Photokina...What the?

[MissionMan]

Is anyone else disappointed by the likes of Nikon and Canon at Photokina this year?

Nikon's big announcements...

A Gopro that was announced 6 months ago with two variations nobody really asked for and could probably be replaced by a mobile phone which is waterproof anyway, along with... wait...no, that was it. Biggest photography event of the year and they came up with a "buy a GoPro, save the Rhino" concept.


I was hoping they might finally have a play with a mirrorless body so I could get a second body to use my FX Lenses on but no such luck.

While this is happening, even Hasselblad in innovating beyond their traditional boundaries. Fuji is going MF, etc.

[Hamster]

I wonder whether Canikon have just decided they've gone far enough for now with the pros they're trying to target. MF too niche maybe?

P.S you can always switch to Canon and get and M5 as the "supplementary" ;-)

[MissionMan]

Yeah, but why not a mirrorless? I know of plenty enthusiasts with pro glass who are now ready to dump Nikon because they want a mirrorless system. They don't want two sets of glass so they'll sell their glass and go to Fuji or another brand.

If Nikon produced a mirrorless DX and FX body there would be heaps of people with glass who would be happy with the option. I'd be happy with a second body as mirrorless because it gives me the flexibility to pick whatever suits a particular requirement.

If they are working on one, why not announce it at photokina. If people know it's coming they'll probably hold off a switch rather than not knowing whether Nikon is even going to do something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ricktas]

The DSLR market is dropping year after year. I think they are at a crossroads and really do not know where to go from here. They probably see all the GoPro action stuff making it on youtube etc and decided to try and 'join them'. Rather than divesting and diverging into other realms they will probably realise in a few years that focusing on their core products and doing them damn well is what will make them a good company, rather than splintering off and trying to create to many products to get their toes into the water of all the different markets.

[Hawthy]

The latest iPhone software upgrade allows people with the iPhone 6s or later to shoot in raw, which provides people shooting with a phone a lot more to work with. (This annoys me because I only have the iPhone 6).

Maybe we need to face up to the inevitable and understand that, as phone camera technology continues to improve, consumer DSLR cameras might become less popular and become an unsustainable product for some camera manufacturers. It might go the way of film - still available but not a lot of investment by the suppliers. Pro-DSLRs have a much longer life, I think.

[MissionMan]

The DSLR market is dropping year after year. I think they are at a crossroads and really do not know where to go from here. They probably see all the GoPro action stuff making it on youtube etc and decided to try and 'join them'. Rather than divesting and diverging into other realms they will probably realise in a few years that focusing on their core products and doing them damn well is what will make them a good company, rather than splintering off and trying to create to many products to get their toes into the water of all the different markets.

Thats the thing that surprises me. It's not that hard for them to create a decent mirrorless with an FX and DX mount. They already have decent AF systems for mirrorless, the glass is there, they can create electronic viewfinders already and it would probably be a fairly low investment for them to trial it and see what happens. If it eats into their DSLR line, at least people aren't going to competitors so why would they worry. I.e. release a DF (full frame) and a DFX (DX) version camera, anyone who has glass can switch without investment and they don't lose customers to Fuji, Olympus etc. At worst, they may have to invest a little in pro level DX glass to compete with the likes of Fuji, but even some of that is covered by Sigma so its not that critical for them.

[MissionMan]

P.S you can always switch to Canon and get and M5 as the "supplementary" ;-)

From what I heard of the initial thoughts on the camera, it's already two years behind the competition. At least Canon is consistent...they were two years behind on sensors so it stands to reason they are two years behind on mirrorless :D

[Hamster]

From what I heard of the initial thoughts on the camera, it's already two years behind the competition. At least Canon is consistent...they were two years behind on sensors so it stands to reason they are two years behind on mirrorless :D

Haha. Yes, I just had a quick look at the M5 and it seems you're right. Dammit! :D

[arthurking83]

.....


I was hoping they might finally have a play with a mirrorless body so I could get a second body to use my FX Lenses on but no such luck.

.....

Or even a replacement for the now aging D810.(or even just an announcement that a replacement is under development!).

Not that the D810 is bad in any way .. still good considering it's actual age.
But Pentax have now shown it up in terms of IQ/price point ratio, and both Sony and Canon have surpassed it's pixel count and or dynamic range ability.

It seems Nikon spent wayy too much money on trying to get into the medical optics market, and now they have no money left to develop new cameras! :rolleyes:

[Hamster]

Or even a replacement for the now aging D810.(or even just an announcement that a replacement is under development!).Not that the D810 is bad in any way .. still good considering it's actual age.But Pentax have now shown it up in terms of IQ/price point ratio, and both Sony and Canon have surpassed it's pixel count and or dynamic range ability.I dont think Canon is showing it up. Yes, they may have more pixels in a 5Ds, but pixel count alone is meaningless, and noone is saying they leapt miles ahead in IQ with the 5Ds

[MissionMan]

Or even a replacement for the now aging D810.(or even just an announcement that a replacement is under development!).

Not that the D810 is bad in any way .. still good considering it's actual age.
But Pentax have now shown it up in terms of IQ/price point ratio, and both Sony and Canon have surpassed it's pixel count and or dynamic range ability.

It seems Nikon spent wayy too much money on trying to get into the medical optics market, and now they have no money left to develop new cameras! :rolleyes:

Also don't think they have quite caught up. The latest sensor reviews I saw showed that even the lower MP 5dmk4 can't match the D810 in terms of dynamic range or high ISO performance and the D810 was released 2 years ago.

Then there is the buffer and card issue with the 5dmk4 which is very disappointing given the competitors at the moment.

That's not to give Nikon credit though, their sensors (or Sony's) are good, when you compare it to what their competitors are doing, it's not exactly ground breaking so I think both Canon and Nikon need a good kick in the pants or a change of management to bring in some fresh directions.

[John King]

Sorry that you guys missed out.

In Olympus land, we were lucky with a raft of new goodies.
Plenty of years where it's been the other way round.

But you did get the simply superb D5 and D500 this year :nod: :D.

[swifty]

Re: available glass for mirrorless F-mount. At least if you believe some of the commentary its not that simple with regards to AF.
Although Nikon has demonstrated fairly good on-sensor PDAF performance in the Nikon 1 series, apparently some of the inaccuracy is hidden in the deeper DOF of the smaller sensor format.
Some other manufacturers (mainly Sony IIRC) are doing a final CDAF adjustment step after initial acquisition with on-sensor PDAF which slows down the overall performance but Nikon's F-mount lenses are supposedly not optimised for the this.
So whilst many of the focal lengths are covered, the lenses may not perform as well in a mirrorless setup.
If this was the case, who would buy a mirrorless F-mount over a DSLR F-mount?

[MissionMan]

Re: available glass for mirrorless F-mount. At least if you believe some of the commentary its not that simple with regards to AF.
Although Nikon has demonstrated fairly good on-sensor PDAF performance in the Nikon 1 series, apparently some of the inaccuracy is hidden in the deeper DOF of the smaller sensor format.
Some other manufacturers (mainly Sony IIRC) are doing a final CDAF adjustment step after initial acquisition with on-sensor PDAF which slows down the overall performance but Nikon's F-mount lenses are supposedly not optimised for the this.
So whilst many of the focal lengths are covered, the lenses may not perform as well in a mirrorless setup.
If this was the case, who would buy a mirrorless F-mount over a DSLR F-mount?

I have no doubt there are some challenges but if it is under development, I think they're idiots for not announcing because they are haemorrhaging enthusiasts at a rapid rate and if someone is considering leaving, they are more likely to stay if they know its in development and likely to be released in 6-12 . I.e. if I wanted to move to mirrorless now and I have pro glass as a lot of enthusiasts do, I would be likely to stay if I knew Nikon would be releasing something as opposed to not knowing, which in Nikon's case could also mean they have no plans for anything, because the reality is both Nikon and Canon have been slow to look at mirrorless. Most people would probably stick around for 6-12 months than move systems.

[swifty]

It's true that the way Nikon appears to run seems very confusing to many of us. Maybe it's a cultural thing, who knows but we're not privi to everything that's going on.
Take for example the D500. How many faithfuls hung in there? Not a peep from Nikon, even going as far as specifically calling the D7200 the DX flagship when it was released.
They certainly don't like doing road maps unlike some of the other brands.

But to the issue of mirrorless, there appear to be two broad groups of users.
The compact but competent mirrorless group and the slower paced shooting/ultimate IQ group. There may be a third group for videographers.
We've now got Hasselblad and Fuji entering the ultimate IQ group in addition to Sony FE and Leica SL.
The sub APS-C appear to appeal more to the compact but competent shooter group.
My personal opinion is that Nikon can do only 1 well with their resources currently so which do you go for?
For the volumes that they need my guess is it's the compact but competent solution so my guess is a relaunch of Nikon 1 will a sensor up to 1.7X crop (from the current 2.7x crop) is on the cards. Basically half way between DX and m43.
I've tried m43 for years but have sold everything off currently to reevaluate mirrorless but it wasn't the IQ letting it down. The IQ were competent as well as some great features. My issue ultimately was the handling and execution.
If Nikon can do better in this respect with a 1.7X sensor then I might try mirrorless again.

They've just given some interviews that hints at a larger (than Nikon 1) sensor mirrorless but what that means is vague. But I think that's about as good a 'roadmap' as you're gonna get out of Nikon.

[I @ M]

But I think that's about as good a 'roadmap' as you're gonna get out of Nikon.

I am getting the feeling lately that any "roadmap" Nikon presents exists purely to procure new customers to the brand and to navigate older customers to Upper Koombuktta West.

I seriously see any new purchases in this household being from brands with P or F as their initials -------

[MissionMan]

It's true that the way Nikon appears to run seems very confusing to many of us. Maybe it's a cultural thing, who knows but we're not privi to everything that's going on.
Take for example the D500. How many faithfuls hung in there? Not a peep from Nikon, even going as far as specifically calling the D7200 the DX flagship when it was released.
They certainly don't like doing road maps unlike some of the other brands.

But to the issue of mirrorless, there appear to be two broad groups of users.
The compact but competent mirrorless group and the slower paced shooting/ultimate IQ group. There may be a third group for videographers.
We've now got Hasselblad and Fuji entering the ultimate IQ group in addition to Sony FE and Leica SL.
The sub APS-C appear to appeal more to the compact but competent shooter group.
My personal opinion is that Nikon can do only 1 well with their resources currently so which do you go for?
For the volumes that they need my guess is it's the compact but competent solution so my guess is a relaunch of Nikon 1 will a sensor up to 1.7X crop (from the current 2.7x crop) is on the cards. Basically half way between DX and m43.
I've tried m43 for years but have sold everything off currently to reevaluate mirrorless but it wasn't the IQ letting it down. The IQ were competent as well as some great features. My issue ultimately was the handling and execution.
If Nikon can do better in this respect with a 1.7X sensor then I might try mirrorless again.

They've just given some interviews that hints at a larger (than Nikon 1) sensor mirrorless but what that means is vague. But I think that's about as good a 'roadmap' as you're gonna get out of Nikon.

I think they could get away with a DX crop mirrorless if they bring out some better quality (smaller) DX only glass like Fuji.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[swifty]

I think they could get away with a DX crop mirrorless if they bring out some better quality (smaller) DX only glass like Fuji.


I think it's a good alternative compact but competent mirrorless solution actually.
DX lenses for F-mount are getting long in the tooth and in need of updates.
Some of the entry level DX cameras are actually quite small. Remove the mirrorbox and OVF for an EVF, change the styling slightly and release a few important DX primes optimized for mirrorless AF. I'd probably also take a serious look at that as a lighter travel option.
They have started some AF-P lenses. Is that a sign? But they are both consumer kit lenses.
One thing is I think Nikon needs to get out of the mindset that small = cheap/consumer. The larger enthusiast bodies are already well catered for. They Fuji X popularity should give them something to think about.

- - - Updated - - -



I seriously see any new purchases in this household being from brands with P or F as their initials -------
Phase One and Fuji GFX?
Did somebody win the lottery?? ;P

[Hamster]

I fall into the slower paced ultimate IQ group. I'm not splashing out $45k on a Phase one, and now Hasselblad and Fuji have gone medium format mirrorless I don't want to buy the "old tech" of the 645z, good though it is.
Meanwhile Canon (certainly) and Nikon aren't cutting it in the IQ stakes with the FF.
The problem I have is waiting for Fuji to create enough lenses for the GFX, or spending the premium for Hasselblad lenses on the X1D, or waiting for the Sony A9 (looking forward to that one). I'd better just carry on taking awesome images with the 5diii I have. After all, awesome is awesome no matter how many pixels you have ;-)

[arthurking83]

..... I think they're idiots for not announcing because they are haemorrhaging enthusiasts at a rapid rate and if someone is considering leaving, they are more likely to stay if they know its in development and likely to be released in 6-12 . ....

I really don't understand this business mindset!
Pentax for years promised a full frame camera, it probably helped them hold on to many customers, and now it seems many are extremely happy with the result, irrespective of the fact that it took so long, they turned out a supremely capable camera with much better features(overall), at a vastly affordable price point!

Fuji announced the development of their new MF camera!

With the internet so prevalent and pervasive today, it makes no sense to secretive about up coming developments like this.
Like MM says, it'd help maintain some inertia from die hard Nikon loyalists(which I probably was not too long ago).

I think Thom Hogan calls it 'leakage'.

It appears that many folks are abandoning Nikon's F mount, selling up lenses and the like and switching to whatever mirrorless format/brand.
An announcement from Nikon about any potential future mirrorless even with some scant details(just for the purpose of teasing!!) with the important caveat that it maintain compatibility with Nikon lenses!!! .. would surely slow down this 'leakage' issue for them.

Nikon's main issue is not about the products it makes and releases .. it's only problem is management.

I'm with Andrew.
The way it's currently looking, if I consider any new products over the next few years, there's a higher chance that the brand name will start with P or S ...

- - - Updated - - -

The other thing to be mindful of when it comes to mirrorless, is whether the size is the important differentiator, or the use of a live view EVF is.

To me, neither are. I'm more than happy with the size/weight of the D800 and any/all of my lenses.
I'm not a fan of EVFs(still) so my main issue with mirrorless cameras is the viewfinder.

But! .. what I'm seeing ATM, and haven't yet seen much written about it, is that sometimes too small can be a bad thing.

I've written about this ages ago, when I switched from the D70s to the D300.
D300 was a much larger camera than the D70s, so theoretically, the D70s would seem like it's the perfect all day companion.
But even tho it(D70s) was still a largish camera compared to any current mirrorless camera, the larger body of the D300 made for a more comfortable carrying ergonomics.
That is, I could easily carry the D300(and D800) all day .. in the hand, whereas the smaller D70s was a PITA(actually PITH!) to hold.
My hand would cramp up quickly.
I've never had any issues walking about all day, or most of the day with the D300/D800.
I don't believe that a camera should be locked away in a back/backpack/suitcase/whatever, or even carried around on a shoulder strap.(you did know that they are much more comfy when used a a shoulder strap, and not a neck strap! :p)
I prefer to get around holding the camera in my hand .. after all it's where it should be .. when it's needed! :D

So what I've noticed over the past few years, is that the smaller are becoming bigger(and usually a bit heavier).

it's not much now, just a few grams here and a few extra mm's there, but that seems to be what happened to the film camera world way back in the 90's too.
They got just a smidge larger, and then another smidge larger .. and so on, until we got to their current digital counterpart sizes.

It wont be too long before 'the smaller' or more compact mirrorless cameras will be as large and heavy again as current smaller DSLR cameras are!

Compare current faves Olympus EM1's (first version compared to MkII); Fuji's XT-1 and 2, and X Pro1 and 2; Sony's A7 series too.
They're all falling victim to the dreaded onset of size creep(same with cars!).

So on the one hand we have mirrorless manufacturers that don't specifically care if their next model adds some size/weight.
And on the other hand we have DSLR makers that pull out all the stops to reduce their cameras relative size/weight!
It won't be long before we see that DSLRs are actually smaller and lighter than (equivalent type/format)mirrorless cameras! :p

I have to say too I laughed when I read about Olympus's new 25/1.2 lens.
It's about twice the size and weight of any half decent 50/1.8 lens for most DSLRs.
A 25/1.2 lens is akin to a 50/1.8 for a full frame camera.
What's humorous is that the philosophy is supposed to be smaller/compact! :confused013

[Cage]

I'm hearing you Arthur. :nod:

I started my DSLR journey with a Pentax K20D which I rather liked. I then got caught up in the 'newer has to be better' hype and upgraded (?) to a K5 which I was not quite so enamoured with. My main passion was birding and I think that I did OK with my SMC Pentax-DA* 300mm F4 ED [IF] SDM (Thank you Lance) but I was hankering for more reach and that just wasn't available in the Pentax mount.

I also decided that I must have the extra megapixies and FOV of a full frame so I went to the Nikon D600, had the sensor changed, and was rather happy with it but it didn't have all those extra megapixies that the D800 had so another switch. I didn't mind the D800 except for it's dismal handling of anything over ISO800, which bugged me enough to move it on.
I've acquired a D7200 as a stop gap till I decide on where to jump to next.

My new interest is nightscapes and the D810 with it's lack of an OLPF seems like a logical move. The D810a is not really tempting as I think it's pricing is a rip-off.

In the midst of all my kerfuffling Pentax have done what I couldn't wait for and released a well specced 36MP full frame, with some tempting features for astrophotography, and at a substantially lower price than the D810, which is overdue for and upgrade anyway. :shh: Nikon aren't saying when, or even if.

There is still no reasonably priced FF long lens available, the only option being the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 EX DG APO, although Sigma and Tamron may decide to add Pentax to their list of compatible mounts if the K1 gets a following.

When comparing the specs of the Pentax K1 and the Nikon D810 one can't but help get the feeling that Nikon (and Canon) have been ripping us off, and have been for ever. Who is supplying the grey market sellers who can offer pricing of 20% and more below the cheapest authorised dealers prices.? OK, you get a 'factory warranty' for the extra, but if they got their QC right that wouldn't be a factor.

I'm pretty much over Nikon, and Canon lost me when they decided to change their lens mount.

And if I did decide to go back to Pentax I still have the incredible M 50mm f1.7 and the legendary Tamron SP Adaptall 70-210 f3.5 to start with.


Wonder why I kept them. :scrtch:

[MissionMan]

I really don't understand this business mindset!
Pentax for years promised a full frame camera, it probably helped them hold on to many customers, and now it seems many are extremely happy with the result, irrespective of the fact that it took so long, they turned out a supremely capable camera with much better features(overall), at a vastly affordable price point!

Fuji announced the development of their new MF camera!

With the internet so prevalent and pervasive today, it makes no sense to secretive about up coming developments like this.
Like MM says, it'd help maintain some inertia from die hard Nikon loyalists(which I probably was not too long ago).

I think Thom Hogan calls it 'leakage'.

It appears that many folks are abandoning Nikon's F mount, selling up lenses and the like and switching to whatever mirrorless format/brand.
An announcement from Nikon about any potential future mirrorless even with some scant details(just for the purpose of teasing!!) with the important caveat that it maintain compatibility with Nikon lenses!!! .. would surely slow down this 'leakage' issue for them.

Nikon's main issue is not about the products it makes and releases .. it's only problem is management.

I'm with Andrew.
The way it's currently looking, if I consider any new products over the next few years, there's a higher chance that the brand name will start with P or S ...

- - - Updated - - -

The other thing to be mindful of when it comes to mirrorless, is whether the size is the important differentiator, or the use of a live view EVF is.

To me, neither are. I'm more than happy with the size/weight of the D800 and any/all of my lenses.
I'm not a fan of EVFs(still) so my main issue with mirrorless cameras is the viewfinder.

But! .. what I'm seeing ATM, and haven't yet seen much written about it, is that sometimes too small can be a bad thing.

I've written about this ages ago, when I switched from the D70s to the D300.
D300 was a much larger camera than the D70s, so theoretically, the D70s would seem like it's the perfect all day companion.
But even tho it(D70s) was still a largish camera compared to any current mirrorless camera, the larger body of the D300 made for a more comfortable carrying ergonomics.
That is, I could easily carry the D300(and D800) all day .. in the hand, whereas the smaller D70s was a PITA(actually PITH!) to hold.
My hand would cramp up quickly.
I've never had any issues walking about all day, or most of the day with the D300/D800.
I don't believe that a camera should be locked away in a back/backpack/suitcase/whatever, or even carried around on a shoulder strap.(you did know that they are much more comfy when used a a shoulder strap, and not a neck strap! :p)
I prefer to get around holding the camera in my hand .. after all it's where it should be .. when it's needed! :D

So what I've noticed over the past few years, is that the smaller are becoming bigger(and usually a bit heavier).

it's not much now, just a few grams here and a few extra mm's there, but that seems to be what happened to the film camera world way back in the 90's too.
They got just a smidge larger, and then another smidge larger .. and so on, until we got to their current digital counterpart sizes.

It wont be too long before 'the smaller' or more compact mirrorless cameras will be as large and heavy again as current smaller DSLR cameras are!

Compare current faves Olympus EM1's (first version compared to MkII); Fuji's XT-1 and 2, and X Pro1 and 2; Sony's A7 series too.
They're all falling victim to the dreaded onset of size creep(same with cars!).

So on the one hand we have mirrorless manufacturers that don't specifically care if their next model adds some size/weight.
And on the other hand we have DSLR makers that pull out all the stops to reduce their cameras relative size/weight!
It won't be long before we see that DSLRs are actually smaller and lighter than (equivalent type/format)mirrorless cameras! :p

I have to say too I laughed when I read about Olympus's new 25/1.2 lens.
It's about twice the size and weight of any half decent 50/1.8 lens for most DSLRs.
A 25/1.2 lens is akin to a 50/1.8 for a full frame camera.
What's humorous is that the philosophy is supposed to be smaller/compact! :confused013

I don't have an issue with size creep on mirrorless if it extends battery life. The current 300 photo battery life is dismal so I think if extending the camera slightly (without a grip) would extend battery life, it's a worthwhile trade off. I've had events where I have shot in excess of 3000 photos. That's 10 batteries in mirrorless land and I've heard of mirrorless wedding photographers going through 15 batteries in a weekend.

On the EVF front, I tested the XT-2 with 120fps viewfinder and it is really reaching a point where its seamless enough now to offer a real alternative. Previously the lag was problematic. The only issue from what I understand is that if you run at high frame rates, the view through the viewfinder can look a little broken and you end up moving ahead or behind the action. This is one of the reasons why I would like the combination of both a DSLR and mirrorless if possible. To me, the ultimate would be a mirror of sorts that reflects onto a EVF allowing you a optical and digital option, and I'm not talking about the X-Pro 2 version, I'm talking about a real combination which I think will be feasible. The thing I like about the EVF is the what you see is what you get approach instead of adjusting after each photo. I also like the option of shooting black and white through a black and white EVF.

Interestingly enough, my move may be to F at some point if Nikon don't release options soon. I'm in no particular rush, but if the opportunity arises, the switch will happen.

- - - Updated - - -


I'm hearing you Arthur. :nod:

I started my DSLR journey with a Pentax K20D which I rather liked. I then got caught up in the 'newer has to be better' hype and upgraded (?) to a K5 which I was not quite so enamoured with. My main passion was birding and I think that I did OK with my SMC Pentax-DA* 300mm F4 ED [IF] SDM (Thank you Lance) but I was hankering for more reach and that just wasn't available in the Pentax mount.

I also decided that I must have the extra megapixies and FOV of a full frame so I went to the Nikon D600, had the sensor changed, and was rather happy with it but it didn't have all those extra megapixies that the D800 had so another switch. I didn't mind the D800 except for it's dismal handling of anything over ISO800, which bugged me enough to move it on.
I've acquired a D7200 as a stop gap till I decide on where to jump to next.

My new interest is nightscapes and the D810 with it's lack of an OLPF seems like a logical move. The D810a is not really tempting as I think it's pricing is a rip-off.

In the midst of all my kerfuffling Pentax have done what I couldn't wait for and released a well specced 36MP full frame, with some tempting features for astrophotography, and at a substantially lower price than the D810, which is overdue for and upgrade anyway. :shh: Nikon aren't saying when, or even if.

There is still no reasonably priced FF long lens available, the only option being the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 EX DG APO, although Sigma and Tamron may decide to add Pentax to their list of compatible mounts if the K1 gets a following.

When comparing the specs of the Pentax K1 and the Nikon D810 one can't but help get the feeling that Nikon (and Canon) have been ripping us off, and have been for ever. Who is supplying the grey market sellers who can offer pricing of 20% and more below the cheapest authorised dealers prices.? OK, you get a 'factory warranty' for the extra, but if they got their QC right that wouldn't be a factor.

I'm pretty much over Nikon, and Canon lost me when they decided to change their lens mount.

And if I did decide to go back to Pentax I still have the incredible M 50mm f1.7 and the legendary Tamron SP Adaptall 70-210 f3.5 to start with.


Wonder why I kept them. :scrtch:

When you say reasonably priced, do you mean long zooms or fixed focal length? Didn't Sigma just release a 500mm f/4 sports that should be reasonable priced?

[Cage]

When you say reasonably priced, do you mean long zooms or fixed focal length? Didn't Sigma just release a 500mm f/4 sports that should be reasonable priced?

The new f4 Sigma doesn't come in the Pentax mount and the f4.5 is around $6K. The only zooms available are older Sigma 50/150/170-500mm variants.

[John King]

I don't have an issue with size creep on mirrorless if it extends battery life. The current 300 photo battery life is dismal so I think if extending the camera slightly (without a grip) would extend battery life, it's a worthwhile trade off. I've had events where I have shot in excess of 3000 photos. That's 10 batteries in mirrorless land and I've heard of mirrorless wedding photographers going through 15 batteries in a weekend.

With mirrorless, the CIPA shot count statistic is all but totally useless!

The on time of the camera is the major factor. With my E-M1, the battery will run the camera continuously for about 3 hours, whether I take 3 shots, 300 or 3,000.

Having all the various 'sleep' mode features set to the shortest possible times will dramatically extend battery life. The EVF is the main user of battery power, more than the rear display - about double the drain. I generally switch the camera off between shots, but this is probably only about 50% of the time. I have shot all day using a battery that started the day showing that it was borderline discharged. With the E-M1 MkII, it uses a different battery with much higher capacity.

The optional grip extends shooting life considerably, and changing the battery in my grip takes a matter of seconds. I have the camera set up to use the grip battery first, then it automatically switches to the camera battery when exhausted. Change the grip battery, cycle the power switch and it reverts to using the freshly charged grip battery.

The MkII (FINALLY) comes with a decent power indicator - percentage of shooting time left. This has been overdue in Olympus cameras for about 10 years ... :eek:.


On the EVF front, I tested the XT-2 with 120fps viewfinder and it is really reaching a point where its seamless enough now to offer a real alternative. Previously the lag was problematic. The only issue from what I understand is that if you run at high frame rates, the view through the viewfinder can look a little broken and you end up moving ahead or behind the action. This is one of the reasons why I would like the combination of both a DSLR and mirrorless if possible. To me, the ultimate would be a mirror of sorts that reflects onto a EVF allowing you a optical and digital option, and I'm not talking about the X-Pro 2 version, I'm talking about a real combination which I think will be feasible.



Just did a side by side test with my E-30 (OVF) and my E-M1. Even with the EVF frame rate set to the low speed, there was only an almost imperceptible difference between them, and no shearing or tearing.

The E-M1 MkII has quite a deep buffer - around 140+ RAW shots at full resolution (20 MPx). Buffer clearance rates are also very fast compared with the E-M1 MkI.


The thing I like about the EVF is the what you see is what you get approach instead of adjusting after each photo. I also like the option of shooting black and white through a black and white EVF.

Yeah, It is certainly an interesting way of viewing the subject ... even my M2 and M3 Leicas shooting KB17 showed the scene in colour in the VF ... :nod: :D.

[I @ M]

Phase One and Fuji GFX?
Did somebody win the lottery?? ;P

Ooops, should have included the second letter. Try again ---- Pe or Fu. :D

- - - Updated - - -



So on the one hand we have mirrorless manufacturers that don't specifically care if their next model adds some size/weight.
And on the other hand we have DSLR makers that pull out all the stops to reduce their cameras relative size/weight!
It won't be long before we see that DSLRs are actually smaller and lighter than (equivalent type/format)mirrorless cameras! :p

I have to say too I laughed when I read about Olympus's new 25/1.2 lens.
It's about twice the size and weight of any half decent 50/1.8 lens for most DSLRs.
A 25/1.2 lens is akin to a 50/1.8 for a full frame camera.
What's humorous is that the philosophy is supposed to be smaller/compact! :confused013

Amen.

I'm not looking for "small" in a camera ( apart from the price tag :D ) and more infrequently than not these days it ends up sitting on a tripod so hand holding any weight is not an issue.
Give me an ergonomic body, mirror or no mirror so long as the view finder is good. Speaking of which, the little Fuji I have with plain glass non ttl finder works well for me. Any amount of info can be displayed in it and it can be used as an evf at the flick of a switch. It is really quite a quick process working around the parralax issue when framing a shot and to me is a logical inclusion in a mirrorless body.
Yep, the new Fuji may well turn out to be a desirable bit of gear and I already consider the Pentax to be a good thing so with Nikon treading water whilst weighed down by a divers belt the opposition looks like a lifesaver clad in lycra.

Come on Nikon, you can build such a unit, with or without a mirror, decent sized body, good battery life, ergonomics, reasonably priced ( I aint confident of that one :( ) , utilising F mount lenses and a nice large sensor ( not some emasculated thing like Olypops have ) .

You never know you could actually retain some existing customers and entice a few new ones ------

[John King]

. . .

Compare current faves Olympus EM1's (first version compared to MkII); Fuji's XT-1 and 2, and X Pro1 and 2; Sony's A7 series too.
They're all falling victim to the dreaded onset of size creep(same with cars!).

So on the one hand we have mirrorless manufacturers that don't specifically care if their next model adds some size/weight.
And on the other hand we have DSLR makers that pull out all the stops to reduce their cameras relative size/weight!
It won't be long before we see that DSLRs are actually smaller and lighter than (equivalent type/format)mirrorless cameras! :p

For those who are not well informed, the smaller µFTs cameras are tiny, and bodies often weigh less than 350 grams. The tiny Panasonic GM1 weighs a mere 204 grams, with battery.
There are sizes and types for every conceivable taste.

If you insist on comparing horses with apples you get GIGO, Arthur ...


I have to say too I laughed when I read about Olympus's new 25/1.2 lens.
It's about twice the size and weight of any half decent 50/1.8 lens for most DSLRs.
A 25/1.2 lens is akin to a 50/1.8 for a full frame camera.
What's humorous is that the philosophy is supposed to be smaller/compact! :confused013

Have you bothered to look at the IQ wide open?
Sample shots?
I thought not ...

At least I don't have to carry 12 kgs of gear with me, or maybe hire a porter, plus carry a mandatory, massive tripod ...

Sorry, but these kinds of ill-informed and inflammatory statements make me think that I am back at DPR.

[RANT (almost) OVER]

[MissionMan]

For those who are not well informed, the smaller µFTs cameras are tiny, and bodies often weigh less than 350 grams. The tiny Panasonic GM1 weighs a mere 204 grams, with battery.
There are sizes and types for every conceivable taste.

If you insist on comparing horses with apples you get GIGO, Arthur ...



Have you bothered to look at the IQ wide open?
Sample shots?
I thought not ...

At least I don't have to carry 12 kgs of gear with me, or maybe hire a porter, plus carry a mandatory, massive tripod ...

Sorry, but these kinds of ill-informed and inflammatory statements make me think that I am back at DPR.

[RANT (almost) OVER]

I don't think he was being inflammatory. I think he was just stating that the big selling point of mirrorless has always been size and in this case, size isn't the winner.

Interestingly enough Thom Hogan also seems to think Nikon has lost the plot and thats a big thing for him to say:

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-swimming-wrong-direct.html

[I @ M]

For those who are not well informed, the smaller µFTs cameras are tiny, and bodies often weigh less than 350 grams. The tiny Panasonic GM1 weighs a mere 204 grams, with battery.
There are sizes and types for every conceivable taste.

If you insist on comparing horses with apples you get GIGO, Arthur ...



Have you bothered to look at the IQ wide open?
Sample shots?
I thought not ...

At least I don't have to carry 12 kgs of gear with me, or maybe hire a porter, plus carry a mandatory, massive tripod ...

Sorry, but these kinds of ill-informed and inflammatory statements make me think that I am back at DPR.

[RANT (almost) OVER]

Thanks for letting us know that we are ill informed.

Thought I would have a go at comparing fruit in an effort to show all the ill informed members of this forum how much a huge DSLR dwarfs a mirrorless body ----- yep the Olympus ( which you seem to be totally patriotic to ) is so much smaller than a DSLR and weighs a lot less, oops, rewind that, it aint much smaller and weighs more than a very competent DSLR.

Visual evidence can be seen here (http://camerasize.com/compare/#580,482).

Now --- back to the subject of Canon and Nikon and their respective offerings at Photokina.

[John King]

Thanks for letting us know that we are ill informed.

Your interpretation, or misinterpretation, of what I actually wrote, Andrew.


Thought I would have a go at comparing fruit in an effort to show all the ill informed members of this forum how much a huge DSLR dwarfs a mirrorless body ----- yep the Olympus ( which you seem to be totally patriotic to ) is so much smaller than a DSLR and weighs a lot less, oops, rewind that, it aint much smaller and weighs more than a very competent DSLR.

Visual evidence can be seen here (http://camerasize.com/compare/#580,482).

A comparison of an entry level dSLR with one of the largest (and most capable) µFTs bodies is hardly sensible, Andrew.
I would have thought that my use of Olympus gear was pretty obvious, without any further comment ...
The evident sarcasm is not becoming to you, IMO.


Now --- back to the subject of Canon and Nikon and their respective offerings at Photokina.

Is this site solely for Canon and Nikon users?
I thought that it was for all photographers, no matter what gear they choose to use.

My entry into this thread was to commiserate with fellow photographers about the lack of anything major being delivered to them at Photokina for their brand of choice. However, I also reminded them that the D5 and D500 released earlier this year were hardly miserable offerings. They are both stunning cameras.

Mutual respect as regards what people choose to use would go a long way, Andrew.

[I @ M]

Your interpretation, or misinterpretation, of what I actually wrote, Andrew.

I thought from the quoted post of yours below that there maybe members here who are ill informed -----


For those who are not well informed,



A comparison of an entry level dSLR with one of the largest (and most capable) µFTs bodies is hardly sensible, Andrew.

Actually, if I was trying to compare an entry level DSLR I would have used a D3200 as seen here (http://camerasize.com/compare/#681,482) but if in your well informed opinion the D5500 is an entry level DSLR, all us so ill informed people would like to know what the supposedly most capable Olympus does so much better than the Nikon. Especially when it comes to the parts about weight and size.



Is this site solely for Canon and Nikon users?

Absolutely not!!! This discussion just happens to be a thread in the Forum / general / gear talk / Nikon: and yes, your first post in the topic did mention Photokina, and Nikon but from there on in it rapidly evolved into much discussion on your part about the relative merits of Oly gear.

I was just trying to keep the thread in order ------

[swifty]

I'd just like to add some thoughts in regards to mirrorless considerations that some of you may or may not have thought about.

In regards to the EVFs, one has to make a distinction between when the EVF is performing optimally and conditions where it may not be able to.
In good light, which usually means outdoors in daylight I think very few people will have any issues shooting using the current better EVFs. As many have noted, lag is largely unperceivable.

In dim lighting or artificial lighting, it has been my experience that all the EVFs I've tried perform sub-optimally. These may include refresh rates slowing down, flickering, noise etc. However do keep in mind that in very dim lighting where it may be too dark for the naked eye to see well, the EVF does have the ability to amplify the signal enough such that framing can be easier even if the EVF image is quite poor.

In reference to my comments on EVFs, the best I have personally tried is the Leica Q and the best I've owned is the EM1 mk 1.

EVF signals also must be interrupted at time of capture. This may be an issue for fast continuous shooting but since I don't really do any kinds of burst shooting this does not affect me. Steps have been taken by manufacturers to reduce the drawback of this and if you haven't already seen it, have a look at the this dpreview video:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a6300/8
This could be a non-issue or big issue depending on your usage.

We all know EVFs are a large power draw so we usually take steps to minimize usage to conserve battery. This can have an effect on your shooting behaviour, but relatively minor for me.
You either make use of the camera's power saving features such as eye-sensing auto EVF switch on from sleep or rear LCD, time out features etc. but I've personally found them somewhat annoying and one of my unresolved quibbles with mirrorless so far. I think there are better ways to implement these features.

So for the way I shoot, I have my EVF set to always-on and turn the camera on and off as required to save battery. But there is a start-up lag. For me, sometimes enough to be a nuisance waiting momentarily as it turns from black to image vs an OVF where you can already get a sense of the composition as the OVF approaches the eye. If I had to use an analogy, the feeling I get when using EVF from camera start up is like having the lens cap on all the time and the cap comes off shortly after the camera has reached the eye.
Obviously this only has ramifications on certain genres of photography such as street and I will admit it is largely something to get used to and not really a deal breaker of any sorts.


I think mirroless initially started with the marketing message of size reduction. As I've said earlier, the demand has broadened into a few main groups where mirrorless technology has allowed improvements and yes, one large group remains the compacts/size consideration group. The other groups want mirrorless for a host of different reasons and size may no longer be a primary or even an important consideration. They want mirrorless for other reasons.

So I see the rise of larger, more sophisticated lenses such as the new Oly 25/1.2 as a maturation of the ecosystem where they are catering to a wider range of users and not just the ones that want compact, which has already been served well.

As for body size creep, it appears to be happening mostly in the top models of each manufacturer's series.
Again I feel this is a maturation of an ecosystem where camera series become more specialised and cater to more specific roles.
It might be a bit unfair to criticize single models without consideration of the entire lineup.
Many of the mirrorless manufacturers have also downsized some models too eg. Panasonic's GM series but it seems that line is coming to an end, its demise possibly due to the rise of the advanced P&S 1"sensor market.

[arthurking83]

.....

If you insist on comparing horses with apples you get GIGO, Arthur ...

.....

Sorry, but these kinds of ill-informed and inflammatory statements make me think that I am back at DPR.



LOL!
funny thing is, it's those type of replies that remind me of the DPR forums!


I made no mention of horses or apples :confused013

Where did I actually compare anything other than the technical similarities of how lens A works on Format A compared to lens B on Format B?

If you read my post properly(as opposed to how you wanted it to read!) .. I said that size creep is happening in the mirrorless camera market.
Never compared any particular model or brand, other than the mark I version of a specific camera compared to the mk II model it!

[Cage]

Ho hum, this thread has gone so far off topic that it's a joke. :(

[swifty]

Just stirring the proverbial pot :D
http://nikonrumors.com/2016/10/03/two-new-nikon-lenses-to-be-announced-soon-nikkor-pc-19mm-f4e-ed-and-70-200mm-f2-8e-fl-ed-vr.aspx/

Lets say these two lenses were announced for Photokina and Nikon delayed the launch of the 105mm f1.4E two months for a launch + ship at the same time for Photokina.

That would be three pro lenses but no mirrorless for the event.
What would the perception of Nikon's performance be?

[MissionMan]

Perception would have been better I would say. To delay the announcement of the 105 f/1.4 would have at least pushed more publicity their way. I think they probably did it to double the publicity (event and separate announcement) but I think as a result, their Photokina was actually negative.

i still think they needed to get mirrorless moving even if it was an announcement with an empty body and specs.

[swifty]

The 105/1.4 definitely would have been a headliner and would have injected some much needed positivity Nikon's way.
But that lens, along with the rumoured 70-200/2.8 and 19mm PC if they appear, would seem like a pretty strong vote towards DSLRs for FF.

So again, I think a CX relaunch with a larger sensor seems more likely as Nikon's mirrorless strategy.
If they wanna save costs, just stick a APS-C sensor that they share with DX anyways in there and call it a multi-aspect sensor allowing better crop ratio options. I'm sure the extra volume of APS-C sensor orders and without a need to develop a specific 1.7X sensor would offset the extra cost of putting a larger than necessary sensor within that CX mount.

But yea, we probably should give up on Nikon doing road map announcements. Each punter for himself to guess what they're up to from their cryptic clues.

[Hamster]

Hmmmm https://petapixel.com/2017/02/13/nikon-cancels-dl-series-amidst-extraordinary-loss-restructuring/

[MissionMan]

I'm not surprised. I think they need a restructuring, starting with their top management.

My suggestion to Nikon right now would be:

1. Release a FF mirrorless to stop the bleeding of users to Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, Sony. The DF would be a good candidate. This might even generate new markets for them for people who want a second body.
2. Release a DX mirrorless to stop the bleeding of users to Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, Sony in the lower end of the market and compete with new entrants to the market
3. Release a set of DX pro lenses. The market has moved beyond the idea that APSC/DX=Amateur and FF=Pro. There are plenty of pros using APSC who don't need ultra shallow DOF or sensors that go to ISO100K so at least this will open the door to the markets that Nikon cannot play in currently because when you want a decent lens, you have to buy something in FF which is either overpriced for APSC or oversized for APSC.

This is not about replacing DSLR, but complementing it for those who need it, just like Apple was forced to backtrack and release larger phones. You can try dictate what the market wants and why your product is better, but eventually you have to accept that the market isn't buying what you are trying to sell them. It's really not that hard a problem to solve if the Nikon management pull their heads out their asses long enough to understand.

Nikon's current strategy is:

1. Add more pixels to sensor
2. Create higher ISO and dynamic range
3. Produce wider pro full frame glass

The challenge with this strategy is it assumes that everyone wants a full frame DSLR and has an exorbitant budget to spend on glass. Apparently Nikon management forgot that not everyone drives home in a Ferrari like they do.

[ameerat42]

In other words, the same as always: How to keep afloat by maximising products to suit greatest demand/do whatever
you need to generate demand...

Now they should perhaps change their strategy to "How To Keep A Float".

Here is a wide range of starting ideas. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Float):confused013

[MissionMan]

In other words, the same as always: How to keep afloat by maximising products to suit greatest demand/do whatever
you need to generate demand...

Now they should perhaps change their strategy to "How To Keep A Float".

Here is a wide range of starting ideas. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Float):confused013

I think you need to adapt to the market.

I think whilst the pro market remains DSLR focus, the entry level to the market has shifted a bit more to mirrorless so if you tie in the entrants to the market, their investment in glass keeps them with the company long term because glass is normally what prevents people switching systems. If someone buys into Fuji to get into the market, they are more likely to stay there or work within the constraints they are confined by.

So if Nikon produce APSC mirrorless to attract new entrants to the market, you keep them on Nikon APSC glass and they have an upgrade path to pro glass because it's the logical progression. It's about investing at grass roots level, in much the same way that Microsoft and Apple market into students, universities, schools.

You could always compare it to where Nokia, Blackberry and some of the other vendors have gone wrong. If you focus on espouting the value of what you sell instead of understand what the market wants, you have a risk of losing the market completely. This is the approach that Apple has taken more recently and I think they are destined for failure as a result. I.e. the market wants hybrids but Apple says that hybrids don't work well, the market doesn't listen to Apple so they will go out and buy hybrids from someone else who is listening to them.

[Hamster]

$1 billion wiped of the value of Nikon in a day following their announcement [emoji50]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Lance B]

Lot's of armchair experts advising Nikon what they should do. However, Nikon has better market researchers than those that frequent internet forums. The "Extraordinary loss", is simply an accounting term for a once off issue and is mostly due to restructuring. Due to the downturn in camera sales across all brands mostly due to camera phones, Nikon has had to shed over 1,100 employees and part of the loss is due to redundancies and payouts etc. Don't let internet forums doomsayers get you concerned, this sort of thing happens in many companies from time to time. It happened with my company and we are now just as profitable as ever, actually moreso. Nikon are a huge company, and sells more cameras than Fuji, Pentax, Olympus and pPanasonic combined several times over and will still be very profitable for many years yet, no need to be concerned.

[swifty]

I think a lot of people are reacting to headlines rather than understand the meat of the story. But media need readers so they have a different agenda.

Anyways, as for Nikon I do think some of their recent efforts away from DSLRs have missed the mark. Namely the implementation of Nikon 1's, the whole Key Mission effort and cancelling DL's.
The cancelling of DL's is particularly puzzling to me because it seemed to be a product that could resonate with some of their core customers, who are enthusiast photographers who may want a smaller fixed lens option that's still part of their existing system camera ecosystem.

I thought I can also count on Nikon to execute the enthusiast and above end of their camera system but never really thought they did consumer end very well.
I was looking forward to the DL 18-50, even after the huge delay. What a shame it'll never happen.

[MissionMan]

Lot's of armchair experts advising Nikon what they should do. However, Nikon has better market researchers than those that frequent internet forums. The "Extraordinary loss", is simply an accounting term for a once off issue and is mostly due to restructuring. Due to the downturn in camera sales across all brands mostly due to camera phones, Nikon has had to shed over 1,100 employees and part of the loss is due to redundancies and payouts etc. Don't let internet forums doomsayers get you concerned, this sort of thing happens in many companies from time to time. It happened with my company and we are now just as profitable as ever, actually moreso. Nikon are a huge company, and sells more cameras than Fuji, Pentax, Olympus and pPanasonic combined several times over and will still be very profitable for many years yet, no need to be concerned.

I think the predictions of Nikon's demise are probably an exaggeration but it is a warning sign.

If you read Thom Hogan's blog about it, Nikon actually has a history of not listening to their customers and trying to dictate to their customers what they should want, rather than what they actually want. Thom (who is a massive Nikon advocate and uses primarily Nikon gear) is well regarded and has run a number of polls and the reality is Nikon does not seem to be doing anything similar. This is mirrored by my thoughts about Nikon where in 10 years, Nikon has never actually done any market research on me, despite spending in excess of $15000 on their gear. My guess is the only ones they ask are the professionals in their professional program and that's probably the only market they are actually doing well in.

With products like the 360, the question is who actually asked for these? They haven't produced decent DX lenses in ages despite the APSC market thriving, etc.

In fact, I'm the exact market that Nikon is losing so if anything, I'm the market they should be asking questions to.

Its worth reading his words on the matter because I think he is spot on.

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-nikon-q3-financials.html

It mirrors some of the issues I highlighted in this article which was written last year.

http://www.theoverratedphotographer.com/Theoverratedphotog/ArticlesF/Sorry-Nikon-this-is-where-you-

[Steve Axford]

It would seem to me that both Canon and Nikon have the classic dilemma of market leaders. Do they continue to produce the product that they have got to the top with, or do they try to change horses midstream. If they continue the way they have, they risk losing the lead to newcomers, if they try to change they risk losing their loyal customer base. Let's face it, the bulk of their lead is based on lenses, which are specific to camera bodies and styles. There is little point in going to mirrorless unless you change the lenses as well. If you do that then you will seriously piss off your customer base because much of your new lens development will be directed at the new cameras. What to do. Clearly both Nikon and Canon have decided to rely on their loyal customers. It remains to be seen just how loyal those customers will be.

[MissionMan]

I don't think they have to make that choice or lose face. I don't think they need to stop making Full frame DSLR's and Lenses, nor do they stop making APSC cameras and lenses. They're doing a great job there.

What everyone is saying is make a full frame and APSC mirrorless and make APSC pro glass so instead of bleeding customers to Fuji/Olympus/Panasonic etc to bleed them to your own products where you are still making profit.

What Thom raises as an interesting point is how many DSLR's do they actually need?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Steve Axford]

perhaps they can't afford to do everything. Haven't you heard that the camera market is in a downturn? Profit is down, or negative in Nikons case. Do you really think they can do everything at once. How will they persuade investors to put the money in? Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Fuji all have other profitable businesses to spread the load. Nikon don't.
I expect that they will have to shed some product lines in order to survive. We will find out within a year or so.

[MissionMan]

The question is can they afford not to. Mirrorless has gone from 19% to 27% of the market since 2012, and that market is coming out of Nikon and Canons bottom line

[Lance B]

I think that you will find that Canon and Nikon are more than likely working on mirrorless but want to make sure it fits within their line up. I also think that mirrorless is not the panacea that many think it is and the market for it will plateau. Camera phones have taken the entry level area like P&S and entry level DSLR's where Canon and Nikon made their bread and butter sales and is not something they could do anything about, lest they start making phones. I used to see most people with P&S and entry level DSLR's when I was first into photography (back then there were no camera phones or if there were the results from them were horrid), now I rarely ever see any of these type cameras, camera phones taken up the vast bulk of people who just want to record the moment and whack it on Facebook or whatever. The cost of sensors is coming down so quickly that I can see a time where phones could use 3 sensors each with a different lens, one for wide angle, one for standard and one short telephoto. I think that would keep even more people away from using a dedicated camera.

[Steve Axford]

I agree that Canon and Nikon will be looking at mirrorless, but where to put them? If they put them at the high end they risk annoying their customer base. If they put them at the low end they risk missing the boat. Given the current profit squeeze, I think they will hold off for as long as they can. But how long is too long?

I also agree that mobile phones will take the bottom end of the market and it is the top and intermediate end that is what is being fought over. Nikon are in the most vulnerable position, not because they don't produce good cameras, but because they lack the financial clout of Canon. I think they are in for a rough patch, but they've had that before and bounced back.

[MissionMan]

Low end of DX (to start) and low end of (FF). Drop out the lowest entry point for DX and FX and replace them. Do they really need a D610 and a D750? I doubt it.

I think the the low end would at least offer an entry point to Nikon with mirrorless, in time they may need a low end and high end in both DX and FF, but they would need the glass to match in APSC if they do that.

[Lance B]

You've also got to remember that Nikon is a huge and will still be a very profitable company into the future, "extraordinary loss" notwithstanding - the "extraordinary loss", which is just an accounting term for a once off restructure etc, needs to be put into context. In other words, Nikon may shrink down a little to more of their core business of DSLRs etc, but for them to be as "successful" as companies like Fuji and Olympus etc for cameras, Nikon would have to shrink by probably more than a factor of 10. So, their long term success is more sound than all other camera companies other than Canon.

[Steve Axford]

Nikon is not huge. It is less than 1/4 the size of Canon and 1/10 the size of Sony and 1/3 the size of Fuji. Even Olympus is about the same size. The total sales have dropped from just over 1 trillion Yen in 2013/14 to 0.82 trillion yen in 2015/16. They have reasons for concern.

[MissionMan]

You've also got to remember that Nikon is a huge and will still be a very profitable company into the future, "extraordinary loss" notwithstanding - the "extraordinary loss", which is just an accounting term for a once off restructure etc, needs to be put into context. In other words, Nikon may shrink down a little to more of their core business of DSLRs etc, but for them to be as "successful" as companies like Fuji and Olympus etc for cameras, Nikon would have to shrink by probably more than a factor of 10. So, their long term success is more sound than all other camera companies other than Canon.

Someone already corrected you on the sizes so I wouldn't worry. Yes, they are a big share of the camera market, but they aren't that big as a company.

Let's put it to you this way, in Q4 2010 Nokia had it's highest sales. If someone told you then that within 5 years Nokia and Blackberry would be dead and Apple and Samsung would be the biggest phone manufacturers in the world, people would have laughed them off as being nutcases. The market has the potential to do big things very quickly. I'm not saying it will, but I think to say that "Nikon is safe" is naive. No one is safe, not Apple, not Canon, not Microsoft, no one.

The only thing protecting camera manufacturers is glass, but that protection won't last forever, it will just delay things so it doesn't mean Nikon can afford to make mistakes, it just means they have more time to correct them. The phone market was a 2 year cycle, cameras are about 5-7 years. The market can turn on you quickly. Let's say you have another bad quarter. People get nervous. Some people dump stock. Some people switch because they don't want to be left holding gear, and some people don't buy Nikon because they are nervous because of the negative press. Next year the results of worse as a result of an oversaturated second hand market, low sales and it exacerbates the issue. It becomes harder to turn it around, because you have less capital to invest in new ideas, you've downsized to save money which creates more negative press etc. Yes, it's unrealistic, yes its unlikely to happen, but anymore unrealistic or unlikely than if someone told you about Nokia in 2010? Nokia was still producing very good phones up till the time they disappeared, it just wasn't the phones the market wanted and that's what Nikon need to remember. Producing good gear and producing gear the market want are mutually exclusive.

If Canon produce a hybrid that allows you to flip a switch between optical and digital viewfinder in a second (not like the XPro2, a full hybrid where you get both) as their 1DMK4, Nikon could very quickly find their D5 sales drying quickly if that is what the market decides is the solution. Hell, if Nikon produced a good hybrid then could even steal some of the market back from the mirrorless. The point is, there could be a game changer in the market, we don't know what it is (or if it will be mirrorless) and we don't know who will fall away as a result.

I have no doubt Nikon is taking this seriously, but given the extent of their bad decisions, taking it seriously should involved restructuring from the top down, not getting rid of staff at the bottom.

[Lance B]

Nikon is not huge. It is less than 1/4 the size of Canon and 1/10 the size of Sony and 1/3 the size of Fuji. Even Olympus is about the same size. The total sales have dropped from just over 1 trillion Yen in 2013/14 to 0.82 trillion yen in 2015/16. They have reasons for concern.

They are still a huge company (especially compared to many Australian companies) regardless of how they compare to Canon etc. Their camera sales are an order of magnitude more than Olympus, Fuji and Pentax etc. Sony, Fuji and Olympus are involved with other products, I am focusing on their camera divisions which is what this is all about. Lower total camera sales are affecting almost all camera manufacturers due to camera phones eating away at the lower end of the market, that is something no camera maker can do anything about unless they start making phones as well. Nikon camera division has no real reasons for concern about their future camera sales any more than Fuji, Olympus, Pentax, Sony and to a lesser degree Canon - but I think Canon still needs to take heart because if camera phones keep getting better then they too will feel the wrath of less sales at the lower end of the market. Canon sold about 9.5million total sales of compact cameras and IL cameras whereas Nikon sold a total of about 6.5million units. FF DSLR's are still doing very well for Nikon especially against Canon, they just need to address APS C and mirrorless part of the equation, which I am sure they are going to do. Whatever the case, it is speculation as to where the camera market is heading.

- - - Updated - - -


Someone already corrected you on the sizes so I wouldn't worry. Yes, they are a big share of the camera market, but they aren't that big as a company.

Let's put it to you this way, in Q4 2010 Nokia had it's highest sales. If someone told you then that within 5 years Nokia and Blackberry would be dead and Apple and Samsung would be the biggest phone manufacturers in the world, people would have laughed them off as being nutcases. The market has the potential to do big things very quickly. I'm not saying it will, but I think to say that "Nikon is safe" is naive. No one is safe, not Apple, not Canon, not Microsoft, no one.

The only thing protecting camera manufacturers is glass, but that protection won't last forever, it will just delay things so it doesn't mean Nikon can afford to make mistakes, it just means they have more time to correct them. The phone market was a 2 year cycle, cameras are about 5-7 years. The market can turn on you quickly. Let's say you have another bad quarter. People get nervous. Some people dump stock. Some people switch because they don't want to be left holding gear, and some people don't buy Nikon because they are nervous because of the negative press. Next year the results of worse as a result of an oversaturated second hand market, low sales and it exacerbates the issue. It becomes harder to turn it around, because you have less capital to invest in new ideas, you've downsized to save money which creates more negative press etc. Yes, it's unrealistic, yes its unlikely to happen, but anymore unrealistic or unlikely than if someone told you about Nokia in 2010? Nokia was still producing very good phones up till the time they disappeared, it just wasn't the phones the market wanted and that's what Nikon need to remember. Producing good gear and producing gear the market want are mutually exclusive.

If Canon produce a hybrid that allows you to flip a switch between optical and digital viewfinder in a second (not like the XPro2, a full hybrid where you get both) as their 1DMK4, Nikon could very quickly find their D5 sales drying quickly if that is what the market decides is the solution. Hell, if Nikon produced a good hybrid then could even steal some of the market back from the mirrorless. The point is, there could be a game changer in the market, we don't know what it is (or if it will be mirrorless) and we don't know who will fall away as a result.

I have no doubt Nikon is taking this seriously, but given the extent of their bad decisions, taking it seriously should involved restructuring from the top down, not getting rid of staff at the bottom.

My comment about Nikon being a huge company is in context of compared to many other companies, especially Australian companies. In other words, they are not some tiny company susceptible to going bankrupt any time soon as they have been very, very profitable for the past 11 out of 12 years. Also, another part of my meaning about Nikon being a huge company is that their camera sales are in the order of magnitude more than Fuji, Olympus etc.

You can't correlate Nokia to Nikon, in fact it is a completely different scenario. The difference between Nokia and Nikon is that part of the Nikon brand is also lenses where millions have huge investment in glass and other things, especially the professional photogs, and can't readily swap out to another camera company just for a slight benefit at a particular model cycle. People can very easily swap out their phone as a new model cycle comes through. There is nothing tying them to their phone. That is the difference. Also, the differences in camera performance between brands and model cycles is minimal and therefore not a real reason to swap brands at a whim.

Canon 1D MK IV has a switchable OVF to EVF? News to me.

As you say, there maybe a game changer in the market, but why does it mean that it is not Nikon? The problem here is all speculation and that speculation affects all camera makers, not just Nikon. In other words, they are all at risk.

A good article:
http://nikonrumors.com/2017/02/14/nikon-q3-financial-results-slow-sales-of-keymission.aspx/

[MissionMan]

My comment about Nikon being a huge company is in context of compared to many other companies, especially Australian companies. In other words, they are not some tiny company susceptible to going bankrupt any time soon as they have been very, very profitable for the past 11 out of 12 years. Also, another part of my meaning about Nikon being a huge company is that their camera sales are in the order of magnitude more than Fuji, Olympus etc.

You can't correlate Nokia to Nikon, in fact it is a completely different scenario. The difference between Nokia and Nikon is that part of the Nikon brand is also lenses where millions have huge investment in glass and other things, especially the professional photogs, and can't readily swap out to another camera company just for a slight benefit at a particular model cycle. People can very easily swap out their phone as a new model cycle comes through. There is nothing tying them to their phone. That is the difference. Also, the differences in camera performance between brands and model cycles is minimal and therefore not a real reason to swap brands at a whim.

Canon 1D MK IV has a switchable OVF to EVF? News to me.

As you say, there maybe a game changer in the market, but why does it mean that it is not Nikon? The problem here is all speculation and that speculation affects all camera makers, not just Nikon. In other words, they are all at risk.

Which is why I said "if canon" and why I also said "Nikon could". It could be anyone and everyone is at risk. But right now, on the latest tech, even hasselblad has produced a mirrorless and Nikon's last response at Photokina was "we'll continue to watch this space". Canon at least has the M5, M6 whilst Nikon is nowhere to be seen. The race started 5 minutes ago, and Nikon isn't at the start, they're still in bed sleeping.

[Steve Axford]

It is possibly unwise to rate an international company by Australian standards. By international standards, one of Nikon's major weaknesses is their lack of size and diversification. It makes them more vulnerable than the competition to market downturns and readjustments.

[Lance B]

Which is why I said "if canon" and why I also said "Nikon could". It could be anyone and everyone is at risk. But right now, on the latest tech, even hasselblad has produced a mirrorless and Nikon's last response at Photokina was "we'll continue to watch this space". Canon at least has the M5, M6 whilst Nikon is nowhere to be seen. The race started 5 minutes ago, and Nikon isn't at the start, they're still in bed sleeping.

"If" ? If I were handsome and could sing I'd be a millionaire. "If" is meaningless. Canon haven't and that's it.

I understand you were upset with Nikon at Photokina because they had nothing new to offer you other than a few new lenses, however, it seemed to me you just wanted something new, a change. For me it didn't bother me one bit as I wasn't really after anything and I didn't expect anything, they can't keep bringing in new whiz bang stuff at every camera show. The thing is, with regards to mirrorless, "Nikon might be late to the party, but they may come more appropriately dressed" due to the fact that they waited and made sure where the market was heading or, taking the party analogy further, what people were wearing at the party and could then possibly "steal the show with their costume". With entry level mirrorless users, they generally do not have a large investment in glass and thus can be wooed back to Nikon in the future when they enter that market and actually get it right. Nikon have a place for these people to aspire to if they want to go to a more professional system or to FF. Other companies don't. That is the ace up their sleeve.

- - - Updated - - -


It is possibly unwise to rate an international company by Australian standards. By international standards, one of Nikon's major weaknesses is their lack of size and diversification. It makes them more vulnerable than the competition to market downturns and readjustments.

It possibly does, but that can be said of many companies, even much larger than Nikon. However, Nikon is still a reasonably diverse company and unless there really is some new game changing photographic technological breakthrough, I see no reason as to why Nikon is in any real danger compared to many other camera companies. Canon would be just as at risk and so would their users as they have lots invested in glass as well. Yes, Canon may survive, but their user base would be just as affected their lenses etc may be just as useless. Again, this can be said of many less diverse companies as well. The fact is, there are many internet doomsayers and saying that Nikon are in crisis or are at risk is just perpetuating the typical internet Chicken Little syndrome, "the sky is falling":

http://nikonrumors.com/2017/02/14/nikon-q3-financial-results-slow-sales-of-keymission.aspx/

[MissionMan]

"If" ? If I were handsome and could sing I'd be a millionaire. "If" is meaningless. Canon haven't and that's it.

I understand you were upset with Nikon at Photokina because they had nothing new to offer you other than a few new lenses, however, it seemed to me you just wanted something new, a change. For me it didn't bother me one bit as I wasn't really after anything and I didn't expect anything, they can't keep bringing in new whiz bang stuff at every camera show. The thing is, with regards to mirrorless, "Nikon might be late to the party, but they may come more appropriately dressed" due to the fact that they waited and made sure where the market was heading or, taking the party analogy further, what people were wearing at the party and could then possibly "steal the show with their costume". With entry level mirrorless users, they generally do not have a large investment in glass and thus can be wooed back to Nikon in the future when they enter that market and actually get it right. Nikon have a place for these people to aspire to if they want to go to a more professional system or to FF. Other companies don't. That is the ace up their sleeve.

- - - Updated - - -



It possibly does, but that can be said of many companies, even much larger than Nikon. However, Nikon is still a reasonably diverse company and unless there really is some new game changing photographic technological breakthrough, I see no reason as to why Nikon is in any real danger compared to many other camera companies. Canon would be just as at risk and so would their users as they have lots invested in glass as well. Yes, Canon may survive, but their user base would be just as affected their lenses etc may be just as useless. Again, this can be said of many less diverse companies as well. The fact is, there are many internet doomsayers and saying that Nikon are in crisis or are at risk is just perpetuating the typical internet Chicken Little syndrome, "the sky is falling":

http://nikonrumors.com/2017/02/14/nikon-q3-financial-results-slow-sales-of-keymission.aspx/

To be honest, I don't think many people were impressed with Nikon at Photokina. That's where this post came from to start with. Nikon's showing at Photokina was very underwhelming. Combine that with poor market results and it shows limited innovation and a flawed strategy and that's what people are complaining about. Apple has been in the same slump. Microsoft is innovating and they've turned things around. They didn't just turn it around with windows, they started innovating with hardware and following what the market wanted. They had some failures along the way, but you can't innovate without failing a couple of times. You could argue that nikon was doing the same with the action cam, but where does that tie into their existing market? where does it lead to more lenses or cameras? At least with microsoft, the hardware is incentivising people to shift from Apple and the longer they stay on microsoft, the less likely they are to go back.

No one is saying Nikon's full frame cameras aren't best of breed, no one is saying their full frame lenses aren't good and no one is saying they should stop doing that, but that's the only part they are doing well. If I was their CEO, I would be saying "we're doing this right, let's carry on doing that right, but...".

What you have to remember is that people don't just jump into a full frame and pro lenses, they start small and build up and Nikon isn't giving people the option to do that, because they've taken away one of the stepping stones. You have to take people on a ride. In the old days when anyone who wanted a half good camera would buy a DSLR, that was enough, but now it isn't. The market they lose now to mirrorless is a market they have lost later to pro glass as well, so not only are they losing the entry market, they have lost the stepping stone to the good stuff. If I started out now, let's say for argument sake I buy a Fuji XT-20 with a kit lens and I'm happy but I want to upgrade, I want a pro 70-200. So I look around the market and let say for argument sake I look at replacing my platform as part of it. I look at Nikon, and I have to buy a full frame ($2000) and spend $3000 on a 70-200 vs buying a 50-140 ($1500) in my existing system. Hmmmm. No thanks. It's going to more than 3 times the amount to do it. What incentive do I have to do it. If I am on a Nikon mirrorless and I do the same, well, at least I have the option of a DX 50-140 (if they create it) and or I can buy a 70-200 and keep my current body which is still substantially cheaper, but the options are there. In the above scenario, I would have to be a very unhappy user to switch, or I would need glass that mirrorless couldn't offer like a 400 f/2.8.

It's the same as the DL. Many respected people have said the canning of the DL was bad, because the X100 and similar cameras are stepping stones to platforms and they are premium markets. The X100 goes for $1400-1900. I.e. If you are a Nikon user and you want a small street camera, you buy the X100, get good image quality and suddenly you're left saying "hmmmm, this is pretty good, maybe I should try their XYZ". If they buy a DL, well that doesn't happen.

[swifty]

The thing is the upward creep of smartphones will affect the dedicated camera market equally, as there's really nothing that mirrorless offers that will change this any more than what DSLRs offer.
So this is a contracting market and there's the mad scramble for shares of this in what's left after the shake out.
So mirrorless technology will alter the market distribution, the question is how and when to jump across.
If you tackle DX mirrorless, FX mirrorless in addition to what you already have then that's 5 lines of lenses that Nikon needs to cater for. With infinite resources, sure, defend every position. But with finite resources where are you going to put that money.
Spread yourself too thin and you risk loosing more customers (feeling of abandonment of existing systems eg. Sony's Alpha DSLRs) than you actually gain in the new market because you can't introduce compelling options at quick enough rates.

I really don't see anything about mirrorless technology that screams market disrupting technology hence I don't think analogies to what Nokia or Kodak faced (and failed to act upon) aren't particularly accurate. If you really want to talk about potential disruptive technology, it would as likely if not more likely to come from the technology companies like Google or Apple than camera companies like Canon, Fuji or Olympus. But IMO it is a very different market, a matured one where 'good' enough has already been reached for the primary function of taking photos years ago. In addition you have a protective ecosystem as we're talking system cameras, much like what Apple and Google have built up.
So the switch to mirrorless is a transitional thing and Nikon and Canon has to figure how to best transition there. Canon is doing a better job.

But I do agree Nikon is more vulnerable, largely because they are less diversified.

[arthurking83]

One thing I can never make sense of is this alarmist attitude to the SLR camera market sales figures.
One thing that is very rarely pointed out and noted is that the past 10 years for SLR was in effect a massive boom market place.
The manufacturers existed for 50 + years prior to this boom with sales figures barely 1/100th of what they were/are now!
People read some idiotic, click bait seeking headline and it's like the end of the world as we know it.

mirrorless camera aren't(won't be) immune to the boom bust cycle either.
They're not booming quite as fast as folks make them out to be.
Yeah, their market share is growing, but not becasue they're booming in sales, but because the SLR market has matured, the masses have now altered their preference and moved on.
Mirrorless sales have increased slightly only because there's a new model coming out every other month.
And a new model is is apparently something to have.

it's a ridiculous notion to expect a manufacturer to produce a camera model/type based on your personal preference.

Cost is the biggest underlying point for the mass market, and Nikon and Canon currently dominate this market.
It still appears that mirrorless designs, which appear to be cheaper to manufacture due to some theoretical engineering forces still cost more to manufacture for a similarly specced camera!

if this were not the case, then Canon being in the situation they currently are should be able to offer the mirrorless M5 cheaper than the new model 77D, which appears to have very similar specs all round.
It's only when they remove the EVF(and make it optional) does that camera price come in under the more complex(yet still cheaper to make!) 77D.

So for Nikon (or Canon) to move into a mirrorless system makes no sense .. and Canon seem to be showing this with the EOS M lineup.


All the talk is of smart phone photography, which is great for the selfie craze, but does nothing for any real quality imagery.
I'm still yet to see any camera from any smart phone come close to what an old DSLR can produce!
if you have no issue with ugly over sharpened hyper processes images lacking in detail .. good luck to 'ya.

I'm not expecting to see any smart phone images of fungi from Steve being used in Planet Earth tho! ;)

And on the topic of market boom cycles .. the smart phone market is approaching it's peak too now. it's tapered off massively recently and only the push into yet to fully mature markets is keeping it growing.
Most sensible folks have a decent phone with a usable camera, and don't really need more now.
Those folks had one years ago, as well as a good P&S but wanted something better than that.
So they started the boom in DSLR sales(say 10 years ago).
They got their good camera(usually a low end D3xxx type + twin kit lens setup) used it for a short while on a trip of some type, and then all but forgot about all the gear.
They got a free phone from their carrier and it made better photos than their early smartphone could.
They got more interested in what the latest gen smartphone cam could do, so they upgraded that .. and upgraded gain .. but now they have an acceptable quality level and have no need to spend close to $1K on something they already have.

In a few years time we'll be reading of all the doom and gloom in the smartphone market as it's boom period comes to a close too.

Is no one expecting the mirrorless camera market to begin to contract at some point in the near future too? if you answered in then negative then you haven't been around long enough to know that tech is as fickle as it is.

When this market type begins to contract is when I'd start worrying about the system having entered into.
if it contracts as quickly and deeply as the SLR market has, how long would the parent companies continue to support them if they start making losses consistently!

IORC Sony, the behemoth that they are got out of making computers and TV screens simply because of the losses they incurred for such a long time in those markets.

Sony would survive it all, doing what they do elsewhere in the corporation but I wouldn't expect that to extend to the camera business.
I reckon if the market was to turn in that way, Sony would have two choices to continue. Either sell it up, or acquire another manufacturer to maintain economies of scale.
There is no guarantee that they will maintain their market share in the sensor business either, as some bright upstart could easily come in and undermine them.

But it has to be re-iterated again .. just because you have a particular and specific want/need, doesn't mean that the manufacturer needs to meet that requirement to survive.
They did so long before many of us were even born.

In the next 10 years, my worry would be the continued existence of non Canon/Nikon manufacturers on a large scale.



..... If I started out now, let's say for argument sake I buy a Fuji XT-20 with a kit lens and I'm happy but I want to upgrade, I want a pro 70-200. So I look around the market and let say for argument sake I look at replacing my platform as part of it. I look at Nikon, and I have to buy a full frame ($2000) and spend $3000 on a 70-200 vs buying a 50-140 ($1500) in my existing system. Hmmmm. No thanks. It's going to more than 3 times the amount to do it. What incentive do I have to do it. If I am on a Nikon mirrorless and I do the same, well, at least I have the option of a DX 50-140 (if they create it) and or I can buy a 70-200 and keep my current body which is still substantially cheaper, but the options are there. In the above scenario, I would have to be a very unhappy user to switch, or I would need glass that mirrorless couldn't offer like a 400 f/2.8.

.....

It's usually best to compare apples with apples, and an APS-C 50-140/2.8 is no full frame 70-200/2.8 on their respective sensor formats!
The much more shallow DOF possibilities of the 70-200/2.8 on full frame compared to 50-140/2.8 on APS-C is massive.
Yeah you don't get the option to produce a deeper DOF with the full frame kit for the same FOV, but this usually isn't what those bits of gear are used for!

The more equalised comparion of lens would be a 70-200/4 on full frame .. and when this is done, the price difference equation works out much more different.

But! .... and more importantly for many folks is the configurability of the full frame gear.

Once you have APS-C only gear(eg. lenses) you can't magically make them full frame capable. Been there done that probably never go there again.
So what the larger format allows one to achieve is both format in an 'on demand' manner.

Years ago, Nikon achieved that with the D800. Today Canon show this off(more so) with the 5Dsr.
With 50Mp you can shoot full framed 70-200/2.8 mounted and do supremely shallow DOF images for whatever reason you choose.
Because you have a great lens and Mp to burn, you crop to your hearts content, and now you have a 70-200/2.8 on APS-C(or 4/3rds if you must).

You just can't achieve the same shallowness of DOF with the described setup on APS-C. You need at least an f/2 capable 50-140mm lens ... and imagine the price of that of their smaller f/2.8 is currently at $1500.

There are horses and there are courses as the saying is explained.
But again, the requirement of a single person shouldn't be used to determine the products produced for the wider market.
Both Canon and Nikon and Tamron and Sigma have had much success in the 70-200/2.8 market for us to know that this is a market that is durable for all those players.

BUT!... what we also know is that the 50-150/2.8 market is not as well supported by the consumer, as Sigma's previous effort had to be abandoned.
By all accounts it was a very capable lens, so it's ability wasn't the question. it was simply that the market didn't think that an APS-C only capable lens in this segment wasn't required or wanted.

it seems that many folks post their thoughts and without really realising it, the underlying cause for making critical comments about products and manufacturers is their justification for their current choices, rather than a well rounded reasoning.

Yeah, Nikon aren't making the product for you right now, and we're sorry to hear that, and the fact that another company is/does/will.
But there is one other point that is even more sure, and that is that there are many more consumers that believe that Fuji aren't making the right product mix for them either, and Nikon is!
Sales figures show us this fact. Canon appear to be producing an even better range of products again, if sales figures are what we use as the baseline explanation for what the market wants in general.

I had plans to get myself a mirrorless camera recently too.
Havent' had much time to get out and use a camera recently due to work, but this doesn't usually deter me from getting things I want to play around with.
Went and had a play with the Sony A7 again in the city, and just couldn't get past the god awful video display(ie. vf).
It basically made me sick(seasick/motion sickness) when panning.
Put it down, didn't even bother to ask to try a nicer lens. It had some cheapie kit type zoom lens(a 24-70 like, variable aperture, whatever it was).
I didn't even ask what lens it was, it was already mounted .. all I wanted was to confirm comfort level of the grip/body.
Another fail for my taste.

So I walked into the shop next door and got the Sigma 150-600 lens instead!

My point is that on one side we read that consumer A(MM here) wants or needs a Nikon full frame mirrorless. And with that I'm assuming that this would also entail a new series of lenses to match, rather than maintain the F mount lens system.
Then on the other side of the market demand we have conumer B(myself), with zero interest in such a system, model or expense!
I'm plenty happy with their DSLRs.

I also have to categorically state that I hate Nikon, and I hate their pathetic quality control and customer service .. but their current cameras work fine for me.(due to my recent D800E experience)

many commentators are expressing the opinion that Nikon need to delete some of the variation in their model lineups(eg. get rid of the largest selling models like the D3xxx lines), yet just the two consumers here(myself and MM) seem at odds with what should happen.

[Lance B]

Arthur, I think you have made a very good argument and I agree with pretty much all of what you have said to a "T". It's almost as if we are both singing from the same song sheet. :) I think you're spot on with your belief there was a boom and we'll probably not see it again. I also agree that these new markets, like camera phones and mirrorless will also have their booms and plateaus etc. I agree with you that there will also still be a need for top end cameras as they can't be taken with camera phones and P&S style cameras. I also agree that Nikon will survive just fine by retracting to their core business and what they know best once they offload some money losing areas.

However, I do not think Nikon is alone in that there is QC issues with some of their product - not that this is an excuse for shoddy QC. This seems to affect many manufacturers of high precision equipment like DSLR's and the associated high end lenses, I think it's just the nature of the beast so to speak. I have not had any serious issues with Nikon QC, a few minor quibbles, but they were quickly and easily taken care of. Basically, every Nikon camera and lens I own has been spot on. I could not say that for my Pentax gear that I owned years ago and one of the reasons I got out of Pentax gear.

[arthurking83]

....

However, I do not think Nikon is alone in that there is QC issues with some of their product - not that this is an excuse for shoddy QC. This seems to affect many manufacturers of high precision equipment like DSLR's and the associated high end lenses, I think it's just the nature of the beast so to speak. I have not had any serious issues with Nikon QC, a few minor quibbles, but they were quickly and easily taken care of. Basically, every Nikon camera and lens I own has been spot on. I could not say that for my Pentax gear that I owned years ago and one of the reasons I got out of Pentax gear.

Personally I have no issue with QC problems that sometimes affect manufacturers.
What I object too is when their insistence that nothing is wrong and that the user is to blame!

Sound familiar? remember D800 focus issue, Initially they blamed the user(s).
The the ripple turned into a tidal wave of user reports .. obviously Nikon couldn't maintain their BS line that the user was to blame any longer and they were basically forced to admit it was their fault.
The problem wasn't that they had to admit fault(due to QC) .. it was how long they took to rectify the situation(not so much the issue itself).

Imagine had they been a brave and done the right thing, with the view to look into the situation properly and analyse it correctly.
Then come back much sooner (than they eventually did) and explain that there must be an issue with QC at the manufacturing stage.

Had they had this pliant attitude, rather than their usual high and mighty do no wrong attitude, they'd have caught the problem earlier, affecting fewer people, with the result that the issue was smaller than a storm in a teacup!

History shows us that once this came to light, 'everyone' looked for faults in their other products .. and I think that happened due to Nikon's arrogant attitude too, more than the need to discover more faults.
.. and they found them! ;)


A great company wouldn't be afraid to admit an issue if it was determined to be a manufacturing fault.
Fix it quick .. people love that kind of will do attitude.

I think, that more than anything else in this Nikon saga .. is that if there has been a mass migration to mirrorless and away from Nikon .. it has less to do with Nikon's offerings, and more to do with their recent QC/lack of customer care fiascos.

I'm thinking that maybe 10 years ago, prior to the age of the current instant media circus thsi may not have been as bog a problem for them as it turned out to be.
In days gone by, us 'geek types'(and I mean that in a sincere manner) who frequent interest groups such as AP and others would have read about it, or experienced it firsthand .. but joe/jane public wouldn't have.

But with the media circus as it now is, those (previously not exposed to camera manufacturer news due to an indifference to the topic) were alerted in some way.. maybe via FB, or twitter or whereever.

They may even have had a D600 with spots on it's sensor and went and checked.
Prior to the instant mass media, they'd have just accepted those spots never knowing what they were .. they're not the types to spend time in fora reading the topic!

So the snowflake issue of 'dust on a sensor' .. I mean seriously who has never had dust on their ILC's sensor??? ... it then became a class action in the US .. Nikon's single biggest market.

Strangely, Nikon's fortunes seem to have taken a turn for the worse since then.
Could be a simple coincidence tho .. but my experience has been that coincidences like these(failing QC followed by arrogant attitude from manufacturer leading to sales decline) aren't so common .. and are usually the norm.

No amount of 'I am' bs is going to make up for a few short years of misplaced arrogant attitude.

[MissionMan]

One thing I can never make sense of is this alarmist attitude to the SLR camera market sales figures.
One thing that is very rarely pointed out and noted is that the past 10 years for SLR was in effect a massive boom market place.
The manufacturers existed for 50 + years prior to this boom with sales figures barely 1/100th of what they were/are now!
People read some idiotic, click bait seeking headline and it's like the end of the world as we know it.

mirrorless camera aren't(won't be) immune to the boom bust cycle either.
They're not booming quite as fast as folks make them out to be.
Yeah, their market share is growing, but not becasue they're booming in sales, but because the SLR market has matured, the masses have now altered their preference and moved on.
Mirrorless sales have increased slightly only because there's a new model coming out every other month.
And a new model is is apparently something to have.

it's a ridiculous notion to expect a manufacturer to produce a camera model/type based on your personal preference.

Cost is the biggest underlying point for the mass market, and Nikon and Canon currently dominate this market.
It still appears that mirrorless designs, which appear to be cheaper to manufacture due to some theoretical engineering forces still cost more to manufacture for a similarly specced camera!

if this were not the case, then Canon being in the situation they currently are should be able to offer the mirrorless M5 cheaper than the new model 77D, which appears to have very similar specs all round.
It's only when they remove the EVF(and make it optional) does that camera price come in under the more complex(yet still cheaper to make!) 77D.

So for Nikon (or Canon) to move into a mirrorless system makes no sense .. and Canon seem to be showing this with the EOS M lineup.


All the talk is of smart phone photography, which is great for the selfie craze, but does nothing for any real quality imagery.
I'm still yet to see any camera from any smart phone come close to what an old DSLR can produce!
if you have no issue with ugly over sharpened hyper processes images lacking in detail .. good luck to 'ya.

I'm not expecting to see any smart phone images of fungi from Steve being used in Planet Earth tho! ;)

And on the topic of market boom cycles .. the smart phone market is approaching it's peak too now. it's tapered off massively recently and only the push into yet to fully mature markets is keeping it growing.
Most sensible folks have a decent phone with a usable camera, and don't really need more now.
Those folks had one years ago, as well as a good P&S but wanted something better than that.
So they started the boom in DSLR sales(say 10 years ago).
They got their good camera(usually a low end D3xxx type + twin kit lens setup) used it for a short while on a trip of some type, and then all but forgot about all the gear.
They got a free phone from their carrier and it made better photos than their early smartphone could.
They got more interested in what the latest gen smartphone cam could do, so they upgraded that .. and upgraded gain .. but now they have an acceptable quality level and have no need to spend close to $1K on something they already have.

In a few years time we'll be reading of all the doom and gloom in the smartphone market as it's boom period comes to a close too.

Is no one expecting the mirrorless camera market to begin to contract at some point in the near future too? if you answered in then negative then you haven't been around long enough to know that tech is as fickle as it is.

When this market type begins to contract is when I'd start worrying about the system having entered into.
if it contracts as quickly and deeply as the SLR market has, how long would the parent companies continue to support them if they start making losses consistently!

IORC Sony, the behemoth that they are got out of making computers and TV screens simply because of the losses they incurred for such a long time in those markets.

Sony would survive it all, doing what they do elsewhere in the corporation but I wouldn't expect that to extend to the camera business.
I reckon if the market was to turn in that way, Sony would have two choices to continue. Either sell it up, or acquire another manufacturer to maintain economies of scale.
There is no guarantee that they will maintain their market share in the sensor business either, as some bright upstart could easily come in and undermine them.

But it has to be re-iterated again .. just because you have a particular and specific want/need, doesn't mean that the manufacturer needs to meet that requirement to survive.
They did so long before many of us were even born.

In the next 10 years, my worry would be the continued existence of non Canon/Nikon manufacturers on a large scale.




It's usually best to compare apples with apples, and an APS-C 50-140/2.8 is no full frame 70-200/2.8 on their respective sensor formats!
The much more shallow DOF possibilities of the 70-200/2.8 on full frame compared to 50-140/2.8 on APS-C is massive.
Yeah you don't get the option to produce a deeper DOF with the full frame kit for the same FOV, but this usually isn't what those bits of gear are used for!

The more equalised comparion of lens would be a 70-200/4 on full frame .. and when this is done, the price difference equation works out much more different.

But! .... and more importantly for many folks is the configurability of the full frame gear.

Once you have APS-C only gear(eg. lenses) you can't magically make them full frame capable. Been there done that probably never go there again.
So what the larger format allows one to achieve is both format in an 'on demand' manner.

Years ago, Nikon achieved that with the D800. Today Canon show this off(more so) with the 5Dsr.
With 50Mp you can shoot full framed 70-200/2.8 mounted and do supremely shallow DOF images for whatever reason you choose.
Because you have a great lens and Mp to burn, you crop to your hearts content, and now you have a 70-200/2.8 on APS-C(or 4/3rds if you must).

You just can't achieve the same shallowness of DOF with the described setup on APS-C. You need at least an f/2 capable 50-140mm lens ... and imagine the price of that of their smaller f/2.8 is currently at $1500.

There are horses and there are courses as the saying is explained.
But again, the requirement of a single person shouldn't be used to determine the products produced for the wider market.
Both Canon and Nikon and Tamron and Sigma have had much success in the 70-200/2.8 market for us to know that this is a market that is durable for all those players.

BUT!... what we also know is that the 50-150/2.8 market is not as well supported by the consumer, as Sigma's previous effort had to be abandoned.
By all accounts it was a very capable lens, so it's ability wasn't the question. it was simply that the market didn't think that an APS-C only capable lens in this segment wasn't required or wanted.

it seems that many folks post their thoughts and without really realising it, the underlying cause for making critical comments about products and manufacturers is their justification for their current choices, rather than a well rounded reasoning.

Yeah, Nikon aren't making the product for you right now, and we're sorry to hear that, and the fact that another company is/does/will.
But there is one other point that is even more sure, and that is that there are many more consumers that believe that Fuji aren't making the right product mix for them either, and Nikon is!
Sales figures show us this fact. Canon appear to be producing an even better range of products again, if sales figures are what we use as the baseline explanation for what the market wants in general.

I had plans to get myself a mirrorless camera recently too.
Havent' had much time to get out and use a camera recently due to work, but this doesn't usually deter me from getting things I want to play around with.
Went and had a play with the Sony A7 again in the city, and just couldn't get past the god awful video display(ie. vf).
It basically made me sick(seasick/motion sickness) when panning.
Put it down, didn't even bother to ask to try a nicer lens. It had some cheapie kit type zoom lens(a 24-70 like, variable aperture, whatever it was).
I didn't even ask what lens it was, it was already mounted .. all I wanted was to confirm comfort level of the grip/body.
Another fail for my taste.

So I walked into the shop next door and got the Sigma 150-600 lens instead!

My point is that on one side we read that consumer A(MM here) wants or needs a Nikon full frame mirrorless. And with that I'm assuming that this would also entail a new series of lenses to match, rather than maintain the F mount lens system.
Then on the other side of the market demand we have conumer B(myself), with zero interest in such a system, model or expense!
I'm plenty happy with their DSLRs.

I also have to categorically state that I hate Nikon, and I hate their pathetic quality control and customer service .. but their current cameras work fine for me.(due to my recent D800E experience)

many commentators are expressing the opinion that Nikon need to delete some of the variation in their model lineups(eg. get rid of the largest selling models like the D3xxx lines), yet just the two consumers here(myself and MM) seem at odds with what should happen.

I have happily switched and if Nikon doesn't make the product, they have lost out, not me. But I think it's sad that they will continue to decline because I'm not an unusual consumer. DSLR has lost 10% of the market to mirrorless in the last 5 years, and my guess is that loss will increase at a higher rate as time goes on. Not because mirrorless is better, not because it has to be better, because it is all most people need, much the same as a iPhone camera is more than most people need. More than 5 people I know who are enthusiasts with a fair investment in glass have left Nikon recently. I'm not trying to say Nikon shouldn't continue making full frame glass, as I said before, they are doing a good job of it, so continue what they are doing, but they can't survive on that long term. The market for amateur DSLR is drying up. I honestly doubt much of the market they are losing is in their market of high end full frames and 105 f/1.4's. But there is a substantial market like me, and that market is big and it has disposal income.

Now on to your comments about the camera. No one is arguing that the full frame doesn't have better dof. I have heard people argue this time and time again recently. "I can't leave full frame because the DOF is too shallow and because the ISO isn't as clean, etc etc". But when you ask them to show examples of 10 good photos they took in the last year that couldn't have been achieved with f4 instead of f2.8, you normally hear crickets. It's all fine and well to say that, but what does it mean? Are you really saying is every decent photographer needs paper thin DOF that can only be achieved by a full frame DSLR? I would challenge that by saying:

1. You could comfortably buy a APSC camera with a trifecta of lenses along with a 56 f/1.2 or 90 f/2 for a lot less less than a full frame and 24-70/70-200. I.e. In other words, you could achieve the same DOF and you could do it cheaper and step by step without leaving APSC.

2. I still believe there are very few photographers who know how to use paper thing DOF well anyway. I would say that less than 10% of photographers (if that) on this site actually "need" the DOF offered by the 70-200. I believe that if you had the same functionality in two cameras, and one was APSC (i.e. same controls), the majority of people here could quite easily live with the APSC camera and never need more. What this essentially means is that if you put good APSC glass into the hands of an amateur, they probably won't ever have the requirement to upgrade to full frame.

The reason why this doesn't happen with Nikon is because Nikon has told us that. I.e. Nikon tells you if you want to be a good photographer, you need a full frame camera and you need full frame glass. You need paper thin DOF. You need to upgrade your APSC. Where do we "need" it? Half the time you have to stop it down to f/2.8 just to make it sharp instead of buying a 2.8 that has faster AF and is sharp at f/2.8. So instead of selling up APSC and Full frame as both pro, Nikon and Canon have spent a long time telling the market what they are for without realising that sensors now have essentially reached the point where that logic doesn't make much difference anymore.

In contrast, other manufacturers are selling the idea that their APSC cameras are good enough for pro work and it is. There are plenty of pros shooting with APSC, plenty of wedding photographers on APSC.

[ricktas]

This thread has become a bit of 'kick me while I am down' :D

[MissionMan]

Well their management need a kick in the pants, not the 1000 staff members forced into early retirement :p

[arthurking83]

..... DSLR has lost 10% of the market to mirrorless in the last 5 years, and my guess is that loss will increase at a higher rate as time goes on. Not because mirrorless is better, not because it has to be better, because it is all most people need .....

I still don't think it's that simple.
Nothing I've seen directly relates those 'lost DSLR' sales to the same increase in mirrorless sales.

Yeah, some folks have sold up their Nikon gear and moved over to Olympus .. or Sony .. or Panasonic or whatever .. but the loss in DSLR sales hasn't directly transferred into mirrorless sales.

The loss in DSLR sales is predominantly at the bottom end, D3xxx/5xxx models. Nikon are still selling the D5300 as a current model(first introduced in 2013/14!!) alongside the D5500 and new D5600!
That's three generations of updates of the same model line all competing against each other.

Average consumer stopped buying these camera about 5 years ago now, as they already got one.
Those average consumers aren't like us .. they don't need to update every model cycle, or second cycle .. or with every new release of format or tech feature.

They just wanted a good camera to take photos of their kids growing up and of their holidays, and that's it. Camera is in the cupboard 99.99% of the year, and comes out for an hour or so at the kids birthday parties.
It's most likely forgotten about now as their happy with the low res artificial looking images that their smartphone can create!
D5300 still sits in the cupboard!

It's this market that has collapsed that is giving us those 20% drops in sales figures .. not the $2K plus segment.

If you read the articles re the lack of supply of the D500 a few months back due in part to the lack of preparation in demand by Nikon .. not making enough of them in the initial batch lot, and higher than expected demand.
Demand has now tapered off as everyone that HAD to have one, now has .. now it's the trickle of sales to those that waited to see how their QC issues panned out.

I'm sure I read an article that they've already sold upwards of 100K D500's in the short period it's been available .. and that article was a while back too.

I remember an article(maybe from Thom) where he estimated that Fuji sold(or made) a total of about 800K ILC camera for a particular year! That's 800K cameras spread across about 5 or 6 different(and mainly similar) models.

I'm not seeing numbers like that as 'bleeding'.
Yeah, there's always going to be bleeding between manufacturers. Always has, always will be! Those numbers will be small.

For every consumer like MM(who is likely to switch), there's also an AK83 type consumer(who can't decide what they want! :p) .. and also a nutcase Nikon fanboi type too.


And I think you misunderstood my comments re thin DOF (and if I made any re high iso .. etc).

It's not that anyone really needs this ability. There are many ways to get that kind of look if you really try.
My point re the thin DOF comment was the easy nature to have that option if needed, AND the ability to have the APS-C option for the next shot if needed.

You can easily crop a large format image to mimic the smaller format(which in effect is all the small format is anyhow)
But you can't uncrop a smaller format to create a larger one on a shot by shot basis.

And I'm not specifically targeting the size of the sense with those comments. I'm referring back to your comments that Nikon need to make solid pro level APS-C lenses!
If you limit the lens to APS-C then it's worse than sticking with an APS-C sized camera only. With the camera you can and do have a few options for a cheap full frame way out.

But with the lens, it's much harder to option your way out!
You really have to rebuy a full frame capable lens again of the same specs, and that's more likely to be a more expensive option.

Cameras are cheap. They don't hold their value like lenses do, so to buy a S/H whatever fullframe D800/D750/etc maybe just under $1K(for arguments sake, not real figures!!)
Whereas you've just spent $1.5K on the APS-C lens, which really can't be used effectively on the full frame camera .. and now your options to get a full frame capable 70-200 lens are to seek a probable dodgy S/H lens at still elevated prices or go back to the new $3K price!

And you need to remember that DOF is a subjective thing. Some want thin, other's usually want deeper. Many are happy to be oblivious to it all and just shoot without any concern other than what they just shot, and can they share it 'yesterday'

If there was no need or demand for the thin DOF that full frame can provide, do you think Nikon would have wasted their time and effort on the 105/1.4? Or in earlier days, the 105/1.8 or 300/2 lenses?

The demand is there, and it has to be met. Fuji aren't doing so, and in effect only Canon are. And Nikon doesn't want Canon to rule that world.
Do you reckon they should give up on that market too?

[Steve Axford]

I, for one love really good fast lenses. It is not just the depth of field, but also the quality of the oof areas, lack of chromatic aberration, quality of blur, etc. To tell a manufacturer, like Nikon, that they should dump their best lenses in favour of some did-range stuff is lunacy. As far as I can tell, the top end of the market has no slump at all. There are plenty of good lenses coming out and most makers seem to be ramping up, not getting out. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Zeiss, Sigma (I've probably forgotten a few) are all making top quality lenses. Look at the Sigma Art series as an example, or the Zeiss lenses.

[MissionMan]

Where did I say dump the best lenses??????? No one is suggesting they get rid of full frames or full frame glass. That is one of the things they are doing well. Why do people keep assuming that it's one or the other?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Steve Axford]

You may not think it's one or the other, but I bet Nikon do. Falling sales/profit have to be addressed or you go broke. Top end stuff continues to thrive. Bottom end stuff is gone and mid range stuff has some serious challenges, at least for Nikon it has.

[Hamster]

According to the latest Petapixel article Nikon have said:
"the company is taking an “aggressive approach” to their camera business that will focus their resources on medium and high-end DSLRs, mirrorless cameras, and lenses. There are no plans to close any manufacturing plants, and they still want to release a high-end compact ala the Nikon DL line at some point, but the company says they will pare down the number of models they release."




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Lance B]

From Yahoo Japan:
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20170224-00010008-newswitch-ind

Translated:
Miller-free expansion and reconsideration at an early stage
　For the camera business undergoing structural reforms, Nikon showed a policy of "bringing in multiple mirrorless 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 mirrorless lineup, it seems that a couple of years after the mirrorless 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 mirrorless cameras that can make the most of their strengths. However, Miller less struggled with fewer models and said, "We will set aside for other companies, we will get Nikonelike 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 because I just decided to cancel the DL series, I will judge the next development carefully" (same).

　The production system enhances cost competitiveness through in-house production of outsourcing processes and efficiency of production.

[Cage]

Well I've had a bit of a wander down the Nikon road.

Started with a D600, rather liked it, and only had one oil spot which I cleaned myself.

My main interest was birding and in the quest for more fine detail I was wooed by the D800. Great camera in good light but produced noisy results at ISO800 and higher. It disappointed me so much that I went back to APS-C with a Nikon D7200, no OLPF and much cleaner images. I would have liked to have replaced the D800 with a D810 but finances didn't allow it

What do I miss most with the APS-C format? Well it's not the DOF, it's the FOV. With my current passion for nightscapes the 1.5 crop factor just doesn't work for me. I'm currently saving for a used D600/D610 which I'll have modified for astro photography by removing the OLPF and having it replaced with a H-Alpha filter to enhance the reds.

And a new D810 is on top of my wish list, will probably happen when the new D810S/D820/D850/D900 (?) with 46/54MP sensor (I don't need that) is released and the D810 is being heavily discounted.

Nikon do need to rationalise their model line up with the D5xxx series being a classic example, with each new iteration basically offering the same camera with an added tweak that they should have included in the first place.

Oh and I shoot stills exclusively. I'm on my fifth DSLR and have never shot video once. I wonder how many semi-pro/pro shooters would be the same?

[MissionMan]

That's one of the limitations I mentioned with Nikon's current lineup. The APSC bodies are good enough, there just isn't the APSC bodies with the right FOV to go with them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[arthurking83]

That's one of the limitations I mentioned with Nikon's current lineup. The APSC bodies are good enough, there just isn't the APSC bodies with the right FOV to go with them.

....

:confused:

right FOV?

In Canon and Nikon - land, you have far more possibilities for breadth of FOV than with any other system at present.
And that even includes full frame cameras(of any brand).

If it's the widest possible FOV you want .. or more accurately focal length, then (AFAIK) Nikon beats Canon by the slimmest or margins, and the other manufacturers could loosely be described as following along(but by a long way back).

Of course we are referring to native mounts here, not using adapters and suchlike, which can(and do) create issues of their own.

Considering that almost all mirrorless systems can take advantage of using adapters to match to Canon/Nikon lens mount systems, the range of focal lengths available to the APS-C Canon and Nikon cameras are therefore also available to the mirrorless formats as well.

[MissionMan]

:confused:

right FOV?

In Canon and Nikon - land, you have far more possibilities for breadth of FOV than with any other system at present.
And that even includes full frame cameras(of any brand).

If it's the widest possible FOV you want .. or more accurately focal length, then (AFAIK) Nikon beats Canon by the slimmest or margins, and the other manufacturers could loosely be described as following along(but by a long way back).

Of course we are referring to native mounts here, not using adapters and suchlike, which can(and do) create issues of their own.

Considering that almost all mirrorless systems can take advantage of using adapters to match to Canon/Nikon lens mount systems, the range of focal lengths available to the APS-C Canon and Nikon cameras are therefore also available to the mirrorless formats as well.

Sorry, typed it oh my phone. I meant APSC with the right lenses. I.e. The FOV limitation is more to do with their lens selection than any issues with APSC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ricktas]

Sorry, typed it oh my phone. I meant APSC with the right lenses. I.e. The FOV limitation is more to do with their lens selection than any issues with APSC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


huh? Each lens we choose to use, no matter if mirrorless, apsc, full frame, or medium format, each has its own field of view, and even that changes with the zoom lenses depending on which focal length you choose to use? How is that an issue specific to 'their lens selection'? - it's an inherent quality of every lens ever made. I don't get your argument here.

[MissionMan]

huh? Each lens we choose to use, no matter if mirrorless, apsc, full frame, or medium format, each has its own field of view, and even that changes with the zoom lenses depending on which focal length you choose to use? How is that an issue specific to 'their lens selection'? - it's an inherent quality of every lens ever made. I don't get your argument here.

Cage mentioned he was happy with his APSC camera but had to go full frame due to the FOV. The FOV issue he had with APSC has more to do with lack of suitable APSC lenses.

[arthurking83]

.... I meant APSC with the right lenses. I.e. The FOV limitation is more to do with their lens selection than any issues with APSC .....

Yep!

same here.

With Nikon and Canon APS-C you can get about as wide a FOV as you're ever going to get(natively).

Canon(themselves) now have their 11-24mm lens which the widest reclinear lens you can get for any camera system.

New lens manufacturer IRIX have a new 11mm f/4 lens for Canon/Nikon/Pentax fitment

Up to that point, Sigma have their 12-24, and for APS-C they have the 8-16mm.


So with a Nikon, Sony(A-mount) or Pentax APS-C camera, you have the widest (reclinear) FOV available.
**Note that Canon's APS-C sensor is a little narrower than the std 1.5x crop factor.

In Fuji land the widest FOV lens you can achieve is the 10mm(15mm equiv.) so you're going backwards in terms of possibilities.

m4/3rds have many options via some exotic and obscure options, due to the old C-mount lenses giving good coverage on the 2x crop format.
limited functionality* with such lenses but not unworkable!


I think what Cage was alluding too with respect to widest FOV and having to get the D800, was the fast aperture 14mm f/2.8 lens he ended up with coupled to a new-ish camera(at the time) high resolution and such like.
Not that there wasn't the depth and breadth of options on Nikon APS-C.
Nikon's (very old now) 10.5mm fish at f/2.8 would have been almost as good on APS-C and using defish software.
Otherwise Tokina's 11-xx mm f/2.8 would give good results.(or as above the 11mm Irix mentioned earlier)


Note that as yet, no lens maker has yet to surpass Nikon (last century) 6mm f/2.8 fisheye, which allows the widest FOV available in a single frame/single exposure capture.

If you want something pretty close(but not as extreme) Sigma also make their old 4.5mm f/2.8 fish too.

So overall, Nikon, Sony(A-mount) and Pentax's APS-C format systems actually allow as good a range selection as you can get for any camera system that remains fully functional and reasonably affordable.
(caveat to that is Canons' 11-24mm on fullframe .. but we're listing APS-C formats here for now).

I'm sure Nikon will have to ante up, against the Canon 11-24mm lens .... one day in the immediate future.
The cat and mouse game between them both has always resulted in one manufacturer trying to outdo the other for the past 70-ish years.
In that sense alone it's wise to maintain either system if you want lens variety.

Considering all(or at least part of) the comments above, re available lenses for Nikon(and Pentax/Sony/Canon) .. I think if it's lens variety you want/need they're as good as you can get.
And for Nikon to create a mirrorless camera now from scratch .. they HAVE to take into account all their legacy lenses from their past.
It's what makes Nikon attractive as a manufacturer(if you're the type that need manufacturer lenses fitted to your camera).

[MissionMan]

Samyang do an 8mm for Fuji mount as well. It's manual focus but with 8mm your DOF is so deep it's not a big problem.

There are also a variety of cheap converters for most brands so ultimately all the brands have a pretty broad selection for APSC.

I think the only complaint to date with Nikon (not sure about Canon) is that APSC isn't subject to the same offerings as full frame from an image quality perspective, so it's almost treated like the second class citizen. I.e. The Nikon APSC wide angle isn't close to the quality of the 14-24 which goes back to my original point. Nikon don't make pro glass for APSC. They expect people to "upgrade" to full frame and are still stuck in the whole APSC = amateur and Full frame = pro mindset when APSC is more than enough for most people. They are competing with brands like Fuji, Olympus etc who are saying that smaller sensors are good enough for pro work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[arthurking83]

....

I think the only complaint to date with Nikon (not sure about Canon) is that APSC isn't subject to the same offerings as full frame from an image quality perspective, so it's almost treated like the second class citizen. I.e. The Nikon APSC wide angle isn't close to the quality of the 14-24 which goes back to my original point. Nikon don't make pro glass for APSC. They expect people to "upgrade" to full frame and are still stuck in the whole APSC = amateur and Full frame = pro mindset when APSC is more than enough for most people. .....

For sure!

Nikon used to make APS-C pro glass back in the day, but have let it slide(basically since about 2008).
Up to '08 they did have the 17-55, 12-24 and 10.5 fish .. all pro level lenses

Note that in Nikon terms; gold rim on lenses = pro level glass. The lenses may or may not be of a pro level, but that's their system. (as Canon use red rim on their pro glass)
Anyhow, Nikon have committed to Fx then as the future for themselves and it makes sense for them to stick with that plan now(having taken that course).

So to begin a new line of lens for the Pro level APS-C shooter kind'a make no sense.
Their expected 'Pro' market is that they push the buyer to the Fx line anyhow.
So to Nikon, they expect the pro to buy Fx, and so use Fx lenses. This Pro can obviously shoot Dx too, and of course they'd expect that if they shoot Dx, then their Fx lenses do the job superbly!
But to create a selection of Dx only pro level lenses with the added burden of cost to the engineering dept and only have the (very) limited sales potential restricted to APS-C only .. what Fx shooter is going to buy a Dx only lens when they can get the Fx version!


Maybe Nikon do(or don't need a 16mm f/2.8 rectilinear lens(for both Fx and Dx) or an 18mm version .. or whatever. Sales of such a lens would be limited taking into account if Dx users really needed it.
In that sense, you'd be much better off going for a D610(or Df) and a 24mm f/1.8 or 28mm f/1.8 lens to achieve the same end goal(plus about 20% more lens heft).

ie. it makes no commercial sense(for them) to do such a lent type because a couple of ex Nikon users went to Fuji for that lens only!



Remember: we already commented on the fact that DSLR sales are dropping, but that drop in sales is coming off a seriously crazy spike in numbers.

Have a look at the recent post on Nikon rumours re DSLR vs mirrorless sales production figures.
in 2012 DLSR sales were in the 16million units range, and mirrorless were in the low 3's(millions).
4 years later, DSLR sales are in the high 8's and mirrorless numbers are still in the low 3's.

To me, that doesn't so much look like DSLR sales are leeching into mirror sales 'en masse' .. Yeah, there's going to be an amount of mirrorless sales that are created by folks updating to a newer camera, but going down the mirrorless route instead.

But there weren't 8 million new mirrorless sales in the previous 4 years over the 2012 low 3m units figure. In fact there was an ever so slight drop in unit numbers in 2016 compared to 2012 .. but by and large steady numbers.
Considering the elevated pace of new mirrorless models in the past 4 years since 2012(which usually leads to sales spikes and then lulls) you'd have expected mirrorless to have grown their sales figures.

Again, it appears that consumers are simply not buying new cameras with the regularity they once used too.
+ the point that average Joe and Jane/Mum and Dad have their barely used DSLR sitting in the cupboard since 2012 and they just don't need another one ever!

The question that manufacturers will be asking is, where is this new normal (ie. sales figures) going to settle at.
I can't imagine those that have switched to mirrorless now continually updating just to keep those sales numbers up.
So in all likelyhood, mirrorless sales will slowly start to dwindle(ie. market saturation point), and what will keep them buoyant will be new models).

So, if you were head honcho at Nikon, and the market was looking the way it currently is, would you commit vital resources to a new product line that is now way too late to the market(ie. a 'la keymission! ;))
Wise heads will stay settled, plan things out more meticulously and build on what they already have.

Some new lenses are still needed from Nikon(to replace old AF-D models).
a could of Micros, a couple more portrait types(eg. an AFS 135mm .. maybe at f/1.8, but f/2 would be fine). An update to the old 14mm f/2.8 could be something for them to ponder too?
Basically replace or cease production of the old AF-D lenses still on their list.

Any new lens catering to a market that has dwindled, or could still have yet to fully bottom doesn't make commercial sense.

[MissionMan]

For sure!

Nikon used to make APS-C pro glass back in the day, but have let it slide(basically since about 2008).
Up to '08 they did have the 17-55, 12-24 and 10.5 fish .. all pro level lenses

Note that in Nikon terms; gold rim on lenses = pro level glass. The lenses may or may not be of a pro level, but that's their system. (as Canon use red rim on their pro glass)
Anyhow, Nikon have committed to Fx then as the future for themselves and it makes sense for them to stick with that plan now(having taken that course).

So to begin a new line of lens for the Pro level APS-C shooter kind'a make no sense.
Their expected 'Pro' market is that they push the buyer to the Fx line anyhow.
So to Nikon, they expect the pro to buy Fx, and so use Fx lenses. This Pro can obviously shoot Dx too, and of course they'd expect that if they shoot Dx, then their Fx lenses do the job superbly!
But to create a selection of Dx only pro level lenses with the added burden of cost to the engineering dept and only have the (very) limited sales potential restricted to APS-C only .. what Fx shooter is going to buy a Dx only lens when they can get the Fx version!


Maybe Nikon do(or don't need a 16mm f/2.8 rectilinear lens(for both Fx and Dx) or an 18mm version .. or whatever. Sales of such a lens would be limited taking into account if Dx users really needed it.
In that sense, you'd be much better off going for a D610(or Df) and a 24mm f/1.8 or 28mm f/1.8 lens to achieve the same end goal(plus about 20% more lens heft).

ie. it makes no commercial sense(for them) to do such a lent type because a couple of ex Nikon users went to Fuji for that lens only!



Remember: we already commented on the fact that DSLR sales are dropping, but that drop in sales is coming off a seriously crazy spike in numbers.

Have a look at the recent post on Nikon rumours re DSLR vs mirrorless sales production figures.
in 2012 DLSR sales were in the 16million units range, and mirrorless were in the low 3's(millions).
4 years later, DSLR sales are in the high 8's and mirrorless numbers are still in the low 3's.

To me, that doesn't so much look like DSLR sales are leeching into mirror sales 'en masse' .. Yeah, there's going to be an amount of mirrorless sales that are created by folks updating to a newer camera, but going down the mirrorless route instead.

But there weren't 8 million new mirrorless sales in the previous 4 years over the 2012 low 3m units figure. In fact there was an ever so slight drop in unit numbers in 2016 compared to 2012 .. but by and large steady numbers.
Considering the elevated pace of new mirrorless models in the past 4 years since 2012(which usually leads to sales spikes and then lulls) you'd have expected mirrorless to have grown their sales figures.

Again, it appears that consumers are simply not buying new cameras with the regularity they once used too.
+ the point that average Joe and Jane/Mum and Dad have their barely used DSLR sitting in the cupboard since 2012 and they just don't need another one ever!

The question that manufacturers will be asking is, where is this new normal (ie. sales figures) going to settle at.
I can't imagine those that have switched to mirrorless now continually updating just to keep those sales numbers up.
So in all likelyhood, mirrorless sales will slowly start to dwindle(ie. market saturation point), and what will keep them buoyant will be new models).

So, if you were head honcho at Nikon, and the market was looking the way it currently is, would you commit vital resources to a new product line that is now way too late to the market(ie. a 'la keymission! ;))
Wise heads will stay settled, plan things out more meticulously and build on what they already have.

Some new lenses are still needed from Nikon(to replace old AF-D models).
a could of Micros, a couple more portrait types(eg. an AFS 135mm .. maybe at f/1.8, but f/2 would be fine). An update to the old 14mm f/2.8 could be something for them to ponder too?
Basically replace or cease production of the old AF-D lenses still on their list.

Any new lens catering to a market that has dwindled, or could still have yet to fully bottom doesn't make commercial sense.

True, but that has to be hammering their D500 sales. If you were a D500 buyer, what would you do? You want a conventional 14-24/24-70/70-200 and there is nothing. You can work with the primes but the zooms are a problem. You are okay on the 17-55, but on the 14-24 front there is nothing close to the quality and what are your alternatives on the long end? The 50-100 sigma where you lose 40mm? If you ar going to release a capable camera like the D500, you have to be able to back it up.

[arthurking83]

True, but that has to be hammering their D500 sales ....


I don't think it would be.

A D500 bought just for the purpose of having the 14-24/24-70/70-200 equivalent doesn't make any sense.

I see most D500 buyers as more fast paced action oriented, and I'm guessing many/most would couple that camera to (say) 300/4, or 200-500, and lenses like that.

14-24 lens (generally) implies two average uses for this lens. 1. Landscapes, 2. low light restricted space environments(eg. night club shooting/concerts/other similar events)

For that, higher pixels are usually wanted, and or better dynamic range. For that they have the D810 and or D750/610 .. possibly even the Df as better options.

24-70 lens implies events/portraits/etc.
Again with that type of shooting you're better off(I'm guessing this is Nikon's undocumented stance) again with an Fx camera of decent capability. D750 comes to mind, but not restricted to such.

70-200 lens. A perfect fit for a D500 as a sports lens. Nothing wrong with 70-200 on APS-C for shooting sports. For use as a portrait lens, Fx opens this focal length up to much better possibilities.


Obviously there's nothing wrong with using the D500 as an all round general shooting body, but that's not how Nikon are marketing it.
Have a look at their site and of the 5 or so images in the marketing gobbeldygook, 4 are action or wildlife and the one landscapey image but what looks to appealing to the adventurer type(mountain climber).
mountain bikes in mid air, motorbikes doing mid air cartwheels, more pushbikes speeding along, and an owl at night.

If you look at the sample images library, the ratio of sports/action/nature images to non sports/action/nature images is even more heavily weighed towards sports/action/nature!
Of the portrait images, they're all by the way type portraits of an action scenario(bike riders or mountain climbers/cavers). No beauty queens or drama princesses there!
The vast majority of images in the samples are action or wildlife. The solitary non action, non wildlife non portrait image is of a human eye at close range(most likely Micro lens) .. or a very close focusing zoom lens at the long end.

This marketing push seems to be appealing more to the zoom lens user, less so to the prime lens user(maybe except for the owl image where a long prime is probably used).

Also noteworthy is the way Nikon are marketing (eg) the D750 and Df.
many more portrait-ey imagery on the D750 sample images page. Lots of images with shallow DOF, street type shooting and so on. far fewer action images in terms of ratio to non action images too.
Basically their marketing push for the D750 is general all rounder, does good portraits, does good landscapes, can do action too. What's screamingly obvious in the difference between the D750 and D500 sample images pages(hence the marketing push!) is the total lack of any wildlife images. The nature images all appear to be Micro lens types(flowers close up and suchlike).
Df is the same. 1 opportunistic wildlife image, no action at all! predominantly landscape and portraiture.

I think the key point is not to confuse what the personal wants and desires of an individual with what makes commercial sense from the manufacturer.

Nikon would know better than anyone what lens focal length ranges are selling well for the two different sensor formats. I'd be pretty sure that if the 10-24 and or 12-24 Dx lenses sold in vast numbers, then Nikon would pounce on the opportunity for alternatives for those buyers.

They've had a long list of AF-D lenses that really needed updating to AF-S, which they've almost done. Probably haven't had the resources to spare on new specialised lenses recently.
Stupidly brought out far too many 18-xxx consumer zooms, as many have commented .. but! .. maybe they've had the demand in the form of camera+lens kits to fulfil?

The next two years could be interesting in terms of new lenses for the impending new bodies that are should be expected. D810, Df and D6xx/7xx updates are all overdue, if you consider the Nikon update cycle to be 'a given thing'.


What Nikon should look at doing is to amalgamate the D3xxx and D5xxx lines into a single cheap line with (predominantly)D5xxx features. It's sensor is good enough to use for a couple of generations yet to come.
D7xxx needs to be closer to the D5xxx(ie smaller/slimmer) but as close to the D500 as possible without stepping on it's turf.
D7xxx could be the general all round street shooters camera in APS-C .. but D500 used in that manner only is wasted money on the part of the consumer.
That sort of money spent on such a body is better spent on more appropriate gear!

[MissionMan]

I don't think it would be.

A D500 bought just for the purpose of having the 14-24/24-70/70-200 equivalent doesn't make any sense.

I see most D500 buyers as more fast paced action oriented, and I'm guessing many/most would couple that camera to (say) 300/4, or 200-500, and lenses like that.



The only reason it makes no sense is because Nikon haven't given you the lens selection to make it anything more than a highly niche camera. The D500 could be so much more with nothing more than lens selection.




14-24 lens (generally) implies two average uses for this lens. 1. Landscapes, 2. low light restricted space environments(eg. night club shooting/concerts/other similar events)

For that, higher pixels are usually wanted, and or better dynamic range. For that they have the D810 and or D750/610 .. possibly even the Df as better options.



Interesting perspective. The D500 is less than a stop of noise from the D750 and offers only 1EV difference in dynamic range, both outgun most of the competitors in this space so the D500 is actually better than a lot of the full frame alternatives. It beats the 5d mk4 in dynamic range and low light. Look at the dpreview comparisons, there is virtually nothing in it. In short, with the right lens, the D500 would be so close to a D750 that it would be hard to distinguish in anything less than extreme conditions and DOF.





24-70 lens implies events/portraits/etc.
Again with that type of shooting you're better off(I'm guessing this is Nikon's undocumented stance) again with an Fx camera of decent capability. D750 comes to mind, but not restricted to such.



Do you mean better for us or better for Nikon because I have to spend $2800 on a lens that could cost $1200 on APSC?




70-200 lens. A perfect fit for a D500 as a sports lens. Nothing wrong with 70-200 on APS-C for shooting sports. For use as a portrait lens, Fx opens this focal length up to much better possibilities.



Assuming you are only shooting sports and except when you are shooting indoors and 105-300 is too long a focal length.

The D500 is probably the best APSC body on the market and it beats the vast majority of full frame bodies that are 2 years or older, along with some of the new ones as well.

The only issue is Nikon's marketing and the fact that their market results in people having to spend $10000 to achieve the same thing that could have been achieved for less than half of that. Now you could argue that's smart marketing but when the competition is offering exactly that, and you have nothing to offer in return, you have a problem.

[richardb]

Woow, from Melbourne to Cologne ?
My home is 90km from Köln, even I didn't visit the exhibition : A waste of time , coze Nikon has no real news in 2017.
Let's wait another 2yrs
:tog::tog::tog::tog:

[Lance B]

Err, 2107 is only 2 months old and Nikon's 100th birthday is actually in July, 5 months away.

[ricktas]

Maybe the manufacturers need to go back to Canon's old nomenclature and add things to the camera models. Remember when Canon brought out two models of the same camera, one had an S on the end of its model number.. meaning Studio?

Maybe Nikon need to make their model numbers like D500S (sports) D750L (Landscapers) D5xxxG (General)..would mean people would stop arguing the merits or downfalls of each model when used for the 'wrong' genre:D and accept that different brands and models target different buyers and users:) and that one brand or model cannot be everything to everyone:rolleyes: