Where is Nikon heading?

[MFloyd]

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"

[John Koerner]

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? )

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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.

[John Koerner]

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.

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

[MFloyd]

Deleted

[abergon]

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.

[MFloyd]

Deleted

[John Koerner]

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.

[abergon]

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.

[Jack Dahlgren]

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.

[MFloyd]

Deleted

[Erik Lund]

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

[John Koerner]

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.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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.

[MFloyd]

Deleted