and D3. That doesn't make it. As, but it does mean that the number of people who are interested enough to keep using them is much smaller than the very broad group of cellcamera users.
It is a broad path as I mentioned before. There are many ways to wander through the woods. And those who are wandering longest are frequently the ones who stay to their well known path instead of jumping to a new one.
The dilemma for Nikon and other makers is how do they pave a new path while not abandoning the one they have so lovingly paved. There are many great photographic companies buried out in the woods with their customers, Kodak and Polaroid being a couple which just couldn't navigate the digital fork in the road.
Nikon (and all other DSLR companies) are in a similar situation now. I think they will make the same decisions as others which have perished before them and live or die on the path which they have so carefully tended for 100 years now. That is a long time for a company.
I expect my current camera is the last DSLR I will buy new. The next camera will be lighter, smaller, more capable and with image quality which is "good enough".
-
DSLRs or SLRs are not 100 years old. Nikon made rangefinders and lenses before the SLR became popular. They made mirrorless digital cameras (with non interchangeable lens) before they made DSLRs. It is silly to suggest Nikon is somehow only a DSLR maker or that DSLRs are the old tech. It is not. In my opinion the DSLR is evolutionarily more advanced than rangefinders or mirrorless cameras though both rangefinders and mirrorless cameras have advantages for short focal length lenses. To limit myself to short focal length lenses and a viewfinder which would barely do justice to a 1980s television screen is a wholly unattractive proposition and would likely lead me to stop photographing. Although many seem to dismiss DSLRs and non interchangeable lens compact digital cameras as doomed, EVF MILC camera sales constitute an extremely small piece of the total dedicated camera sales. Every type of camera has its own advantages and should be used for those applications where it is best fit.
-
DSLRs or SLRs are not 100 years old. Nikon made rangefinders and lenses before the SLR became popular. They made mirrorless digital cameras (with non interchangeable lens) before they made DSLRs. It is silly to suggest Nikon is somehow only a DSLR maker or that DSLRs are the old tech. It is not. In my opinion the DSLR is evolutionarily more advanced than rangefinders or mirrorless cameras though both rangefinders and mirrorless cameras have advantages for short focal length lenses. To limit myself to short focal length lenses and a viewfinder which would barely do justice to a 1980s television screen is a wholly unattractive proposition and would likely lead me to stop photographing. Although many seem to dismiss DSLRs and non interchangeable lens compact digital cameras as doomed, EVF MILC camera sales constitute an extremely small piece of the total dedicated camera sales. Every type of camera has its own advantages and should be used for those applications where it is best fit.
Let's look at "extremely small piece of the dedicated camera sales". EVF MILC cameras are about 25% of the interchangeable lens camera market for 2016. Nikon has about a 27% market share of the interchangeable lens camera market in 2016. By extension of your argument, one would be lead to think that Nikon has an "extremely small piece of the dedicated camera sales". No wonder Nikon is doomed, or are they? ;)
A 1980'ies TV screen had about 520,000 pixels, i.e. 0.5 million pixels. The best EVFs today have 3.69 mpix (Fuji GFX) and 4 mpix (Leica SL). Most other are 2.4 mpix. Quite a difference.
-
Every type of camera has its own advantages and should be used for those applications where it is best fit.
I disagree.
Following this logic, a camera company should spend R&D money on every conceivable "level" of camera, possible for the human imagination. :o Nonsense.
Remember another truism, "A confused mind says, 'No.'"
Having an infinity of levels wastes time, resources, as well as bulk markets.
As such, here should only be 3 (at most, 5) "types" of DSLR.
Beginner, Intermediate, Pro. (Action)
Intermediate, Pro. (Landscape.)
That's it. Cell phones can do the rest.
Likely, mirrorless will ultimately replace all landscape DSLRs.
Not so sure about action.
-
Cell Phone can't beat my Coolpix P300. And its purpose cant be fulfilled by SLR
-
John, that is not what I meant. I was referring to different types of camera, such as fixed lens compact, rangefinder, mirrorless ILC with EVF, mirrorless ILC with just LCD, scientific cameras, action cameras, underwater cameras, DSLRs etc. There is no need to get rid of any of these camera types and there is no reason why a single manufacturer needs to make all these camera types. Each manufacturer should probably focus on their areas of strength rather than try to do it all.
-
Cell Phone can't beat my Coolpix P300. And its purpose cant be fulfilled by SLR
You should specify which cell phone. The recent smartphones (iPhone 6 and 7; Samsung etc) have made enormous progress. And you can only make pictures if you have the tool with you; and I have always my smartphone.
At least we can talk about; not so long ago, on many forums, you would simply have been nailed on the barn door by only mentioning the word "cell phone".
-
You should specify which cell phone. The recent smartphones (iPhone 6 and 7; Samsung etc) have made enormous progress. And you can only make pictures if you have the tool with you; and I have always my smartphone.
At least we can talk about; not so long ago, on many forums, you would simply have been nailed on the barn door by only mentioning the word "cell phone".
I bought a compact camera in 2008, a Canon Gx, x is a number I have forgotten by now. The problem was that I rarely used it, so I have concluded that I won't buy another "compact" camera. Now I only have the iPhone and my Sony A7 and A7II + lenses. My money are better spent on a cell phone with a good camera, than on a compact camera.
The DL 18-50 was about the only camera that might have challenged my "no compact" stance, due to going as wide as 18mm on the 35mm format. Sadly, it was not to be.
-
When I saw the image samples of iPhone 5S, I thought the compact cameras are virtually dead.
Now I'm pretty much impressed by the IQ that my iPnone SE can offer. I believe that the small sensors (1' and smaller) can only live in super-zoom compacts and video-centric cameras.
With my D750, I mostly look for something that only cameras of this class (DSLR or mirrorless) can deliver. The stitched pano (that requires wide dynamic range) and closeups with high-speed lenses are a few of such examples.
-
DSLRs or SLRs are not 100 years old. Nikon made rangefinders and lenses before the SLR became popular. They made mirrorless digital cameras (with non interchangeable lens) before they made DSLRs. It is silly to suggest Nikon is somehow only a DSLR maker or that DSLRs are the old tech. It is not. In my opinion the DSLR is evolutionarily more advanced than rangefinders or mirrorless cameras though both rangefinders and mirrorless cameras have advantages for short focal length lenses.
Maybe I put too many words in my post.
I have a lovely 90mm large format Nikkor on an Ebony 4x5. I love shooting with TLR's and Speed Graphics. In film days such beautiful negatives made me nearly abandon the 35mm Nikon I started with.
It wasn't until a couple of generations into DSLRs that I picked one up. By then they were better than film SLRs ever were. Current cameras are amazing. In what they can do in low light conditions and with focusing on things moving quickly. No doubt they are the best they have ever been.
But every technology ages, and the winning technology in photography is not a result of being best in one aspect, or even being very good. The winning technologies are the ones which are good enough and offer something else (connectivity, portability, low cost, etc. )
Nikon has successfully navigated for 100 years. But there are still turns to make. They must look not just ahead, but to the sides and maybe leave their path altogether if they want to last another 100 years. I don't know what photography will look like then, and I won't be alive to see it either, but I do know that the DSLR will be on the shelf like some old Kodak folder.
Nikon may survive, but even companies like Kodak failed to make the right choices. They failed to look and act, and part of it was due to their attachment to the present and the past.
-
I agree with MFloyd....an iPhone and FX camera is a nice set up.
-
even APSC would be OK :o :o :o
Sony Ericsson had a good one before
-
I agree with MFloyd....an iPhone and FX camera is a nice set up.
My preferred setup for many years now, an iPhone as my EDC camera to capture interesting moments in life and an FX camera for the dedicated photo trips.
And with some skill one can shoot half decent images with the o so inferior smartphone cameras:
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,1899.0.html
-
The inability of my smart phone to take a photograph when I want it to is deal breaker for me. I all but never use it as a camera. Even the Instamatic 100 I used as a teenager was better in this respect.
A smallish rangefinder camera would make sense to me but for the price. I'd want a 28, 50 and 90~105mm lens. I'd want 24x36mm format. I'd need a lot of money. :(
Dave Hartman
Please send free time!™
-
I agree completely that smartphones lack the responsiveness and features I deem necessary for serious photography.
BUT, I still claim that the majority of people making photos deem the smartphone's features critical to their needs (market driven of course).
AND, the smartphone photographers is the group that caused the biggest loss in camera sales to companies like Nikon.
-
But every technology ages, and the winning technology in photography is not a result of being best in one aspect, or even being very good. The winning technologies are the ones which are good enough and offer something else (connectivity, portability, low cost, etc. )
"Good enough" gets you nowhere when there are thousands of wannabe photographers for every successful one to make a living or achieve wider recognition. In many applications of photography, there is intense competition among photographers, and only the best performing technology will be considered good enough especially where technology plays a big role (such as action photography in low light with shallow depth of field). For some other applications, such as landscape photography, the technology plays a smaller role and creativity, bravery and inspiration of the photographer are more decisive. In each area of application, the best implementation survives because there are people who will pay anything for it, and then there are products which offer greater convenience along with lower performance but are popular among casual photographers.
Really, connectivity is of absolutely no consequence if you are spending weeks in the wilderness out of sight of anyone. No one cares whether you get your work online instantly, or in three weeks after properly processing it, but if you post unedited work straight from the camera, probably it will dilute your reputation as a serious photographer. If you witness a once-in-a-lifetime natural event, you may gain something by posting quickly but again a few minutes of downloading to computer and doing it right vs. instantly uploading it from the camera makes little difference, and on the calibrated monitor of a computer you can make sure it looks just right, not too dark or too light. Often it takes days or weeks of deliberation to make the decision of which edit is best on a particular image. Instant uploading in this context is not going to be of much importance. There may be news situations where it does make a difference but it is a rat race in which I certainly wouldn't want to play any part. I'm used to working in the time scale of years and decades, not seconds vs. minutes. If someone wants to be fast, they probably aren't going to be posting the most memorable image over the long term since they probably didn't have time to think and consider the image properly.
One of the problems of this time is that people post too many images and too thoughtlessly, not that image upload is "difficult" or "too slow".
Because most people don't think what they post, the audience gets bored and no one cares any more about any image because we are saturated with too many.
Nikon has successfully navigated for 100 years. But there are still turns to make. They must look not just ahead, but to the sides and maybe leave their path altogether if they want to last another 100 years.
I have no doubt Nikon continues to come up with new ideas as they have in the past.
I don't know what photography will look like then, and I won't be alive to see it either, but I do know that the DSLR will be on the shelf like some old Kodak folder.
For me the EVF draws attention of the viewer to the wrong things (high contrast outlines and artifacts) and hides what is essential to me (emotions revealed by subtle clues on the subject facial features, which I use to predict the progress of future expressions and capture the right moment through experience). The artifacts and lag are especially noticeable as one turns to follow a subject passing by. Furthermore it consumes far too much battery power and the better EVFs (with greater contrast and luminosity and faster refresh times) appear to consume even more. This is all a distraction from what is essential in photography: the subject, and in my case the emotional expression that human subjects engage in. I've tried the best of them and they are rubbish for what I want to do with a camera. Now, things may or may not change over time but this technology to me doesn't appear to show any promise that it might ever work for me. If it does one day show some promise, I am sure Nikon and Canon will be there to take advantage of it. Now, there is no question that the EVF has its own advantages and people who need those advantages use those cameras, but the entire approach of the camera is different: focus motors, measurement of focus error, viewfinder, etc. so this ripples changes required to the lenses as well and not just cameras. Lenses that work well with DSLR AF have their own advantages: they can be focused faster when the focus offset is large and the dedicated phase measurement sensor used in the DSLR can measure larger phase errors than those built into the main imaging sensor which can only measure relatively small phase errors when the lens is quite near being in focus. While there is some progress in AF using the mirrorless concept, it is not competitive for fast telephoto action since the focus needs to be very close before it can measure how far off it is. This is why Sony made the A99 II with the highest specification of their lineup and it uses their DSLR mount not their mirrorless mount: for telephoto action a separate AF sensor module works better as it provides phase offset measurements over a large range of distances even though E mount users have been claiming the A mount is dead for a while. Even Sony don't believe that mirrorless is a replacement for the DSLR (although they do believe the EVF is a replacement for the OVF).
Nikon may survive, but even companies like Kodak failed to make the right choices. They failed to look and act, and part of it was due to their attachment to the present and the past.
Kodak was a chemical company making photographic chemistry, film and paper. This technology is totally different from digital photography and I don't think there ever was a chance that they'd be successful in digital over the long term. The cards were simply not in their favor. Some others say that they could have made it if they had just emphasized the development of digital instead of film but the thing was that all the people working on film based photography would have had to be replaced with people who are experts in digital and what difference then is there whether all the people are replaced to convert to digital manufacturer, or simply to cease activities and other companies start and make digital products. If all the employees have to be replaced, which they would have had to have been, what is there left then of the old Kodak? Name only. The camera manufacturers with complete control over their lens and camera technology development had the advantage in digital. Kodak was trying to make DSLRs by modifying Nikon and Canon film cameras and that produced very clumsy products in the outcome. Even if they had created the cameras from scratch, they would not have had access to the correct protocols to run the lenses as well as the manufacturers do, without reverse engineering, or making their own lens lineups. It just doesn't seem like a recipe for success. Anyway, it makes more sense for chemists to continue on areas of industry where chemistry is needed rather than continue to learn what is needed today in digital photography. Though I guess the photography printing process still requires as much chemistry as it ever did, and perhaps this is an area where there is no reason why they couldn't continue to be successful.
-
The inability of my smart phone to take a photograph when I want it to is deal breaker for me.
I can understand the frustration of this and I would never rely on it if I knew a "proper" camera was needed.
However things have improved in some areas.
I have never used an iPhone but my Sony (Android) phone had a button on the side that could be dedicated to activating the camera.
Yes, it took a second or so, but I could easily find it by touch and meant that by the time I'd lifted the phone up it was generally ready to take a picture.
There were plenty of times when being able to grab the moment outweighed the lower quality and lack of time to tweak settings before clicking.
-
I agree completely that smartphones lack the responsiveness and features I deem necessary for serious photography.
BUT, I still claim that the majority of people making photos deem the smartphone's features critical to their needs (market driven of course).
AND, the smartphone photographers is the group that caused the biggest loss in camera sales to companies like Nikon.
"Good enough" gets you nowhere when there are thousands of wannabe photographers for every successful one to make a living or achieve wider recognition. In many applications of photography, there is intense competition among photographers, and only the best performing technology will be considered good enough
So many of the points made above make solid sense. It is precisely today's thousands of 'wannabe photographers' of the millennial generation [teenagers - 20s] who hold the big future for Nikon (and all the other manufacturers) of digital optical devices. Nikon do not have to worry about loyalty among most forming the aging cohort of Clients, each of many years commitment already (we who cling tightly to decades of investment in Nikon!)
Today, the challenge is for Nikon to implement their DSLR system [and perhaps other optical products also) with the marketing and committed support that engages and promotes emerging photographers. As argued above, Discounts for the 'Under 25' etc are one obvious tactic. There are other tactics. Above all' integrating Mentorship into Nikons' committed to its loyal clientele is the logical, and obvious way forward into the 21st century.
And this is where Nikon's business model might encourage affordable upgrades after 1-2 years of ownership of a DSLR. Centred on the attractive trade in..... Nikon then refurbishes said trade-in body for resale WITH FULL WARRANTY until the model in question becomes obsolete. As many of us do already with Used lenses)...
This is where Stepping Stone" upgrades will be 100% vital….building on the entry level Nikon DSLR package the teenage wannabe photographer invested in. Now with more fiscal security, this committed Nikon client upgrades....
….Thus Nikon can plan ahead an the business model for growing buying power of the committed Nikon Client who buys the equivalent of their D810 / D5 some years after her first buy into Nikon.
-
"Good enough" gets you nowhere when there are thousands of wannabe photographers for every successful one to make a living or achieve wider recognition. In many applications of photography, there is intense competition among photographers, and only the best performing technology will be considered good enough especially where technology plays a big role (such as action photography in low light with shallow depth of field). For some other applications, such as landscape photography, the technology plays a smaller role and creativity, bravery and inspiration of the photographer are more decisive. In each area of application, the best implementation survives because there are people who will pay anything for it, and then there are products which offer greater convenience along with lower performance but are popular among casual photographers.
Really, connectivity is of absolutely no consequence if you are spending weeks in the wilderness out of sight of anyone. No one cares whether you get your work online instantly, or in three weeks after properly processing it, but if you post unedited work straight from the camera, probably it will dilute your reputation as a serious photographer. If you witness a once-in-a-lifetime natural event, you may gain something by posting quickly but again a few minutes of downloading to computer and doing it right vs. instantly uploading it from the camera makes little difference, and on the calibrated monitor of a computer you can make sure it looks just right, not too dark or too light. Often it takes days or weeks of deliberation to make the decision of which edit is best on a particular image. Instant uploading in this context is not going to be of much importance. There may be news situations where it does make a difference but it is a rat race in which I certainly wouldn't want to play any part. I'm used to working in the time scale of years and decades, not seconds vs. minutes. If someone wants to be fast, they probably aren't going to be posting the most memorable image over the long term since they probably didn't have time to think and consider the image properly.
One of the problems of this time is that people post too many images and too thoughtlessly, not that image upload is "difficult" or "too slow".
Because most people don't think what they post, the audience gets bored and no one cares any more about any image because we are saturated with too many.
I have no doubt Nikon continues to come up with new ideas as they have in the past.
For me the EVF draws attention of the viewer to the wrong things (high contrast outlines and artifacts) and hides what is essential to me (emotions revealed by subtle clues on the subject facial features, which I use to predict the progress of future expressions and capture the right moment through experience). The artifacts and lag are especially noticeable as one turns to follow a subject passing by. Furthermore it consumes far too much battery power and the better EVFs (with greater contrast and luminosity and faster refresh times) appear to consume even more. This is all a distraction from what is essential in photography: the subject, and in my case the emotional expression that human subjects engage in. I've tried the best of them and they are rubbish for what I want to do with a camera. Now, things may or may not change over time but this technology to me doesn't appear to show any promise that it might ever work for me. If it does one day show some promise, I am sure Nikon and Canon will be there to take advantage of it. Now, there is no question that the EVF has its own advantages and people who need those advantages use those cameras, but the entire approach of the camera is different: focus motors, measurement of focus error, viewfinder, etc. so this ripples changes required to the lenses as well and not just cameras. Lenses that work well with DSLR AF have their own advantages: they can be focused faster when the focus offset is large and the dedicated phase measurement sensor used in the DSLR can measure larger phase errors than those built into the main imaging sensor which can only measure relatively small phase errors when the lens is quite near being in focus. While there is some progress in AF using the mirrorless concept, it is not competitive for fast telephoto action since the focus needs to be very close before it can measure how far off it is.
Kodak was a chemical company...
First, let me say I don't believe Nikon is doomed in the short term. We are all doomed in the long term. I imagine a world where images are software controlled, where there is not just a lens on a box. In fact, that world is here now. This will continue. So will smaller form factors. 35mm was once dismissed as "miniature" photography.
It is a wide world. Some people continue to shoot larger formats. Some shoot smaller. The economic problem with this is that technologies which require a lot of R&D need high volume to support those costs. With cash cow of point and shoot gone, investment in R&D for low volume products is difficult to sustain.
It is hard. Nikon and others will have many challenges. And I think the DSLR as we know it will cease to be a mainstream product. This means it will eventually starve. It won't die, but it will progress increasingly more slowly.
This is what happens in technology, and your camera is a small computer filled with technology, not just a light tight box. It can not escape.
-
<cut>
Kodak was a chemical company making photographic chemistry, film and paper. This technology is totally different from digital photography and I don't think there ever was a chance that they'd be successful in digital over the long term. The cards were simply not in their favor. Some others say that they could have made it if they had just emphasized the development of digital instead of film but the thing was that all the people working on film based photography would have had to be replaced with people who are experts in digital and what difference then is there whether all the people are replaced to convert to digital manufacturer, or simply to cease activities and other companies start and make digital products. If all the employees have to be replaced, which they would have had to have been, what is there left then of the old Kodak? Name only. The camera manufacturers with complete control over their lens and camera technology development had the advantage in digital. Kodak was trying to make DSLRs by modifying Nikon and Canon film cameras and that produced very clumsy products in the outcome. Even if they had created the cameras from scratch, they would not have had access to the correct protocols to run the lenses as well as the manufacturers do, without reverse engineering, or making their own lens lineups. It just doesn't seem like a recipe for success. Anyway, it makes more sense for chemists to continue on areas of industry where chemistry is needed rather than continue to learn what is needed today in digital photography. Though I guess the photography printing process still requires as much chemistry as it ever did, and perhaps this is an area where there is no reason why they couldn't continue to be successful.
Fujifilm was and is still a chemical company, but they redtructured the company and came up with other chemical products they could make, where they could utilize their know how. They started making pharmaceuticals and beauty products, or ingredients for them. They had yo ask themselves, what else can we make with the know how we have, and they succeeded. The camera business is only a small part of Fujifilm, but one for which they have long trafitions.
Fujifilm also modified Nikon bodies to make their own DSLRs, S3 and S5 Pro are well know, but Fujifilm was able to take the X-trans and make their own camera system.
Kodak didn't do any of this, which in retrospect is strange. Surely with the US as their home market, they should have been able to diversify and find business oportunity for new chemical products.
Could Kodak have made DSLRs in the US? Maybe they could have teamed up with Bausch and Lomb to make lenses, or someone in Japan. Phase One in Denmark works with Schneider in Germany and owns Mamiya in Japan with optical know how. I'm not saying that Kodak should have done this, but the small company Phase One in Denmark can. Hasselblad in Sweden can. Maybe Kodak could have done it in the US?
-
It is hard. Nikon and others will have many challenges. And I think the DSLR as we know it will cease to be a mainstream product. This means it will eventually starve. It won't die, but it will progress increasingly more slowly.
This is what happens in technology, and your camera is a small computer filled with technology, not just a light tight box. It can not escape.
A most interesting thread this :)
So in the decades ahead, sensor technology will run up against diminishing returns (as have the limits on smallest dimensions of circuitry in computer CPUs). But it is foreseeable that the core of the future camera system will comprise an interchangeable optical instrument attached to this digitized box of controls with its integral sensor.
No single lens can meet all users' applications in the diverse world of imaging, so the integral camera/lens will always have to work within the finite limits of its lens. Committed photographers will invest in the optimal system that can link into a diversity of reliable accessories (media, artificial lighting support etc), and especially high quality lenses.
It is impossible today to predict what sensor format(s) will form the core of tomorrow's cameras invested in by Nikon and those other corporations who survive the winds of change....
-
A most interesting thread this :)
So in the decades ahead, sensor technology will run up against diminishing returns (as have the limits on smallest dimensions of circuitry in computer CPUs). But it is foreseeable that the core of the future camera system will comprise an interchangeable optical instrument attached to this digitized box of controls with its integral sensor.
No single lens can meet all users' applications in the diverse world of imaging, so the integral camera/lens will always have to work within the finite limits of its lens. Committed photographers will invest in the optimal system that can link into a diversity of reliable accessories (media, artificial lighting support etc), and especially high quality lenses.
It is impossible today to predict what sensor format(s) will form the core of tomorrow's cameras invested in by Nikon and those other corporations who survive the winds of change....
Do not fall into the trap of thinking there is but one visible light sensor in what we think of as a camera.
It may be impossible to predict the exact future, but we can look at where we have been and the direction we have headed for clues. And don't forget that the camera is a reaction to what people are doing and want to do. People, except for weirdos on photography bulletin boards :) want to spend less time on the process, carry lighter gear and have their perceptual range extended as far as they need it. But why? Why do they photograph in the first place? This has changed over time. I frequently take and send photos from my phone instead of writing a note. I use it instead of a copy machine and a filing cabinet. I use it to take photos of things I can see because they are too small, too hard to get to or too fast moving. It is an extension of my hands, memory, and eyes and has become indispensable as such. Uses like this - extensions of our capabilities and cognition - will drive the development of what comes next, and more importantly will be at a scale that funds the continued development in the technology of photography.
What does the camera do for you?
Now, much of my equipment is old and obsolete. I have it for nostalgic and tactile reasons. Shiny glass and smooth cool metal are just pleasant to hold. It is an excuse to go out into the world and look around. We can not discount these aspects completely, but they won't sustain a large business which requires ever increasing investments in technology for a century. At the boutique level, perhaps, but I don't think that is what Nikon or their share holds want to see happen.
-
Strange enough Kodak was pioneer in digital imaging but finally did not make it (and here is where management failures are to be given responsibility )
I dont see Nikon on the Kodak path nevertheless
-
Strange enough Kodak was pioneer in digital imaging but finally did not make it (and here is where management failures are to be given responsibility )
Agree...Kodak was 100% managed directly into the grave.
-
People, except for weirdos on photography bulletin boards :) want to spend less time on the process, carry lighter gear and have their perceptual range extended as far as they need it.
Smaller and lighter than 24x36mm sensor size means a change in the esthetics of the image. This image size is the smallest that allows good separation of the subject and background by blurring out the background. Portraits, candids, sports, fashion and more depend heavily on this technique. For portraits one can use a longer lens with a larger physical and optical aperture (not aperture ratio) but the perspective will be flatter and more aloof. If you look at a series of Yousuf Karsh's portraits you should notice the camera, the eye is closer to the subject and the perspective is more intimate. Nikon's DX format never quite was what I wanted for much of my photography.
Nikon's FX format may be the new medium format and Phase One's may be the new large format. DX and smaller surely has it's place but it should be used for what it does best not just to have a smaller, lighter camera.
For the DSLR I'd love to see a solid state mirror. One that sends most of the light to the focus screen, pentaprism and eye piece while viewing and looses maybe only 10% while taking a photograph. Someday a technology may emerge allowing this. In the mean time I agree with Ilkka Nissilä. The electronic viewfinder doesn't offer the clear view I need to notice nuisances in expression so as to predict at reflex lever a coming expression on a face.
I hope "good enough" doesn't destroy the DSLR in my lifetime.
Dave Hartman
-
Have you seen the implementation of "portrait mode" in the new iPhone? It is clumsy and crude, but points at a direction where objects in an image can be isolated/processed differently than the rest of the frame.
Fashions in photography change. Pictorialism made way for other views. The f/64 group held sway for some time, and now subject isolation is a bigger thing than it was in the past.
Change is to be relied upon.
-
I think that Nikon's troubles are two fold.
From having largest market share in the Steppers business, I believe they are now down to less than 20 percent share. Don't know if below is correct but looks like Canon is now bigger than Nikon in this field? It does not say much about Nikon that they have been unable to fight back in this industry and are steadily losing ground. Now it looks like with the 1000+ redundancies in the stepper business they are about to get in even worse situation.
https://staticseekingalpha.a.ssl.fastly.net/uploads/2016/6/6/7008-14652567467436411_origin.png
Secondly the digital camera boom is close to busting - it is hard to see how in 10 years time anyone will need the type of cameras and lenses now being made - as no doubt technology advances will mean you will probably have small equipment that does both video and stills. So no matter how well Nikon does in this sector (and again here it seems they are steadily losing ground to Canon and Sony) this is not going to be the lucrative business that it once was.
It will be interesting to see if Nikon can really recover in these two sectors. But the writing on the wall seems to be that it will get smaller as a company in the near future.
Regards
Dibyendu
-
Camera (sensor) size and lens size are largely dictated by what you want to be able to do with it; only some capabilities are possible in a small camera. At least for me, the D810 with MB-D12 grip or D5 are cameras that are the right size for my hands so that key controls fit on the camera surface and easy to use. I've used smaller cameras but generally the controls get too small and are more difficult to use. It is similar with keyboards; it is easier to type quickly without looking at they keys using a full size tactile keyboard. I understand that carrying this size of a camera is inconvenient but that works for me if I want to photograph difficult subjects at the edge of what is possible. Smaller cameras have their own advantages, of course.
Personally I would prefer that my cell phones, laptops etc. did not have cameras for reasons of privacy.
-
For the DSLR I'd love to see a solid state mirror. One that sends most of the light to the focus screen, pentaprism and eye piece while viewing and looses maybe only 10% while taking a photograph. Someday a technology may emerge allowing this.
This is basically the pellicle mirror concept, which has been around for years and currently exists with the Sony SLT cameras. It combines some of the features of SLR and mirror less cameras. Advantages:
- No moving parts - no mirror slap.
- Sensor permanently protected behind the mirror.
- Allows optical TTL viewing.
- No viewfinder blackout during exposure.
- Shorter shutter lag since the camera does not need to wait for the mirror to raise.
- Allows for phase-detection AF.
- Could allow for lenses with shorter back-focus distance, e.g. for FX the back-focus could be reduced to about 28mm vs about 38mm for current DSLRs. That means a lens with 35mm focal length could use a symmetrical optical design rather than retrofocus, and wider lenses would be less extreme retrofocus, so should allow for smaller, better corrected wide lenses.
Disadvantages:
- Places an object between the lens and sensor which is not ideal.
- Although the sensor is protected from dust, the mirror is now vulnerable to dust and would require careful cleaning.
- Light is lost to both the imaging sensor and the viewfinder compared to conventional SLRs. For example, if the mirror passes 50% to the sensor and reflects 50% to the viewfinder, that is equivalent to 1 stop loss for both.
- For lenses with exit pupil close to the mirror, light projected to the top of the image will pass through the mirror at a very different angle as light projected to the bottom of the image. Since the amount of light reflected depends on the incident angle, there could be uneven exposure top to bottom.
- There will be a slight downward displacement of the image due to refraction through the mirror glass, depending on the angle of light passing through and the thickness of the mirror.
- Introduction of a small amount of vertical CA of light passing through the mirror.
- Since the mirror does not flip up and block the viewfinder, stray light from the eye-piece or reflections from the viewfinder screen could affect image quality.
Some of the disadvantages could be corrected by software. Apart from a few specialist high-speed film cameras, only Sony with their SLT range seem to have brought this concept to a wider market.
-
Agreed on this, Roland! Very good analysis from almost every side of the problem. And thank you so much for your lenses graphs/table! Exceptional info, what everyone needs! LZ
-
Yes but!
I want a solid state mirror. I want almost all of the light from the lens to pass to either the eye or the sensor. I assume some small percentage will get lost in the mirror box. Maybe 1% or so. There will be a mirror blackout during the exposure.
If Dick Tracy can have his wrist TV and a jetpack has been tested that offers ten minutes of flying time exist why can't I have a solid state mirror?
Maybe it could be a force field rather than a physical device in the light path?
Dave Hartman
-
I'd like to add to Roland's excellent analysis three points.
1. The Sony SLT cameras employ EVFs and not OVFs. This means that the Sony SLT cameras won't have the straylight isdue from the ocular. It also implies that you need to like EVFs to use e.g. the new Sony A99 II SLT camera.
2. About 2/3 of the light hits the sensor and 1/3 goes down to the dedicated SLR like PDAF sensor. The new Sony A99 II has both on sensor PDAF as well as SLR like PDAF sensor in the bottom of the camera, and these work in conjunction. This means that the Sony camera in theory can have the speedy AF of a DSLR as well as the precision of a mirrorless AF system, i.e. no back or front focusing issues.
3. With a fixed mirror an SLT camera can easily outperform a Nikon D5 on frame rate, but at the same time have slightly worse high ISO performance due to less light hitting the sensor.
-
Yes but!
I want a solid state mirror. I want almost all of the light from the lens to pass to either the eye or the sensor. I assume some small percentage will get lost in the mirror box. Maybe 1% or so. There will be a mirror blackout during the exposure.
If Dick Tracy can have his wrist TV and a jetpack has been tested that offers ten minutes of flying time exist why can't I have a solid state mirror?
Maybe it could be a force field rather than a physical device in the light path?
Dave Hartman
This sounds to me like some sort of liquid crystal technology, where you regulate the translucency of the mirror, i.e., you let the mirror switch between acting like a mirror and an almost 99% translucent piece of optical glass. This sounds interesting, and would solve a few problems for the DSLR: there would be no mirror slap, and a fixed mirror would improve the mechanical calibration of the AF system as well as its longevity. Combined with an electronic first shutter curtain or a global shutter, a DSLR could enjoy vibration free shooting, like mirrorless cameras.
You'll need some nifty future tech to pull all of this off. Came to think about it, it's some time ago since last I watched a Star Wars episode. :D
-
As I was saying ... the cell phone *is* the current entry-level camera ... the ideas are already rolling out:
- Turn Your Cell Phone into a 35mm Camera (https://www.dpreview.com/news/1920289522/pixlplay-turns-a-smartphone-into-a-big-durable-camera-for-kids)
- Carl Zeiss Lens Extensions for Your Cell Phone (https://www.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_us/camera_lenses/exolens/wideangle.html)
Any camera manufacturer that doesn't realize (and accept) this, is doomed to failure.
That said, I believe Nikon's actions are GOOD, indicating they both realize and accept the wasted effort in creating "new and improved" point-and-shoots.
Efforts for these types of camera are simply a waste of resources at this point in history.
The only cameras/lenses/efforts worth continuously spending $$$ to develop at this point are 1) the absolute creme of the crop DSLRs/lenses, 2) top-shelf Mirrorless and other smaller+better tech, and 3) Immediate conversion capabilities of the finest DSLRs/mirrorless to share on Social Media and/or transfer to cell phones.
Jack
-
Nikon needs to bring customers in at the lower end. Then persuade them to upgrade. If Canon captures the customers at the lower end, the chance that they will switch is very low.
A strategy of concentrating on the lower end of the market to capture young enthusiasts is the way to draw customers into the Nikon world. A way to do this is to emphasise the quality and glamour of the high end products.
-
Nikon needs to bring customers in at the lower end. Then persuade them to upgrade. If Canon captures the customers at the lower end, the chance that they will switch is very low.
A strategy of concentrating on the lower end of the market to capture young enthusiasts is the way to draw customers into the Nikon world. A way to do this is to emphasise the quality and glamour of the high end products.
There is truth to this, but you need to define "lower end" ...
As I said back on p. 10, I remain firm in my view that the entry level concept needs to be upgraded significantly. No longer is any new DSLR owner thinking, "Gee, this is my first camera experience." Rather, the mindset of today's consumer is, "I can already take photos any time I want to, with my cell, and pretty damned good ones, so convince me WHY I need to buy a DSLR + lenses" ...
The second thing new users realize, with a camera, is that it's a hassle to develop and share photos with their new DSLR compared to their phones. They have to upload, process, save, and then share. It's all a pain in the ass, unless you're really into photography.
So again, BS cameras and P&Ss, need not be made anymore. No one wants them.
(Either that, or they need to be turned into even higher-end phone-cameras.)
In order to move today's consumers from their $800 phones, with 12MP cameras (that now shoot RAW 4032x3024 files and also have 4K video built in), you're going to have to really kick ass in a camera product.
For example, my Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge shoots some badass stuff. It feels heavier and higher-quality than low-end camera-toys.
It is a thousand times easier to carry, to use, and to share. I use it for my work as much as for family stuff.
I like using it in a pinch better than my D810 and D500, and I can text/share anything I want immediately.
If I see something cool, cute, funny, or relevant to my work ... out comes my phone (back pocket) ... I double-tap the Home button >BAM< and I instantly have a UHD camera/video are right there to get it. After I get the shots, a couple more pushed buttons and I can share the results (via text or post).
The normal person doesn't need anything else.
No camera will ever touch this kind of convenience/share potential.
Low-end cameras need either to disappear or to become high-end camera-phones.
The highest-end cameras need to become instant-share capable. (Maybe RAW saved in-camera, while .jpgs are wirelessly transferred to your phone).
It's pretty much that simple.
-
The $800.00 smart phone is a replacement for the well made flint dagger. Only a Leica M series digital rangefinder can replace the copper dagger of so many thousands of years BC.
Dave
It's a shame those who made the Leica M cameras what they were in the '60s and '70s can't afford them now.
-
Hereunder some pictures taken with an iPhone 6 during this weekend by my son and forwarded by mail (2 MB downsizes). iPhone 7 is much better. Just to give you an idea where the entry level is. For Web publishing, more than sufficient; and that's what most youngsters are doing.
(1) NYC street view:
(2) towards Manhattan from the Empire State Building (Flat Iron in the middle, and One WTC on the horizon);
(3) the "Flat Iron"
-
Hereunder some pictures taken with an iPhone 6 during this weekend by my son and forwarded by mail (2 MB downsizes). iPhone 7 is much better. Just to give you an idea where the entry level is. For Web publishing, more than sufficient; and that's what most youngsters are doing.
(1) NYC street view:
(2) towards Manhattan from the Empire State Building (Flat Iron in the middle, and One WTC on the horizon);
(3) the "Flat Iron"
MFloyd, great underscore to my point.
A picture's worth a thousand words. Sometimes people need to see the kinds of beautiful images that can be taken with a modern phone.
Camera companies need to realize that, when the average person always has a phone in his hand, or pocket (purse), at the-ready ... that can take images of this quality ... plus 4K UHD video to boot ... with which they can then immediately share (text/FB) afterward ... they simply do not need to spend several hundred dollars more to have a P&S or "entry level camera" dangling around their neck anymore.
They simply do not.
(PS: Note how both women in the first photo have their cell phones out ... why would they want to also dangle a small camera around their necks? :o)
-
Well, I think a camera such as the Sony RX100 (V version by now) gives better color, contrast, sharpness and more flexibility in angle of view. On top of that it has high fps, proper ergonomics for a camera etc.
Images on flickr shot with cameras of the RX100 family:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/rx100/pool/
to me it is very obvious that it is a higher quality camera and more flexible than a camera phone (any camera phone). And it's still quite compact. I think it's a great pity that Nikon didn't manage to bring a competing product with their own optical and image processing expertise to the market. I really like Nikon's image processing, the look of images shot with nano-coated optics etc. I guess I will be looking to purchase the Sony or Canon's equivalent now.
-
Well, I think a camera such as the Sony RX100 (V version by now) gives better color, contrast, sharpness and more flexibility in angle of view. On top of that it has high fps, proper ergonomics for a camera etc.
Images on flickr shot with cameras of the RX100 family:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/rx100/pool/ (https://www.flickr.com/groups/rx100/pool/)
to me it is very obvious that it is a higher quality camera and more flexible than a camera phone (any camera phone). And it's still quite compact. I think it's a great pity that Nikon didn't manage to bring a competing product with their own optical and image processing expertise to the market. I really like Nikon's image processing, the look of images shot with nano-coated optics etc. I guess I will be looking to purchase the Sony or Canon's equivalent now.
1. The average person has no comprehension of "better color, contrast, sharpness and more flexibility in angle of view."
2. Photos like what MFloyd posted look great to 99% of the population.
3. Images taken with the Sony RX100 can't immediately be shared to FB or by text.
4. For these reasons, cameras like the RX100 are nothing but extra weight, an extra expense, and represent an extra hassle to 99% of the population, who would be perfectly satisfied with the photos above, and further empowered to share them immediately with anyone they wished ... without having to go back home and "process them" on their computer.
Moderator: slight change of words
-
Deleted
-
I am not quite sure I understand the argument about smartphones compared to DSLRs. In the film days, people were fond of Polaroids, and millions of others were happily shooting Kodak Instamatics. That did not make a Polaroid or an Instamatic better than or comparable to a Nikon F. The question of sufficiency has always been with us. The difference between then and now is the capacity of a company like Nikon to innovate and turn innovation into selling a product for a profit.
-
Deleted
-
I am not quite sure I understand the argument about smartphones compared to DSLRs.
Two key points missing in your example:
1) The VAST difference in quality between then and now (i.e., today's best smartphones produce better images than Film cameras of 30 years ago);
2) Polaroids, film cameras, and even today's DSLRs can't immediately share images to everyone important in the user's life, anywhere in the world, in seconds.
Smart phones provide better imagery than yesterday's best cameras, as well as 4K video, all of which can be immediately shared ... which even today's cameras cannot do.
Hopefully this provides clarity as to the whopping difference between today's reality versus your outdated example.
Moderation: I have again removed offending text, John please refrain from posting direct personal attacks. Thank You.
-
Somehow, I knew I wasn't going to make any friends by comparing smartphones and Polaroids... I guess we'll have to agree to disagree but before I leave this thread:
- the appeal of Polaroids was precisely the instant sharing. The fact that now the cicrle of friends and family has extended from those around you to the whole world changes nothing. And having traveled to regions of the world where a smartphone and an internet connection are still luxuries, I sometimes wished I had a Polaroid with me...
- the technical specifications of smartphones are better that those of an Instamatic, but so is a Nikon D810 compared to an F. If Polaroids and Instamatics produced crappy results, it is mostly because the photographers weren't good at what they were doing. Unfortunately, I do not see any changes here either.
-
There are a few arguments going on here. Here are some of the key points.
Cam phones are important today because they offer quality and convenience which exceeds any previous point and shoot, and arguably many low end SLRs. Thus the digital point and shoot market is dying. Those cameras existed for convenience first, quality second. Now you have more of both in a form factor which is always with you.
Point and shoots and cheap SLRs were the traditional way "into" serious photography for young generations. When I was young we used to call a lot of high end equipment "dentist cameras" because they were the only profession with money to afford them (working photographers aside).
This is important to the camera makers because R&D is expensive. If you can spread it across a larger market then it becomes much more possible. Surely the development costs of many of the exotic lenses were funded by sales of much more modest cameras and lenses. They have too small of a market to exist otherwise.
So, the argument goes, with loss of an entire market to cell phones - with the cash flow which funds future R&D with it, and the closing of one of the major entry points into a camera makers system (I continue to use Nikon because of my first purchase 35 years ago), camera makers need to rethink how they do things.
The cam phone is responsible for this. By having huge volume there is money to invest in better optics and processing. In technology, volume is what drives price to ridiculously low levels. already tiny cameras are built into eyeglasses and they will continue to expand our sensory capabilities.
A camera maker who focuses on the old traditional products will find themselves faced with smaller and smaller markets as creative young people abandon the craft of photography and choose video or other ways to express themselves.
Photography will never die. There are still those who use wet plates and brass lenses. There are still those who love to capture birds in flight or lions. But for pictures of food, travels and the moments of our lives, the phone cam is where the future is.
-
Deleted
-
Moderation:
No real new arguments that will change anything for Nikons future is currently being produced,,, as was the topic of this thread,,,
I see a few people getting stubborn and claiming they are right - please stop preaching like that, you will not be able to convince everybody, and that is not the purpose of this site,,,
So Please: If you have something new or interesting as to the future of Nikon as Sten put it up, please share it here ;)
-
Somehow, I knew I wasn't going to make any friends by comparing smartphones and Polaroids... I guess we'll have to agree to disagree but before I leave this thread:
- the appeal of Polaroids was precisely the instant sharing. The fact that now the cicrle of friends and family has extended from those around you to the whole world changes nothing. And having traveled to regions of the world where a smartphone and an internet connection are still luxuries, I sometimes wished I had a Polaroid with me...
- the technical specifications of smartphones are better that those of an Instamatic, but so is a Nikon D810 compared to an F. If Polaroids and Instamatics produced crappy results, it is mostly because the photographers weren't good at what they were doing. Unfortunately, I do not see any changes here either.
You omit so much:
1. Polaroids used consumable film that continued to cost the consumer money forever;
2. Smartphones are able to take thousands of photographs without ever spending an extra dime;
3. Polaroids produced a single, tiny, square image ... that, once given away, was irreplaceable;
4. Smartphones take images that can be shared an unlimited amount of times, with the original being kept by the user;
5. Polaroid images could only be immediately shared by those in the area (if you were on a trip, you'd have to physically mail each image to your friends and family);
6. Smartphone images can be instantly shared, all over the world, in seconds, with no added postage or hassle in packaging/driving/mailing them;
7. Polaroid images were noticeably tiny and lousy;
8. Smartphone images rival (or surpass) those produced by low-end cameras, they can be printed up to A2 size, and the quality has been good enough to grace magazine covers;
9. No one had cell phones back then, so in order to take photographs during the time period you reference, users had to buy "something" extra;
10. Everyone has a cell phone now, already equipped with a high-end camera, with more user-friendliness than any camera on the planet.
In short, no one really "needs" an extra camera these days.
Thus, when you narrow the difference in quality between a smart phone and an entry camera to "negligible" ... and when you increase the cell phone's superior functionality and user-friendliness to "exponential" ... in a market where every thinking person below the age of 40 already has a cell phone ... you destroy the low-end camera market ... which is exactly what's happening right now.
-
It was never the 99% of people who were interested in photography in the first place, more like 1%. So it is today. This narcissistic wave of focusing on one's self and sharing what you are doing with a large group of people will pass and people will return to the normal which is to feel shame about pushing one's life to everyone like it were more important than it is and to be disgusted when looking at their own image.
Photography done well reaches beyond individual events and subjects and evokes deep feeling, emotions and can be symbols of larger issues in human existence. Excessive pushing of crappy images without proper consideration dilutes the value of images as people will simply filter images out of their consciousness instead of looking deeper into them.
There will always be those who see value in thoughtfully made art, be it photography or something else. And the 99% probably will not. The 1% will need different kinds of tools for different tasks. The compact camera is certainly one of them.
The DL series was not intended for the smartphone camera users to consider but as a compact but powerful alternative to DSLR users for situations where a larger camera is not suitable but the photographer wants a zoom lens and control over the image. I guess Nikon is conceding this market to other manufacturers. I guess Sony is making a bundle of money given that they are already on fifth iteration of the RX100. Perhaps Nikon felt their product was not as good.
When Nikon gave up on NX2 I really felt like something at heart of Nikon imaging was broken, from the beginning they wanted to develop new image processing algorithms and a unique quality to the image which was made by the combination of algorithms, sensor and lens all designed to work together in an optimal way. I always felt NX2 raw conversions were superior to the "industry standard"Adobe. I am not sure what Nikon plans to do in the future. It seems strange that with new cameras you can do less than with older cameras in terms of post processing options. If Nikon had continued developing NX2 they would have some interesting value to add in a CX compact camera that no other brand has. Now it is just hardware.
-
Deleted
-
delete
-
I don't want a plugin since the settings made in the plugin are not accessible during adjustment of other image processing settings.
I want the raw conversion settings, local adjustments using control points and every other type of editing operation available from the same user interface with adjustments to the settings made at any time, in any order. Otherwise it feels like going back 20 years into the digital stone age.
When I use a Nik plugin to make e.g. black and white conversion from PS, I usually also need to use a crop mask. I end up with a 600MB TIFF (from a D810 file) and won't be able to adjust settings after the filter operation has been completed. This is totally primitive and unacceptable. I waste 10 x the time I used to spend making adjustments using my old workflow now that I have to use Nik's plugins instead of the integrated solution of NX2. Where the image hardly grew from its original size when the edits were completed. 40 MB NEF -> 600MB TIFF. Not convenient or efficient. And then if I save different versions, each of them is that big. Yes, I can flatten the images but then I end up with even less access to the editing parameters so if I want to make further changes I have to start from scratch.
I guess Nikon felt they could not compete with the software manufacturers for popularity but I think as they threw in the towel on software they also nailed the first nails in their coffin. Snapbridge clearly shows that they are not able to implement what they plan in a way that would be found acceptable by users because they don't invest enough in software development and competent professionals to write the code and proper testing.
-
I guess Nikon felt they could not compete with the software manufacturers for popularity but I think as they threw in the towel on software they also nailed the first nails in their coffin. Snapbridge clearly shows that they are not able to implement what they plan in a way that would be found acceptable by users because they don't invest enough in software development and competent professionals to write the code and proper testing.
Well, I seriously worry if the further development of KeyMission lineup would be aborted...
-
Well, I seriously worry if the further development of KeyMission lineup would be aborted...
I suspect this will be the next announcement ... "due to slow sales".
Don't get me wrong, I think the rugged underwater dual fisheye seems like an interesting "adventure photography" product. But if they can't get the software to work, it will not sell.
-
Hereunder some pictures taken with an iPhone 6 during this weekend by my son and forwarded by mail (2 MB downsizes). iPhone 7 is much better. Just to give you an idea where the entry level is. For Web publishing, more than sufficient; and that's what most youngsters are doing.
(1) NYC street view:
(2) towards Manhattan from the Empire State Building (Flat Iron in the middle, and One WTC on the horizon);
(3) the "Flat Iron"
Photos 1 & 2 fall apart when view larger but the vast majority of smart phone users will never know this. This is more than good enough for them. These people are not the market for proper cameras. They are snap shooters and that's all they want to be. From these the makers of proper camera need to draw a few proper customers. :)
From the days of "Push the button, let Kodak do the rest." photographs by the general public were memory aids: snaps for a photo book.
Dave
-
I suspect this will be the next announcement ... "due to slow sales".
Don't get me wrong, I think the rugged underwater dual fisheye seems like an interesting "adventure photography" product. But if they can't get the software to work, it will not sell.
There are two Snapbridge softwares. The one for the action cameras hasn't been updated since 21. November in 2016, and it's not compatible with version 10.2 of iOS that came in January 2017. The version for DSLRs hasn't been updated since 8. December 2016. The fact that Nikon doesn't update Snapbridge for iOS as often as they should is worrying, and not the way for Nikon to go forward. The action cameras are basically lame ducks already because of this.
-
Should not the OS manufacturer make sure that software written for previous versions are compatible with the new one? I can't imagine that application software developers would feel it acceptable that every minor release of the OS requires its own app.
-
Uninteresting so deleted. I deleted all posts which are aimed by the moderator. This should not cause disruption to the reading continuity of the thread.
-
Moderation:
No real new arguments that will change anything for Nikons future is currently being produced,,, as was the topic of this thread,,,
I see a few people getting stubborn and claiming they are right - please stop preaching like that, you will not be able to convince everybody, and that is not the purpose of this site,,,
So Please: If you have something new or interesting as to the future of Nikon as Sten put it up, please share it here ;)
-
Should not the OS manufacturer make sure that software written for previous versions are compatible with the new one? I can't imagine that application software developers would feel it acceptable that every minor release of the OS requires its own app.
No, it has never worked that way with any OS.
-
My guess is that Nikon is heading towards a niche market for quality digital cameras with sensible features and a more affordable line of smaller consumer oriented DSLR's just like they have now. The biggest problem they face is that the market for those products seems to be growing smaller and smaller.
When looking at the Amateur / Enthusiast market, I think that almost everyone who wants a DSLR probably already has one or more and the number of new customers keeps getting smaller as the number of gadgets available to occupy their time keeps increasing.
Impairments to a growing ILC / DSLR Amateur / Enthusiast market include
- The older gadget aficionados among us are losing our ability to cope with ever increasing complexity.
- Each new generation of DLSR and ILC cameras bring smaller and smaller improvements from the previous generation.
- The overwhelming number of things available to consume our free time
- Less free time available for the younger adult customers
- ... a number of other items that I cannot think of right now
How long Nikon will last is pretty much anyone's guess.
Canon has a broader market penetration with top end DSLR cameras and top end Video cameras. Sony has pushed in to the same space and of course there is the rest of the mirrorless manufacturers.
I am not sure what Nikon "should" do other than improve their customer relations (especially in the US) by providing first class service and clear support of their existing customer base much as the luxury car manufacturers do.
-
Should not the OS manufacturer make sure that software written for previous versions are compatible with the new one? I can't imagine that application software developers would feel it acceptable that every minor release of the OS requires its own app.
For the most part old software continues to work on subsequent versions of windows. Mac users are not as fortunate.
-
No, it has never worked that way with any OS.
There is plenty of software that is portable. I wrote some myself which is almost 30 years old and still in daily use, and it has never explicitly been ported. Features have been added and modified but the code still works on a newer OS. If code is not portable it (or the platform) is poorly designed. Of course, there are other criteria for good software other than portability but to me that is a very important factor.
-
Should not the OS manufacturer make sure that software written for previous versions are compatible with the new one? I can't imagine that application software developers would feel it acceptable that every minor release of the OS requires its own app.
I agree. I was given an older 24" iMAC running El Capitan and I enjoy the OS in may ways but Apple doesn't seem to care about breaking even recently released software.
Windows however goes to reasonable lengths to assure that old software still works. I'm using a file sync program on Windows 7 that was designed for Windows 95 and last updated in 1998. It has an interface I like. I can contribute rather than sync and it allows a bit comparison of two files that was very useful when recovering from a HD failure. I'm also using Quicken 98 though I'll be retiring it very soon.
Dave Hartman
-----
[How about a Nikon smartphone with software that doesn't work? It could feature a genuine Nikkor lens!]
-
I suspect this will be the next announcement ... "due to slow sales".
Don't get me wrong, I think the rugged underwater dual fisheye seems like an interesting "adventure photography" product. But if they can't get the software to work, it will not sell.
The connectivity issue of SnapBridge 360 is one reason, but also the camera (KeyMission360) itself seemed to suffer. The exposure of two images shot with the fisheyes combined back to back didn't match. A clear seam can be seen where two images are stitched (especially in the sky), which I never observed in any images from Ricoh Theta.
-
Sounds like they will change:
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20170224-00010008-newswitch-ind
-
Google translation!
Please feel free to correct where appropriate, my Japanese is a little rusty :o
Quote:
Mirror-less expansion and reconsideration at an early stage
For the camera business undergoing structural reforms, Nikon showed a policy of "bringing in multiple mirror-less cameras at an early stage". Senior Managing Executive Officer, Chairman and CEO of Camera Business, responded to the interview. We respond to the needs of shooting scenes and functions, and devise measures to take an aggressive approach to rebuild the camera. Meanwhile, the production system said "There is no idea of closing domestic and overseas major plants at the present time" (Managing Executive Officer).
The company decided to discontinue release of the high-end compact camera "DL series", and product development was drawing attention. Although we have not disclosed the completion time of the mirror-less lineup, it seems that a couple of years after the mirror less market exceeds the SLR market will be a guide.
In the future, we plan to concentrate management resources on medium- and high-end SLR cameras and lenses and mirror-less cameras that can make the most of their strengths. However, Mirror-less struggled with fewer models and said, "We will set aside for other companies, we will get Nikon-like things" (same). Also review the commercialization process such as condition setting from the user's point of view, eliminating the deviation from user needs. Meanwhile, "I want to do the royal road of the high-class compact in the future, but since I just decided to cancel the DL series, I will judge the next development carefully" (same).
The production structure enhances cost competitiveness through in-house production of outsourcing processes and efficiency of production.
-
This is so cryptic, google translate?
Maybe someone with native Japanese skills will be able to translate properly.
It is not clear from the translation what is really meant regarding several points.
For example, they are rebuilding the mirrorless camera but completion of the lineup is expected only when mirrorless market exceeds SLR? That is likely to take quite a long time to happen. Completion could mean "launch of product line" or it could mean "finish a complete mirrorless lens lineup" or just about anything...
-
Please re-read the first two lines ,,, :D
-
I really do not understand what takes Nikon so long to bring out the 820.
It seems easy to me to put a well proven Sony offering like the alpha 99 mark two chip into a D500 housing with Exspeed 5 and Extra AF Chip. With a 4000 Euro price tag this will be a best seller and not cut into the D5 sales too much.
They can even leave the D810 in the market at a 2500 Euro price point. This is a no brainer!
Gosh. Nikon makes a "NEW" D3xxx D5xxx and D7xxx every other week. I came by a shop windows and saw the D5600 for sale. I did not even know it was announced!!
They do not earn money nor prestige with these volume cameras. The 8xx series is a cash cow with serious money earned per sale. Same with the D500. Such a grwat camera. Love her every day
-
It would be nice if Akira or somebody else could provide a better translation than Google's.
-
What I read in between the lines is that Nikon will enter the medium and high end mirrorless market when mirrorless technology is on par with medium / high end DSLR cameras, in the meantime they leave the maturing part to other companies.
Please be aware that those companies which currently are doing well in mirrorless don't have a solid (semi) pro DSLR lineup like Nikon, they had to go a different route to gain market share as competing with the Canon and Nikon DLSR offering was futile.
When I look at Sony based on personal experience the A7RII is miles better than the original A7R (which I also used to own) but its still not close to the D810 in the AF and speed department, the sensor is pretty much on par though. This year Sony is expected to introduce the MKIII lineup of the a7 series together with a high speed a9 aimed at the sports market, I expect this third generation of full frame mirrorless cameras will be on par with their respective DSLR counterparts.
Lens wise the full frame mirrorless platform is also getting mature with many native offerings from Zeiss, Voigtlander, Samyang, etc.
With al that in mind it seems like the time is near for Nikon to enter the FX mirrorless market, the high end technology is around the corner and the plethora of Sony FE lenses from third parties should be available in a Nikon mount shortly after its introduction providing consumers plenty of lens choice without forcing Nikon to do it all on its own (like Sony had to do 3 years ago).
-
That is also the way I understand the translation ;)
-
I really do not understand what takes Nikon so long to bring out the 820.
Why should they, the D810 is still the best high res FX DSLR in the market...
-
I'm wondering what happened to the Dx series, where the sales really that low, as to not have D4x and D5x,,,
I agree, no need for a D810 sensor update, it's spectacular as is.
-
Why should they, the D810 is still the best high res FX DSLR in the market...
Autofocus wise it is not the best. Canon had wide spread of cross type points since 2012. The camera would really benefit from Multi-CAM 20k as the highest resolution Nikon it has the most to benefit from it IMO.
-
I really do not understand what takes Nikon so long to bring out the 820.
2.5 years is not a long time to wait for an upgrade (compared to Canon's 5 years for the 7D II).
Especially considering the D810 is still competitive with the best cameras of today (whereas the 7D was a useless relic, compared to what was available, by the time the upgrade came).
-
too late into the mirrorless party. they should make it right.
a Contax/S-mount with contacts and no 50mm internal helicoid. if not, an F-mount but with available S-mount adapters. :o :o :o
-
Sounds like they will change:
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20170224-00010008-newswitch-ind
Quote from the article:
- "In the future, we plan to concentrate management resources on medium- and high-end SLR cameras and lenses and mirrorless cameras that can make the most of their strengths."
Pretty much exactly as I felt they should do: the low-end "entry level" market is a waste of time at this point.
It seems Nikon is beginning to understand that the very best mid- and high-level DSLRs (and a move in the direction toward mirrorless), are the only viable markets today.
-
Competitors are serious about keeping their grasp on the customers they have gained, Major name brands have seen their large proportion of global sales diminish. Whilst lesser brands are a riding on the crest of a growing market position.
This loss of comfort zone to the Power Brands, will leave a need to restructure.
A recent history of a negative response to Severe Quality Control issues will also push customers into researching other brands.
The idea of paying a £ 1000 on a lens, and then learning that your one may be a duffer, due to poor QC, makes me not want to spend in that camp.
I am beginning to feel the other brands are getting closer to a Parity in performance and product reliability at a fairer price.
The Big Name Brands have got a fight on their hands, forums and social media sites will crucify them for their mistakes in design, manufacture, pricing and after sales care towards a customer.
With the need to streamline the overheads, it is difficult to predict where the changes will come from.
-
...
Gosh. Nikon makes a "NEW" D3xxx D5xxx and D7xxx every other week. I came by a shop windows and saw the D5600 for sale. I did not even know it was announced!!
They do not earn money nor prestige with these volume cameras. The 8xx series is a cash cow with serious money earned per sale. Same with the D500. Such a great camera. Love her every day
I think you got the wrong end of the stick. These "volume cameras" bring in a lot of money simply because Nikon needn't invest much either in their development or the fabrication (typically mass-produced in automated factories run by robots and I wouldn't be surprised if the "new" designs were made by automated pare-down scripts either ...)
You are probably right about the "prestige" aspect, though, but hard-earned money beats that every time. Plus many of these so-called low-end models actually are decent performers. I'm using several models daily so should know.
-
The most recent news seems like everything is on hold pending formation of a new corporate strategy. As for the D810, someone explain why it is out of production.
-
Fujifilm survived the transition from film to digital, shown in this documentary, http://www.fujirumors.com/roboshoot-plus-released-fuji-hssttl-support-fujifilm-survived-digital-age-gfx-x100f-first-looks/ (http://www.fujirumors.com/roboshoot-plus-released-fuji-hssttl-support-fujifilm-survived-digital-age-gfx-x100f-first-looks/).
This was painful for Fujifilm, but they didn't join the ranks of Kodak and Nokia. Maybe Nikon will need more diversification in addition to making cameras and semiconuctor equipment. Just saying that Nikon should quit low end DX DSLRs or make mirrorless cameras is too easy, as they may have to do much more. I think however that Nikon's camera business needs both DSLRs and mirrorless, if it is to present a sensible income statement going forward. However, that's just the camera business. If the dedicated camera business (and market) shrinks radically, Nikon will need diversification to sustain the company.
-
The Google translation is not too wrong.
I think the cryptic impression of the article is because the "mirrorless" is not defined clearly. To read between the lines, I think the executive officer meant mirrorless cameras of larger size, not Nikon 1.
Considering that even Canon has been struggling with the mirrorless line by having entered into the market too late, Nikon should need harder effort.
-
Was the Japanese text any clearer on the timeframe for introduction of "large sensor" mirrorless cameras by Nikon?
-
Was the Japanese text any clearer on the timeframe for introduction of "large sensor" mirrorless cameras by Nikon?
Nikon would hit it out of the park if they would make a medium-format mirrorless, with good ergonomics, that could make use of all the F-mount lenses :D
-
Was the Japanese text any clearer on the timeframe for introduction of "large sensor" mirrorless cameras by Nikon?
No, not at all. Actually the executive didn't give us any concrete info in his entire answers. He just say "mirrorless". He didn't mention whether it is CX, DX or FX.
But I think it is obvious that Nikon 1 wouldn't (or couldn't) be the key product line to save Nikon, although I still believe that this platform itself is very promising still/video hybrid camera.
-
Agree with the last statement. Thus it is a pity that Nikon decided to cripple so many features on their CX range.
-
No, not at all. Actually the executive didn't give us any concrete info in his entire answers. He just say "mirrorless". He didn't mention whether it is CX, DX or FX.
But I think it is obvious that Nikon 1 wouldn't (or couldn't) be the key product line to save Nikon, although I still believe that this platform itself is very promising still/video hybrid camera.
Thanks, I agree, the Nikon 1 could have been much more.
-
"Mirrorless" ?; my smartphone is a "mirrorless"; so one could only imagine that it's only meant to the larger (FX/DX) side. Personally, for having tested for an extended period Leica SL; and for a shorter period of time one of the Sony Alpha's; I really dont see any element which could me push to a mirrorless high-end camera (yes, I know the arguments in favour of..). I'm surprised that so many people believe that the critical path to further success and profit is the "mirrorless" way. Yes, they should be much cheaper to produce.
Another remark: how is the profit stream distributed over the model range of cameras (from cheap to expensive) ?; and/or to what extent are the cheaper cameras subsidising the higher end cameras? And if the latter proves to be true, this could be a major problem for survival.
-
"Mirrorless" ?; my smartphone is a "mirrorless"; so one could only imagine that it's only meant to the larger (FX/DX) side. Personally, for having tested for an extended period Leica SL; and for a shorter period of time one of the Sony Alpha's; I really dont see any element which could me push to a mirrorless high-end camera (yes, I know the arguments in favour of..). I'm surprised that so many people believe that the critical path to further success and profit is the "mirrorless" way. Yes, they should be much cheaper to produce.
Another remark: how is the profit stream distributed over the model range of cameras (from cheap to expensive) ?; and/or to what extent are the cheaper cameras subsidising the higher end cameras? And if the latter proves to be true, this could be a major problem for survival.
My guess, based on the surgical removal of "cheap" cameras from Nikon's future, is that the money is in their better cameras.
Just think about it, on photography forums, worldwide, you seldom see ANYone using the cheap cameras ... at the lowest they're using the D7100 and above [mostly D2/300, D71/7200, D500, D7/750, D8/810(E), D3(s/x)/4(s)/5].
I can't even think of a single post made, anywhere, by any Nikon user deploying a lower-end camera than a D7100/D300 to share their imagery.
In fine, the "consumer base" who would target low-end camera-toys are only using FB (texting/sharing with friends) ... they don't really consider themselves "photographers" ... they don't want to trouble themselves with "processing" images ... they just want to take some pictures (to be shared in real-time) ... and as such they are simply using their cell phones, which already come equipped with nice low-end/mid-level cameras, which serve their purpose perfectly.
-
Christian, I would have to admit that smartphones have grown to a strong competitor to Nikon 1 (or any cameras with the sensors 1" or smaller). That's why I feel the need of improving and strengthening the Nikon 1 series.
-
So far as the DSLR is concerned, the next key product would be the followers of Nikon D610 and Canon 6D: the entry-level full frame models. The Chinese market is huge, and the large full-frame DSLRs are still considered as status symbols.
-
Thanks Akira. I'm a better stronger in your second statement (i.e. D610 etc); than in the first one.😊
-
"Mirrorless" ?; my smartphone is a "mirrorless"; so one could only imagine that it's only meant to the larger (FX/DX) side. I'm surprised that so many people believe that the critical path to further success and profit is the "mirrorless" way. Yes, they should be much cheaper to produce.
I think the expectation is that electronic viewfinders will continue to improve. I fully expect that as there is a large amount of development effort being applied to wearable and high-res head mounted displays, as well as applications in communications devices.
Nikon doesn't really participate in that basic display technology advancement, but they can certainly apply it as it becomes available.
I think this is the gist of the comment about Nikon waiting a bit and choosing the right time to step in with a mirror less camera.
We all know the advantages - lighter, fewer moving parts, 'what you see is what you get", enlargement on demand, ability to boost lightness in dark situations, shorter lens to film distance (a positive in some cases), eye tracking and focus, ...
It seems inevitable to me that the DSLR goes the way of the other reflex cameras.
-
My dream viewfinder would rather be a hybrid one: optical view of the scene, and projected additional info (focus peak etc) by the same means as a HUD (Head Up Display) of jetfighters and some airliners.
-
For me lobotomy is preferable to having to use an EVF. I imagine after my frontal lobes are removed I would no longer care whether I have a viewfinder or not, or whether I have any experience in photography or not. The EVF kind of cancels the role of experience: not seeing what is happening in the scene (most notably human emotions), I can't use that experience to judge when to make the shot. Setting exposure can be challenging for a novice in photography but not so much after some experience has been gathered.
I think when Nikon started to use an LCD overlay in the viewfinder, the image crispness dropped and I started to have difficulty manual focusing. This happened with the D3 (I tested manual focusing with the F5 using technical pan and it was really easy to get the focus bang on with manual focus on the matte surface, and very difficult with the D3). The viewfinders have since improved due to other changes (coatings etc.) but I would pay a extra money on a camera to have it designed without the LCD overlay. I think 500-1000€ extra would be fair, if it is that expensive to make a design change for those who prefer a crispier viewfinder like we used to have.
-
I think that Nikon will have to introduce a short flange mirrorless FX/DX system to maintain their share of the overall system camera market. Since Nikon is relatively late to this market, they will have to focus all their lens making effort on fleshing out this new system with lenses. This of course means fewer, if any, new DSLR lenses going forward, and probably no more new DX DSLR lenses. I base this on what all other camera makers have done.
-
For me lobotomy is preferable to having to use an EVF. I imagine after my frontal lobes are removed I would no longer care whether I have a viewfinder or not, or whether I have any experience in photography or not. The EVF kind of cancels the role of experience: not seeing what is happening in the scene (most notably human emotions), I can't use that experience to judge when to make the shot. Setting exposure can be challenging for a novice in photography but not so much after some experience has been gathered.
I think when Nikon started to use an LCD overlay in the viewfinder, the image crispness dropped and I started to have difficulty manual focusing. This happened with the D3 (I tested manual focusing with the F5 using technical pan and it was really easy to get the focus bang on with manual focus on the matte surface, and very difficult with the D3). The viewfinders have since improved due to other changes (coatings etc.) but I would pay a extra money on a camera to have it designed without the LCD overlay. I think 500-1000€ extra would be fair, if it is that expensive to make a design change for those who prefer a crispier viewfinder like we used to have.
Lobotomy was one of the greater tragedies of modern medicine.
-
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
-
I don't think Nikon will ever have more than 10% of the mirrorless ILC pie worldwide since the systems which are there first tend to stay market leaders because of the lens systems make them attractive; it would be very difficult for additional manufacturers to catch up at this point. Also the Sony E mount and MFT mounts are kind of open, the specifications are known, so reverse engineering is not needed by third party manufacturers, this makes these systems attractive to third party lens developers. Nikon would never go with an open interface to a lens mount, and neither would Canon. This means it is likely Nikon will be a small player in the mirrorless ILC arena.
-
I think that Nikon will have to introduce a short flange mirrorless FX/DX system to maintain their share of the overall system camera market. Since Nikon is relatively late to this market, they will have to focus all their lens making effort on fleshing out this new system with lenses. This of course means fewer, if any, new DSLR lenses going forward, and probably no more new DX DSLR lenses. I base this on what all other camera makers have done.
Today I have had so much fun with a Nikon mirror-less camera that I honestly don't know what you're on about?
In fact I am not sure that all other camera makers produce a tool that can capture the attached images :)
-
Today I have had so much fun with a Nikon mirror-less camera that I honestly don't know what you're on about?
In fact I am not sure that all other camera makers produce a tool that can capture the attached images :)
y
My post is easy enough to read. :)
-
I don't think Nikon will ever have more than 10% of the mirrorless ILC pie worldwide since the systems which are there first tend to stay market leaders because of the lens systems make them attractive; it would be very difficult for additional manufacturers to catch up at this point. Also the Sony E mount and MFT mounts are kind of open, the specifications are known, so reverse engineering is not needed by third party manufacturers, this makes these systems attractive to third party lens developers. Nikon would never go with an open interface to a lens mount, and neither would Canon. This means it is likely Nikon will be a small player in the mirrorless ILC arena.
I don't think Nikon will concede defeat that easily. :)
-
y
My post is easy enough to read. :)
But your short flange full frame mirror-less images are nowhere to be seen :)
-
I think all of Sony, Fuji, Panasonic and Olympus have recently been straying from what they promoted as merit of mirrorless system: the compactness. The IBIS is marvellous, but it makes the body larger. And their lenses are growing larger and larger.
-
My dream viewfinder would rather be a hybrid one: optical view of the scene, and projected additional info (focus peak etc) by the same means as a HUD (Head Up Display) of jetfighters and some airliners.
And some cars have it on the extras list. Nice. Useful. Why not have it for a DSLR? As long as it can be adjusted and turned off I'd like it.
-
I think all of Sony, Fuji, Panasonic and Olympus have recently been straying from what they promoted as merit of mirrorless system: the compactness. The IBIS is marvellous, but it makes the body larger. And their lenses are growing larger and larger.
Longtime Nikon nature photographer, Daniel Cox, is now shooting primarily mirrorless:
http://naturalexposures.com/about-us/photography-gear/camera-2
He did a video on the Panasonic LUMIX G 100-400mm, Leica DG Vario-Elmar Lens. He apparently confirms your statement that, as quality grows in mirrorless telephoto lenses, so too does size:
- "A Micro Four Thirds lens with a not-so-micro zoom range, the Leica DG Vario-Elmar 100-400mm f/4-6.3 ASPH. POWER O.I.S. Lens from Panasonic offers a truly expansive 200-800mm equivalent focal length range, yet retains a relatively compact stature to suit the Micro Four Thirds system."
Therefore, I don't see how DSLRs (the lenses for them anyway) are going to get phased out.
Here are two videos he made on the subject and his transition:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU182bZ1WIQ&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsptHb3XTao
(comparing mirrorless telephotos with a low-end Nikkor ... they're just as large)
My bet is that high-end DSLR cameras will ultimately will morph into high-end mirrorless ... but that the best lenses will remain to put in front of them, after the smoke clears ;)
Jack
-
Apparently, Nikon deposited a patent for a BSI CMOS Sensor with dual pixel technology
http://thenewcamera.com/nikon-patent-bsi-cmos-sensor-with-dual-pixel-af/
-
I think when Nikon started to use an LCD overlay in the viewfinder, the image crispness dropped and I started to have difficulty manual focusing. This happened with the D3 (I tested manual focusing with the F5 using technical pan and it was really easy to get the focus bang on with manual focus on the matte surface, and very difficult with the D3). The viewfinders have since improved due to other changes (coatings etc.) but I would pay a extra money on a camera to have it designed without the LCD overlay. I think 500-1000€ extra would be fair, if it is that expensive to make a design change for those who prefer a crispier viewfinder like we used to have.
I agree with the LCD overlay assessment. I found the Nikon F5 and D2H easier to focus on a matt focus screen than the Nikon D300s and D800. Also I could use a DK-17m (1.2x eyepiece) with the D2H even though I ware glasses.
Dave Hartman
-
Apparently, Nikon deposited a patent for a BSI CMOS Sensor with dual pixel technology
http://thenewcamera.com/nikon-patent-bsi-cmos-sensor-with-dual-pixel-af/
Very interesting, our patent attourney of the house might read a bit between the lines for us???
-
Apparently it is not the patent for the dual pixel AF. Maybe it is the patent for the placement or the design of the on-chip lens eliminating stray light from the neighboring pixels...
Canon has a dedicated section for the patent, so they should know how to keep similar patents from being filed in order to protect their proprietary technology.
-
The Patent is claiming a new way of shielding against stray light.
Then also claiming rows of pixel-pairs for focusing in between R and G pixel rows.
For mirror-less camera with removable lens.
-
Sony has a similar patent claiming a laminated light-blocking film, two layers, in-between the pixels.
WO2016052249A1 priority 18 Sept 2015 so fairly new, published 07 April 2016
-
Oops, you are right. :o
-
New firmware upgrades for WT-7, D810, D500, D750, D7200 and a few days earlier, SB-5000 have been released. Mostly it seems about bug fixes and added compatibility with WT-7 to these cameras. I had an occasional problem with the 300/4 E and D810 where the first exposure of a series was not correct, and I speculated what could be the cause of it; the firmware update explanation suggests that right after changing lenses the exposure may have been incorrect, and this issue was fixed. There is also a mention that sometimes images taken were not stored. I can't say I remember that kind of a situation but it may be that I have forgotten that I took an image which was not stored, though I think it's more likely that this is a very rare event.
So now one can use the WT-7 with D500, D810/D810A, D750, and D7200, but there is no firmware fix for the missing tripod socket at the base of the transmitter. :o ;) I guess it is a good thing that Nikon makes this transmitter work with several cameras, and for studio use I guess this device would work well since it would be used in place of the vertical grip. But I think when paying for such an expensive accessory, it would be nice if they provided a useful way to mount it on a tripod, when using the camera with remote control. I guess it would be possible to machine a suitable mount, or use some kind of clamp for mounting, but it seems strange to have to go into a custom solution for such an obvious application.
The D500 update seems to be about making Snapbridge connections more reliable, but they only mention issue in conjunction with a specific version of the Snapbrigde application for a specific OS (iOS 10.2). Well, at least they are issuing updates.
-
With The D1 you lost the images in the buffer if you turned off the camera, I literally thought I had lost my mind, until I figured out what was going on,,, Back in the film days witch for me was right before tha D1 I for sure could remember what I had captured :o
-
Ilkka, thanks for the note for the firmware update. It is a bit surprising that some very basic bugs haven't been fixed after the cameras had been around for a couple of years....
-
I am just puzzled about the WT-7. It is blocky, requires a cabled connection to the camera, has no tripod hole in the botton, and has no exposure control dial, shutter button, no AF-ON. Did they think about this device at all?
WT-5/6 even if it needs an UT-1 to work on a D810 seems a much better thought out device.
-
DPR posted a more current CIPA camera sale graphs of the ones I posted earlier:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/9398648371/2016-cipa-data-shows-compact-digital-camera-sales-lower-than-ever
In short, the compacts have plummeted even further, DSLR and mirrorless shrunk a little and just the growth of the smartphone cameras alone is bigger than the sale numbers of all other camera types combined.
-
The abrupt downfall of the sales of the compact cameras is well understandable. Unlike the literal "enthusiast" cameras, mirrorless or DSLR, the most possible buyers of compact cameras should be those who want to or need to take pictures as the records of various occasions in their lives but are not necessarily interested in the photography or the camera. Then the vastly improved cameras integrated in the smartphones are good enough for them. They don't look at the dedicated cameras anymore.
-
DPR posted a more current CIPA camera sale graphs of the ones I posted earlier:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/9398648371/2016-cipa-data-shows-compact-digital-camera-sales-lower-than-ever (https://www.dpreview.com/news/9398648371/2016-cipa-data-shows-compact-digital-camera-sales-lower-than-ever)
In short, the compacts have plummeted even further, DSLR and mirrorless shrunk a little and just the growth of the smartphone cameras alone is bigger than the sale numbers of all other camera types combined.
WOW!
-
I guess this is why Nikon cancelled the DL series and no new Coolpix announcements, either.
I don't think the compact is quite as useless as it would seem from the graph but I do not currently own a compact camera so I guess I don't have a vote. I was waiting for the DL24-85 actually. Coolpix A or similar I would be happy to buy if equipped with faster AF.
-
DPR posted a more current CIPA camera sale graphs of the ones I posted earlier:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/9398648371/2016-cipa-data-shows-compact-digital-camera-sales-lower-than-ever
In short, the compacts have plummeted even further, DSLR and mirrorless shrunk a little and just the growth of the smartphone cameras alone is bigger than the sale numbers of all other camera types combined.
This is of course not surprising at all. The "whole world" wants a smart phone, not necessarily because of the camera, but also all the other utilities these little mini-computers can provide. Thus all these purchases get counted as camera phones. (I was as stubborn non-smart phone user until recently when I discovered that I wanted to run a polar alignment app for astrophotography. I did not get it for the camera, but of course when I need to document something, even the camera of my cheap smart phone can do the job). That said, I noted a surprising large number of people at the Iditarod dog sled race start here in Fairbanks this week that were handling smartphones even at -25 to -30°C. The few times I have tried such use I find it very troublesome as even a pair of thin fleece gloves have to come off to use the camera on the phone.
-
Thank you very much, Erik!
-
..... That said, I noted a surprising large number of people at the Iditarod dog sled race start here in Fairbanks this week that were handling smartphones even at -25 to -30°C. The few times I have tried such use I find it very troublesome as even a pair of thin fleece gloves have to come off to use the camera on the phone.
You can get gloves Sealskinz for instance, that work for the touch screens, phones or cameras,,,
-
Thanks, good to know, although my present preferred cameras do not have this requirement. So they work with capacitative screens too? (The web site did not specify).
-
I find it difficult to see the smart phone the best choice for photographing a dog race in extreme cold. :o But, I understand that if that's what one has, it is the best. A compact camera probably would not work great with gloves on either, to really get good handling one would have to with a larger camera.
-
I find it difficult to see the smart phone the best choice for photographing a dog race in extreme cold. :o But, I understand that if that's what one has, it is the best. A compact camera probably would not work great with gloves on either, to really get good handling one would have to with a larger camera.
+1
Some may buy a new smart phone with a better camera as an excuse but I doubt that many buy a smart phone with the prime objective of getting a camera. It's there and people will use it. It replaces the EK Browny Haweye's of the '50s and Instamatics of the '60s but it does not replace a proper camera if one cares about their photography.
People often buy what's "In" what's "cool" and at a time film SLR(s) were such and again dSLR were in. Those with little commitment will then move to what is most convenient.
Dave Hartman
-
Here is a CIPA table without the noise of the mobile phones
http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-2016_e.pdf (http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-2016_e.pdf)
and a capture of the screen in case you do not want to click on the link
the info is for the full 2016 year
Talking about shipments ( I do not know why 2 rows for each concept in the report)
mirrorless ~flat yr-yr
DSLR ~85% yr-yr
Compacts ~56% yr-yr
IMO, it basically predicts the price of the cameras and lenses we use and like are likely to go higher
-
The first row is in units (how many cameras) and the second is their monetary value.
-
+1
Some may buy a new smart phone with a better camera as an excuse but I doubt that many buy a smart phone with the prime objective of getting a camera. It's there and people will use it. It replaces the EK Browny Haweye's of the '50s and Instamatics of the '60s but it does not replace a proper camera if one cares about their photography.
People often buy what's "In" what's "cool" and at a time film SLR(s) were such and again dSLR were in. Those with little commitment will then move to what is most convenient.
Dave Hartman
For a couple of years the camera on my IPhone was my primary camera.
My current phone I paid extra to ensure I got a good camera included in it.
For a lot of what I do, a phone cam is adequate.
I don't believe I am alone.
-
+1
Some may buy a new smart phone with a better camera as an excuse but I doubt that many buy a smart phone with the prime objective of getting a camera. It's there and people will use it. It replaces the EK Browny Haweye's of the '50s and Instamatics of the '60s but it does not replace a proper camera if one cares about their photography.
People often buy what's "In" what's "cool" and at a time film SLR(s) were such and again dSLR were in. Those with little commitment will then move to what is most convenient.
Dave Hartman
Dave, its time to try one, and confront yourself with reality: the today's smartphone build-in cameras are so much more capable than the Instamatics you are referring to. Have a look to the dedicated thread to make it up for yourself. 😊
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,1899.0.html
-
MF, I tend to agree with you but..... it is primarily due to Social Media that Smartphones are wiping out P&S and hurting camera sales. The Smartphones are now multi-functional, phone conversations are actually becoming a thing of the past where I live. My wife will text someone and wait for an answer rather than just call and speak with them :( . Banking and purchasing is being done by Smartphone rather than the Net so if capable of excellent images from something one depends on.....
The camera manufacturers are responding to connectivity with varying degrees of success. I can go from camera to phone to a sharing site easily with the Olympus cameras, slightly less easy with Sony and more difficult with Nikon. When I sell gear these days I advertise on the Buy and Sell area of a local site with an image taken by a camera but then prospective buyers WhatsApp me for real time images from the Samsung Galaxy 7 Edge. Saves a lot of time and can answer questions immediately. Smartphones have become a tool. There are some things that Smartphones just do not photograph well ;)
Then there are those that just like to take photographs and enjoy having good gear , sometimes just for having well engineered and made pieces. The world of Apps has made processing images more of a game that can correct many half assed images ( speaking of my son, the teenager, not the link :) ) and he is a good photographer.
I have funds on hold to see what is coming next from Nikon (and others) . I certainly do not need another camera ( or lenses for that matter :( ) . Maybe some Island hopping in Greece or a trip to Paris :)
Tom
-
Dave, its time to try one, and confront yourself with reality: the today's smartphone build-in cameras are so much more capable than the Instamatics you are referring to. Have a look to the dedicated thread to make it up for yourself. 😊
I have one. It's 13MP and it takes so, so photos when it feels like it. It's like all the rest you hold it out like one of the living dead and then tap the screen and there is a fun graphic as it swishes away so you know it took a photo. Capturing a decisive moment was easier with a Brownie Hawkeye or Instamatic 100. I'm sorry but I all but never take photos with my phone.
I also have a Fuji E550 and a Canon A640 of the point & shoot persuasion. I don't know where they are at this moment. I should find them and make sure batteries are not in them. The only cameras I use are a D800 and occasionally a D300s.
Dave who believes a smart phone is "Very interesting but stupid."
-
When the only tool you have is a smart phone everything looks like a nail.™
:D
-
While smartphone cameras today are better than they used to be, there are still issues in their use as a primary camera. If you try to take a precisely timed shot, chances are that it won't work out without multiple tries, leading to posing etc. very fake looking images. Furthermore most smartphone cameras have a moderate wide angle lens and to get wider angle images, stitching is used and the automatic stitching results (which is how people do it in practice with smartphone cameras) are quite gross aesthetically; there is distortion and artifacts. People make selfies with the moderate wide angle, leading to quite bad distortion of the features. I think it's a temporary thing and people will eventually feel disgust when they look at many of these images. Hopefully they will disappear in a server crash somewhere. While the iPhone 7 plus has a slightly longer lens available the thing is that to get a nicely proportioned portrait you need to move the camera some distance away, and this is not what people do with a smartphone, really. This whole culture is warped in narcissism. People post distorted pictures of their faces with a wide angle lens, they post their food, and cat videos that they found, with the assumption that other people would be interested in this stuff. I think this cannot really last for very long and people will grow weary of this whole culture. When publishing stuff carried some threshold of editorial review, we didn't have to see so much bad content. Of course, some good content was also excluded. I don't like the idea that basically algorithms decide, what content gets highlighted. It would be better if there were people to do the selection. But I guess that train went long ago and there is no going back. Although content that is strictly editorially reviewed does exist, but is it popular enough to succeed?
The smartphone camera does not make it easy to create good photography. The touch screen is unresponsive, making it difficult to get reliably and precisely timed shots. There are no easy to use exposure controls. The requirement for a flat lens limits focal length and applications. The fact that it is everywhere basically promotes the idea of publishing half-hearted efforts to a far too big audience for the content's true value. A slower process has the advantage that the users have time to think before posting. Of course I'm not saying that the process should be unnecessarily clumsy, but there are advantages in taking one's time before publishing content, whether images or text.
The question then is: if the smallest and least expensive compact cameras do not have a clear competitive advantage over the smartphone camera, what is the next step up which does in fact produce visibly better results? I thought that would be at the RX100/Nikon DL level. Perhaps Nikon feels that market also saturated with competition. Then there is the small sensor mirrorless, CX, MFT, and APS-C models.
Is direct connectivity to smartphone the way people want to use a dedicated camera? How large a proportion of users consider this very important? I guess manufacturers will eventually get this to work fluidly, but I fear the bad rap Snapbridge has given Nikon so far ... will it recover after the technology works reliably on most devices?
I guess the instant upload culture has the advantage that people don't get to edit their shots much and it gives a sort of "as is" reflection of events, even though it looks bad and careless most of the time and it's difficult to catch a telling moment. If there are dozens of camera phones witnessing an event, it's possible someone will catch a good moment. It doesn't feel very satisfying.
-
Ilkka, there is a paying market for instantly uploaded images, not Smartphone images for teenagers. Advertising on Social Media is big business and establishments do benefit from 'real time' images. It does take a reasonable photographer to make the place, event, merchandise attractive. It is like the old 'word of mouth' about an establishment having a good Sale on, or an Event really being "the place to be" at that moment except word can spread much broader and faster than word of mouth.
Many cameras will allow some in camera editing /cropping . We are not talking about award winning images just business. A photographer only has so much time and most do not want to be on call 24/7 so have to pick their clients well and try to keep ahead of the game as far as advance notification and scheduling. How long it will last, no idea, but more and more newspapers and magazines are have a hard time competing at the moment. Trust me, my local newspapers pay very little for published images but a shop that does an extra $5000+ in sudden sales or a restaurant/hotel/Club that makes a big profit on the night , is much more likely to be much more generous ;D .
-
Ilkka, there is a paying market for instantly uploaded images, not Smartphone images for teenagers.
I understand that there is a professional market where speed is important.
I would think at least reviewing the images on a laptop would make sure that the exposure is correct and do a few tweaks to make it look just right before submitting would be helpful. For me it is difficult to judge things on a small screen. But I am used to a much slower workflow both in photography as well as in research. ;) I guess I should speed up both. ::)