Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: Dan Wells on November 21, 2018, 01:03:11 am
-
On a rainy night in the suburbs, when my Z7 and Fujis are snug in their bags because there's nothing to shoot...
Rather than a war for market share, the present state of the camera market seems to me to be roughly five fragmented markets... Canon and Nikon play in all or most of them, Sony is in several, mostly at the higher end, Fuji picks and chooses where to compete, and everyone else is in odd segments here and there
1.) Low-end - $500 to $1000 for body and lens - (losing sales rapidly - mostly to Apple and Android). Everybody's scrambling around trying to find something compelling to get people off their phones. Nobody's making much of a profit, while bad kit lenses make phones more competitive in image quality than they should be ,especially as phones get better at computational trickery. The sensors are excellent - even the lowest-end sensor in a $500 camera is capable of far more image quality than most 35mm film. It is very difficult to build a decent lens to this type of budget, and just about every sensor is let down by the kit lens (the one exception I know of is that you'll often see a Fuji with their excellent 18-55mm f2.8-4 right at $1000). A good lens can get a great deal more image quality out of any inexpensive camera.
The only way to get some market back, if it's possible at all, is to make a very instagram-friendly camera (something like Snapbridge that actually works, if not a SIM card in the camera itself) - ideally with a better lens that makes the IQ difference from a phone more obvious. Sony could abandon the low end (when did they last release a camera under $1000)? APS-C rumors from them focus on a high-end body, probably above the A6500. Olympus and Panasonic may also abandon the lower end of their line (although Oly will almost certainly keep their E-M5 and E-M10 lines going at the upper end of this bracket). Canon has most of the volume, while Nikon may be closer to the Instagram-friendly camera than anybody else (Snapbridge doesn't yet "really work", but it's closer to the idea than other apps). Fuji is effectively out of the low end in the West, although they're quite successful in Asia and they find no harm in putting a few bodies on a boat... Pentax is more or less gone - do they or don't they keep the KP (and the K1 series one category up) going for people with old lenses?
2.) ~24 MP midrange ($1000 - ~$2500). These are incredibly capable cameras, and there's money for decent lenses at this level. APS-C and full-frame coexist, although everyone except Fuji has better lens lineups in full-frame. This is where any "war" between the manufacturers is taking place. There are a lot of cameras with similar capabilities in this range, and all of them are capable of excellent images. Fuji's not going anywhere... Neither are Sony, Canon or Nikon (the latter two will find a balance between DSLR and mirrorless, and may shift more to mirrorless over time). This market is relatively healthy, except that it's where everybody's running for shelter from the collapse below it. There's enough money to turn a profit, and to make lenses out of something other than the bottom of Coke bottles :) Is there enough volume for four players, all counting on this segment for much of their profit? The others will probably push Pentax, a distant fifth player, out and slam the door, although the existing models may continue at low volume, especially if the K1 line continues to undercut other high-res options by $1000 or so. Panasonic is going to have a hard time getting the S1 into the crowd.
3.) High-end Micro 4/3 (and, arguably, the Nikon D500, which is in between the unusual Micro 4/3 cameras and the more standard 24 MP group) - below 24 MP, lower dynamic range, but very high speeds or exceptional video. While they are in the same price range as the 24 MP midrange, they have more unusual combinations of features. Can they stay viable? I really hope so, because the odd cameras from both Olympus and Panasonic offer something that the 24 MP army does not. They're much more different from the mainstream 24 MP choices than the 24 MP choices are from each other. There are action shots that only an Olympus will get until you spend thousands more, and there's an indie film niche for Panasonic. I don't think Olympus is going to succeed in pushing the top of the Micro 4/3 market out to $3000, but I really hope they stay strong in the $1500 range... The other place there's room for Olympus and maybe Panasonic is in rugged, highly functional cameras that undercut the midrange (priced like a low-end camera, but have IBIS, weather sealing, etc.).
4.) The Pixel Monsters. Nikon, Sony and Fuji have what are probably highly profitable businesses here, and I can't imagine any of them dropping out easily. Canon may or may not get into this game - the EOS-R lenses look suspiciously like they're meant for a different body - they'd make sense on a pixel monster, but they might also make sense on a mirrorless sports body or a high-end general purpose camera. The present fourth competitor may be Hasselblad, rather than Canon? The E0S 5Ds sensor isn't competitive against what's out there now, and it won't be if it shows up in a mirrorless body - they'd need something that is at the limits of current technology. The resolution is plenty, but the dynamic range and noise performance is merely good, while it takes great to play this game. Does Panasonic have any chance in the pixel monster market? They're up against competitors with superb sensors and full lens lines. Fuji reaching 100 MP medium format at a non-Phase price could restore this to being two different markets, instead of one that contains the best image quality in full-frame plus most of the volume in medium format (the >$10,000 or so portion of medium format is a separate market, but the volume is tiny).
Right now, there is not a huge price difference between ~$4000 for top full-frame IQ (depending on lens choice) and ~$5000 for a GFX with a lens ($6000 with the zoom). Image quality is also very close between the very top of full-frame and 50 MP medium format. I loaded the D810, A7r mkIII, D850 and GFX 50s into DPReview's image comparison (I didn't have real-world images from all four in the same place, which would have been better). The result was D810<A7r mkIII<D850<GFX 50s, all with roughly even steps, all of the differences noticeable - none huge. The D850 is clearly closer to the Fuji than the D810 is to the D850.
There is a vast price gulf between 50 MP medium format and anything significantly higher than 50 MP. Quotes on new ultra-high end systems are hard to find, but used 100 MP CMOS systems are over $20,000. Even an 80 MP CCD back with a maximum usable ISO of 200 or 400 is $13,000 or more used without a camera or a lens. Fuji coming in with something that is significantly different from the best of full-frame, at a price that isn't Phase pricing could change the game.
5.) The sports/photojournalism market. This is a war, but the two main combatants have been at it since the 1970s! Canon and Nikon have been trading blows since Canon entered the pro market in 1971 with the original F1... Nobody else has ever snuck in on them - Pentax and Minolta tried in film days, neither getting any significant market share. Will either or both of the main players try a mirrorless body in this market? Or, perhaps a hybrid with optical and electronic viewfinder options through removable finders? That's actually not that hard to engineer - it does, of course, need the full-depth mount to accommodate the mirror - it simply runs in live view full time if it has an EVF mounted... Sony has tried to break into the high-end sports market with the A9 (after several earlier halfhearted attempts with DSLRs) - but neither the A9 being rarely seen in the wild nor the $1000 slashed off the price last week looks good for them. I wonder if the third player in this market is actually Olympus, rather than Sony? While the E-M1 mk II is a $1500 camera competing on an uneven field with $5000+ cameras, it's specialized for the same market. While I'm not sure how it's calculated and over what time period, B&H's best-selling list has the Olympus significantly ahead of the A9 (although behind a bunch of normal-speed Sonys). Olympus is certainly aiming to push further into this world if rumors of a $3000 EM1X are true...
If I were (in rough order of overall market share - everyone through Fuji is certainly going to make it, not so sure below):
Canon - I would be concerned about collapsing low-end volume, having more exposure down there than anybody else. Above the low end, does lagging sensor quality begin to weigh against a huge lineup of excellent lenses? If they buy or develop some new sensors, Canon's bodies are in great shape above the low end. Popular DSLRs buy time to get mirrorless right, and the low-end to midrange EOS-M line gives a presence in lower-cost mirrorless - probably not worth trying to dislodge Fuji from higher-end APS-C mirrorless. Leading in the sports/PJ market, and may or may not be concerned about the high-resolution market.
Nikon - I would be rethinking my APS-C strategy... APS-C versions of the Z line? Mirrorless using the F-mount (unlike in FF, the mount diameter isn't a problem)? Keep pushing DSLRs - if so, how do you improve them at the low end? Image quality's fine, how do they become compelling against phones? Unlike Canon, Nikon's line from the D610 on up is in great shape - every sensor is excellent, the cameras handle really well and the FF lens line is the equal of Canon's in most areas. F and Z both have their place in full-frame. Like Canon, there's some time to get the mirrorless lineup fleshed out because of DSLRs and a long history of great lenses. Nikon may be in decent shape to release a camera that works well with phones, but they wish the D3500 were mirrorless to do it - is their best APS-C mirrorless strategy to keep the F-mount and essentially replace low-end DSLRs? Again, high-end APS-C mirrorless is a Fuji minefield - not worth it unless they can do something Fuji can't (and come up with the lenses).
Sony - I would be very concerned about APS-C, happy with where full-frame is going. Why bother with APS-C bodies above the $500 level unless you're going to make great lenses to go with them? This is even more true for Sony than others, because they so often have a $1000 last-generation FF body - why use an FF lens on an APS-C body if the right body is accessible? The cheap APS-C bodies don't provide a gateway to the A7/A9 line, but the $1000 older A7 bodies do... Is it even worth replacing APS-C bodies at all, when the FF line is so much more successful? It's not like they have a lot of great old APS-C lenses people care about... Sony has leading models in two segments of the FF market (standard 24 MP and pixel monsters), and is finally backing them up with lenses.
Do they care about the sports market or anything in APS-C? They've jumped into the sports market repeatedly, most recently with the A9, but never really put the support into staying? If Sony cared to, they might be in a good position to build a phone-friendly low-end camera, because they have consumer electronics experience - but they have the worst APS-C glass around (except, possibly for Pentax's limited line). High-end APS-C is even more of a Fuji minefield for them than for Canon or Nikon, because they're up against Fuji more directly (mirrorless to mirrorless), and their APS-C lens range doesn't even have the depth of Canon's or Nikon's. They're probably better off throwing full-frame bodies against the top of Fuji's range while ignoring the X-E series.
Fuji - I'd be really happy, if my sensor supply were assured. The odd-size sensor strategy with high-end APS-C and relatively inexpensive medium format seems to be working, and both body and lens lines are class-leading. They compete in the 24 MP midrange, and among the pixel monsters. They show more interest in keeping good positions in those markets than in seriously competing at the low end (at least in North America or Europe - the X-A line sells very well in Asia) or in the sports or photojournalism market. Interestingly, they are almost always competing directly against Sony, although never with the same sensor size - they use really good APS-C to compete with 24 MP full-frame, and medium format in the pixel monster range. Fuji is essentially not involved in collapsing market segments, they grow market share each year, and they are in a good position with both of their lens lines. Their one concern should be if everyone else starts pushing full-frame only in the midrange (as may be happening), APS-C sensor development might stall. If few non-Fuji APS-C bodies sell for over $700 in a couple of years (the D500 and EOS D80 range gets abandoned), and Fuji has an APS-C line reaching up to $1800 or so, will they create enough volume by themselves to keep work going on continuously improving sensors?
Olympus - Can a lineup that has different pluses and minuses than essentially anything else survive? From a photographer's viewpoint, Olympus being in the market provides a lot of different choices - notably a true sports/PJ camera at a much lower price (and weight) than anyone else, and some very light, rugged options. I'm dubious about a $3000 Olympus body, but I think the OM-D lineup is as interesting as anything out there, especially if they can get the E-M1 line down to around $1300 and ruggedize the E-M10 successor so it becomes the ultralight of choice for adventure.
Panasonic - Their real strength is video... I have high hopes for the S1 and S1r line if if their video features are exceptional - very little otherwise. The S1 will be pushing right into the most crowded part of the market (the higher end of 24 MP) with a limited lens line. There are four strong contenders already there (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji), all with full lineups, and with Canon and Nikon offering both mirrorless and DSLR options. They have to differentiate themselves, and their known video expertise seems like the way to go. The S1r will be hitting three strong contenders among the pixel monsters, with Nikon offering both mirrorless and DSLR options, and again, all with full lens lineups. The more video-oriented their Micro 4/3 bodies are, the better they sell...
Hasselblad - They may actually be more relevant/likely to survive than Pentax, because they only care about one segment. They need to worry about Fuji, and to a lesser extent about the highest resolution bodies from Nikon and Sony, but nothing else competes with the X-series (the H-series competes poorly against Phase One, but their volume is probably in the mirrorless X-series).
Pentax - is the small volume of bodies for people with existing Pentax lenses worth it for parent company Ricoh? They once had a niche as the only people doing serious weather sealing on affordable cameras and lenses - everyone else reserved it for a few top models over $3000. First Olympus, then Fuji and Nikon caught up... There are now highly sealed options starting around $1000 from multiple players, and all the others are more mainstream than Pentax.
At PhotoPlus this year, Canon, Nikon, Sony and Fuji had huge booths - the first three have done so for years, while Fuji keeps expanding their presence. Panasonic and Olympus had small booths, much smaller than in years past, while Pentax had a tiny booth hidden away (the size usually reserved for labs, small software companies and Chinese tripod makers). Hasselblad didn't show up at all.
-
One thing you didn't mention was professional support. Canon and Nikon have it in spades. Sony and Fuji have it in name only. Pentax nada. Olympus nada. Panasonic nada.
-
Why do you feel Fuji is sitting pretty? I don't get that impression from their revenue numbers.
-
Fuji is small by comparison to the other three, but growing and more differentiated than the others. They could get caught if the market collapses back to the point where everything is full-frame or above (which would actually strengthen Nikon and Sony, both of whose weaknesses are in APS-C). Fuji offers very similar image quality to low-end full-frame (not like the pixel monsters, but they're much more expensive, and Fuji is competing there with medium format) with great, somewhat smaller lenses and well-made bodies that are a joy to use. As long as APS-C is viable as a midrange and up option, they're in good shape.
As for the pro support, that could kill Sony at some point if they don't catch up. Fuji isn't as involved in the markets where it matters most (the stereotypical NPS or CPS member is a photojournalist). If Olympus is serious about high-speed photojournalist cameras, they have to deal with it! Panasonic has an easy out - they certainly offer that kind of support on their broadcast video cameras - just declare the GH series and the full-frame S series eligible, maybe for a price! As a matter of fact, Sony could do the same thing - I don't know how either would work with the internal structure of the companies. Pentax is a zombie anyway - if they can make a small profit turning out bodies for people's old lenses, they will...
-
Fuji is small by comparison to the other three, but growing and more differentiated than the others.
In 2018, ILC market share for the big 3 ( Canon, Nikon and Sony ) went up by 6.2% for a whopping 87.3% of all sales. The rest was divided up by the likes of Fuji, Olympus, Pentax, Leica, etc...
Not many crumbs to fight over once the big three feast. Now with the big 3 having a mirrorless option, I wonder how that will affect Fuji sales going forward. Now a Canon or Nikon shooter needs to look elsewhere for a smaller mirrorless system. I don't see this as a rosy picture for Fuji.
-
In 2018, ILC market share for the big 3 ( Canon, Nikon and Sony ) went up by 6.2% for a whopping 87.3% of all sales. The rest was divided up by the likes of Fuji, Olympus, Pentax, Leica, etc...
Not many crumbs to fight over once the big three feast. Now with the big 3 having a mirrorless option, I wonder how that will affect Fuji sales going forward. Now a Canon or Nikon shooter needs to look elsewhere for a smaller mirrorless system. I don't see this as a rosy picture for Fuji.
Cameras & lenses are a decimal point figure on Fuji's balance sheet. I bet they make 'em more for PR purposes than direct revenue generation. Thus they can continue past the point where other companies would have to get out.
-Dave-
-
Conjecture: the photojournalism landscape changes so much in the next 5–10 years that sports photography as a business all but disappears.
If so this would take a rototiller to all forecasts based on the present state of affairs continuing largely unchanged. :)
-Dave-
-
Cameras & lenses are a decimal point figure on Fuji's balance sheet. I bet they make 'em more for PR purposes than direct revenue generation. Thus they can continue past the point where other companies would have to get out.
-Dave-
Or they can get out without much pain to their bottom line.
-
Conjecture: the photojournalism landscape changes so much in the next 5–10 years that sports photography as a business all but disappears.
If so this would take a rototiller to all forecasts based on the present state of affairs continuing largely unchanged. :)
-Dave-
I highly doubt sports photography is any money maker for either Canon or Nikon. Such a small niche market.
-
There is a segment you didn't mention. I'm thinking of collectors/users. The numbers of people aren't huge but my guess is they are growing and they tend to have a fair amount of cash. The market is flooded with common 35mm cameras made from the 1960s to the 1990s so those hardly bring enough money to justify postage. However, the high quality and more esoteric stuff can be quite valuable. I'm thinking of 20th C. Rollei, Hassleblad, Leica as well as the more obscure Robot and Plaubel Makina. The prices on truly historical gear from the 19th C. has also been rising, especially the bigger brass lenses (covering 8x10 or larger) and cameras made before the 1880s. Looking in my closet I'm pretty sure I've spent considerably more on that kind of gear than I have on state of art Nikon & Sigma. Most of us who buy seem interested in the history and will go out and make photos with our acquisitions. The wooden cameras and brass lenses have an inherent beauty, and many of the collectible cameras (such as Kodak Bantam Special) have a solid "cool factor." :) Judging from increasing prices and posts on dedicated forums I do think there is a sales increase in this segment.
Kent in SD
-
Fuji offers very similar image quality to low-end full-frame (not like the pixel monsters, but they're much more expensive
new 42mp A7RII (A7R mark II) is $1600 right now ... where is your much more expensive ?
-
Fuji is ...more differentiated than the others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony
Products:
Consumer electronics
Semiconductors
Video games
Films
Television programs
Music
Computer hardware
Telecommunications equipment
Services:
Financial services
Insurance
Banking
Credit finance
Advertising agency
Network services
Fujifilm
Operating income ¥230 billions
Net income ¥150 billions
Total assets ¥380 billions
Sony:
Operating income ¥713 billions
Net income ¥508 billions
Total assets ¥19 trillion
Fujifilm will be long gone before Sony caves
-
I did not mean more differentiated as a company (Sony and Panasonic are both keiretsu - Japanese companies that make everything - and no other camera maker qualifies, although Nikon is a relatively independent branch of the Mitsubishi keiretsu). My meaning was that Fuji cameras themselves are more distinctive than the others (unique semi-retro design, highly consistent system with no bad lenses, XTrans, very good handling).
To me (and this is completely subjective), Fuji and Nikon make the best-handling cameras, then Canon, Olympus and Pentax, then Panasonic, with Sony bringing up the rear (although the III generation and the A9 are better than their predecessors).
Sony is so broad that they could abandon cameras and never notice it (I don't think they will - they have to be happy with how the A7/A9 system is doing)... They may very well abandon APS-C - they don't need it, and they aren't any good at it - look at their APS-C lenses (their FF lenses are a different story, and they keep getting better while APS-C stagnates)
I've always said that I don't think any of Canon, Nikon, Sony or Fuji are going anywhere (the market could probably use one less player, but all four are pretty entrenched, and all have mid to high-end lines with very loyal user bases). Any losses will come from Panasonic, Olympus, "Kodak" (A Chinese company who bought the name and has a couple of low-end Micro 4/3 bodies and a lens or two), Pentax (already a zombie) and Hasselblad. Leica is propped up by collectors and Phase One does something so different from anyone else that their business model is unique.
-
We all have our points of view on this. I think Sony is very good at APSC. I think Fuji and Olympus have great APSC cameras but they just look kind of like mini SLR’s while Sony actually came up with something quite different to that.
-
We all certainly have differences of opinion on camera design and handling - and that's why it's in no photographer's interest to lose any of the major manufacturers (even if it's one whose wares don't fit your style, they do fit a colleague's).
They all prod each other, too - if Panasonic weren't out there, nobody would be doing 4K video. Lose Sony, and Nikon never releases the Z-series, nor Canon the EOS-R. If Fuji weren't around, Sony and others might never have improved their controls. Even little Pentax may be responsible for weather sealing spreading down other manufacturers' lines.
Whether the low end of the market survives at all may be dependent on whether someone gets "plays nice with phones" right - once any of them get it, they all have to work on it relatively quickly...
-
We all certainly have differences of opinion on camera design and handling - and that's why it's in no photographer's interest to lose any of the major manufacturers (even if it's one whose wares don't fit your style, they do fit a colleague's).
They all prod each other, too - if Panasonic weren't out there, nobody would be doing 4K video. Lose Sony, and Nikon never releases the Z-series, nor Canon the EOS-R. If Fuji weren't around, Sony and others might never have improved their controls. Even little Pentax may be responsible for weather sealing spreading down other manufacturers' lines.
Whether the low end of the market survives at all may be dependent on whether someone gets "plays nice with phones" right - once any of them get it, they all have to work on it relatively quickly...
I think it's too late for the low end of the camera market...even if the cameras integrate better with the web. Who is going to want to carry a camera at that level when they already have a phone on them that does a great job. No one!
The low end ship has sailed and won't be turning around.
-
My earlier conjecture about the (possible) collapse of sports photography as a professional thing potentially has big implications for the high-end amateur market. If pros stop buying spike driver bodies and mondo biggo tele lenses, what'll motivate status-craving, pro-imitating amateurs to keep buying 'em? If amateurs instead respond by becoming more practical minded about their gear, then all sorts of interesting developments are likely to follow.
-Dave-
-
I think you're discounting fashion.
Fuji is a distinct case, as is m4/3. People will buy Fuji not because it's better than Nikon/Canon/Sony, but because it's more fashionable. You can see that in any camera forum, where people rave about Fuji's image quality, which, frankly, isn't really distinctively better for anyone other than a photo-phile pixel-peeper. Plus, anyone interested in making larger prints (which is really the only place a different might appear) APS-C is basically as good as FF, and the differences will close as technology matures. I would suggest that Fuji is a special case, as Leica has been for a while. The images will be fine, but that's not really the reason to buy Fuji. But: fashion goes on forever -- see Leica.
The real competition is Nikon/Canon/Sony, and of the three, I have the least faith that Sony cameras will be here in thirty years. Because Sony is sorta..unfashionable. It's common. For the past few years, Sony's been doing well, because it's been innovative. But the the products of the three main FF manufacturers are quickly converging, to the point where the only distinctive factor may be some subtle ergonomic preferences. Once the technology shakes out, and they're all selling the same thing, then fashion reasserts itself. Historically, Sony has not been willing to struggle for minor profits on what is to them, marginal products. See the various Walkman products, or the video disk. If they dropped cameras entirely, it would make no visible difference in their profit.
I think the most interesting developments will come with m4/3 especially if a desperate Pentax decided to join the consortium. M4/3 has a couple advantages over FF and APS-C -- one being the size of the equipment, the other being the quality of the images, which sort of link together. If the quality is good enough for any print you're likely to make, and certainly good enough for any on-screen display (and even billboards) then the whole size/weight thing becomes more important. But one critical issue here is what happens with processing tech. Olympus is hinting that the tech in it's much ballyhooed uber-m4/3 will be as good as FF, and I think the possible reason for that is that they've taken a close look at all the phone-based photo processing, and they're about to introduce that to m4/3. If that is the case, then the whole m4/3 ecology becomes really interesting. What I don't understand is that the new uber-camera is virtually the size of smaller DSLRs, which gives up much of m4/3s advantages. Maybe once the tech stabilizes, they'll be able to shrink the bodies again...that this is an expensive test-bed.
I agree with Dan's view of cell phone quality -- it's really all that any ordinary person needs for scrapbooks (paper or electronic) and messaging and so on. The problem with them is that they don't have the flexibility of serious cameras, and probably never will have. Trying to make an iPhone into a serious camera would push costs, and about 99.1% of the customers could care less; what they've got now is good enough, and will certainly displace most point and shoots, I think. There will be a few people like me who really like the small pocketable 1" sensor cameras with decent zooms; and with more sophisticated processing, they could become more important.
IMHO.
-
I didn't realize that Fuji was fashionable. In what circle?
-
Phone cameras are enough for a lot of casual photography—but fall miserably short as soon as much telephoto reach is needed: even a modest “200mm equivalent” is way out of reach except with a crop to less than 1MP. And as soon as that sort of telephoto goal leads from a phone to an interchangeable lens camera, the smallest format is the natural choice, not 35mm
-
In the past there have been long periods where only fairly serious photographers did much photography, be that pro or hobbiest. Think of the first period of photography--the long stretch from 1840 to about 1900. You had to really want to take photos to get into that. Along came box cameras like the Brownie, which were relatively compact, cheap, and easy to use. ("You take the picture, we do the rest!") This was followed in the 1960s with a plethora of small 35mm cameras along with formats such as 110 and 126. In the 1980s we saw the rise of compact automatic cameras such as the Pentax IQ Zoom. All of those, from the Brownie to the Canon Elph, were mostly purchased by people just wanting to take pictures of their kids etc. (I think the explosion of cameras in the late 1950s to mid 1960s was a result of the post war baby boom.) Today that large portion of casual "phtographer" just used their cell phone. They already have it, it's easy to carry, and it's extremely easy to share the photos. (Remember having to mail 4x6 prints to grandma?) That just once again leaves the people more serious about photography as a hobby or vocation to buy traditional camera gear. We're back to the 1880s again!
Another thought. Again looking through history, cameras have been getting smaller ever since the 1880s. There were mammoth cameras then. Really--they were even called mammoth cameras at the time! These had plate sizes of 14x17 inches and even 20x24 inches. The "normal" lenses were something like FL=16 inches (600mm), brass and glass, and weighed quite a bit. (I have a 300mm Petzval that weighs 5 pounds.) This stuff was heavy and required true motivation to take out into the field! Since the 1880s cameras have steadily been getting smaller and lighter--a very clear trend. The mammoth cameras gave way to 8x10, then 5x7, then medium format roll films took over (such as Rolleiflex and Hassleblad.) The 35mm pot was already simmering with offerings from Leica, Contax, Practika, Kodak Retina, etc., and then Nikon blew things wide open with the Nikon F. The trend is clear--generally speaking convenience ultimately trumps image quality. I certainly don't count M43 out here.
Kent in SD
-
I'd say that Leica cameras are fashionable with fashionistas but distinctly unfashionable with photographers.
I can't think of a better recommendation.
-
Fuji has one great thing, the GFX100. Even at 10k it will attract a lot of people after they realize that next gen FF won’t be more than 60Mp. (As the latest rumors confirm.)
I really like what Fuji is doing and find it very boring what Nikon and canon are doing in their latest releases.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Fuji has one great thing, the GFX100. Even at 10k it will attract a lot of people after they realize that next gen FF won’t be more than 60Mp. (As the latest rumors confirm.)
I really like what Fuji is doing and find it very boring what Nikon and canon are doing in their latest releases.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A lot is an extreme exaggeration. The digital medium format systems are very niche and sell at very limited numbers compared to the other formats.
Where does the casual Joe require that many pixels...and what casual Joe has 10's of thousands of dollars to spend on that system?
-
Re. smartdevice cameras: given that my current iPhone has two lens/sensor combos, one offering ~28mm and the other ~56mm "equiv," I can easily imagine a future iPhone with a third and even fourth lens along the top back of the thing. Take it a step further and imagine the 3 or 4 lens/sensor combos working together in various ways.
-Dave-
-
I really like what Fuji is doing and find it very boring what Nikon and canon are doing in their latest releases.
I honestly don't get too excited about cameras. They come and go. They've become disposable peripherals. Instead of placing so much importance on just one "piece," I think more in terms of "system." The thing Nikon really has going for it is lens selection! I have a tilt/shift lens, a couple of f1.4 wide to middle lenses, a macro, and a nice tele lens plus 1.4x. I even have four lenses made in the 19th century in Nikon mount. :) Add to this some great flash options. It's the system that makes Nikon so versatile. Not sure the Fuji is anywhere near that.
Kent in SD
-
Re. smartdevice cameras: given that my current iPhone has two lens/sensor combos, one offering ~28mm and the other ~56mm "equiv," I can easily imagine a future iPhone with a third and even fourth lens along the top back of the thing. Take it a step further and imagine the 3 or 4 lens/sensor combos working together in various ways.
More cameras-per-phone is coming, but there are some severe limits on telephoto reach (technically, on angular resolution) beyond about "short portrait lens" in a conveniently pocketable camera.
On one side, the desired slimness limits [actual] focal lengths to about 7–8mm. On the other, the wavelength of light limits minimum pixel size (sensor resolution length scale) to about 0.7–0.8 microns. So the ratio is probably limited to about 10000:1, or crudely, 0.0001 radian angular resolution. Better than the human eye, but what "equivalent focal lengths" are achievable compared to ILC systems?
For 12MP (4000x3000) 0.8 micron pixels give about a 4mm image diagonal, and then 8mm focal length has equivalent angular FOV to about 43mm in 4/3" format, 47mm in APS-C, or 85mm in 35mm format. (Same for any 10,000:1 lens/pixel ratio.) But those ILCs have a lot of cropping latitude when 12MP is enough, and allowing for crops to 12MP, that matches about 34mm on a 20MP MFT sensor, 40mm on a 24MP APS-C, or 60mm with an entry-level 24MP 35mm format sensor. So even standard ILC kit zooms have more reach that any normal(*) phone is likely to have, and any telephoto lens of "all-in-one" wider ranging standard zoom lens is way ahead, and will stay ahead. Add in the small actual aperture diameters and low usable ISO speeds of those phone-size lenses, and the telephoto performance gap to even entry-level MFT gear will continue to be easily visible to even casual users of "telephoto".
Change the MP target, and cropping to the same MP from an ILC gives the same focal length comparisons.
On the other hand, a lot of people are satisfied with a mix scenery, group photos, food, and "portraits", and that gamut will be ever better handle by camera-phones. The entry-level ILC market needs to target the weaknesses, ultimately imposed by very small lenses (and the wavelength of light), no matter how good sensors and in-camera processing get.
(*) There might be a market for less normal "chunky camera-phones", with bigger camera bumps or such to allow longer lenses, though so far all such efforts have failed. Even then, I cannot see getting beyond matching about 60mm in 4/3" format when cropping to equal pixel count—and that is ignoring the likelihood of smaller photosites and thus even more cropping latitude in ILCs.
-
More cameras-per-phone is coming, but there are some severe limits on telephoto reach (technically, on angular resolution) beyond about "short portrait lens" in a conveniently pocketable camera.
On one side, the desired slimness limits [actual] focal lengths to about 7–8mm. On the other, the wavelength of light limits minimum pixel size (sensor resolution length scale) to about 0.7–0.8 microns. So the ratio is probably limited to about 10000:1, or crudely, 0.0001 radian angular resolution. Better than the human eye, but what "equivalent focal lengths" are achievable compared to ILC systems?
For 12MP (4000x3000) 0.8 micron pixels give about a 4mm image diagonal, and then 8mm focal length has equivalent angular FOV to about 43mm in 4/3" format, 47mm in APS-C, or 85mm in 35mm format. (Same for any 10,000:1 lens/pixel ratio.) But those ILCs have a lot of cropping latitude when 12MP is enough, and allowing for crops to 12MP, that matches about 34mm on a 20MP MFT sensor, 40mm on a 24MP APS-C, or 60mm with an entry-level 24MP 35mm format sensor. So even standard ILC kit zooms have more reach that any normal(*) phone is likely to have, and any telephoto lens of "all-in-one" wider ranging standard zoom lens is way ahead, and will stay ahead. Add in the small actual aperture diameters and low usable ISO speeds of those phone-size lenses, and the telephoto performance gap to even entry-level MFT gear will continue to be easily visible to even casual users of "telephoto".
Change the MP target, and cropping to the same MP from an ILC gives the same focal length comparisons.
On the other hand, a lot of people are satisfied with a mix scenery, group photos, food, and "portraits", and that gamut will be ever better handle by camera-phones. The entry-level ILC market needs to target the weaknesses, ultimately imposed by very small lenses (and the wavelength of light), no matter how good sensors and in-camera processing get.
(*) There might be a market for less normal "chunky camera-phones", with bigger camera bumps or such to allow longer lenses, though so far all such efforts have failed. Even then, I cannot see getting beyond matching about 60mm in 4/3" format when cropping to equal pixel count—and that is ignoring the likelihood of smaller photosites and thus even more cropping latitude in ILCs.
I have children and friends who use the phones as their photo cameras and not a single one of them has complained or had any interest in telephoto abilities. With today's phone pixel counts, you can just crop your way to telephoto ( pinch and zoom ) if need be.
-
I have children and friends who use the phones as their photo cameras and not a single one of them has complained or had any interest in telephoto abilities. With today's phone pixel counts, you can just crop your way to telephoto ( pinch and zoom ) if need be.
We are agree that the great majority of people will be satisfied withe the camera in their phones. My point is to seek the limits, and debunk the myth that "phone-cameras will be enough for all but us very serious photographers". Clearly lots of even fairly "casual" photographers are interested in more telephoto reach than phones offer, as show by the large market for adding telephoto lenses to ILC kits, and even by the act of choosing a 4x or 5x zoom as the standard lens rather than the smaller, less expensive basic 3x kit zoom.
Also, contrary to your experience, I have seen phone-camera-only users encountering disappointment when wanting to photograph wild-life (including just children in action). Speed is an issue there too, which cropping on a phone-camera cannot always adequately provide.
-
My m43 3-zoom basic travel kit covers 3°4'–72° (horizontal FOV), or thereabouts, so I do appreciate the value of dedicated photo gear. :) What I'm really taking aim at here is what I see as a fetishizing of the 35mm format. The major camera makers are focusing on the higher end of the market, which they (aside from Fuji) have equated with "full frame," for understandable reasons. They're looking for revenue in an environment of declining sales. This doesn't concern me.
What does concern me is how easily led around higher-end buyers *seem to be. The result IMO is and will be lotsa folks buying into systems over-spec'd for their needs in less significant areas (pixel counts, for instance) and yet less than optimal in more significant ones (bulk, portability). IOW there's likely a mismatch between the baubels catching folks' eyes and the tools they'd be best served by. In the longer term this could be a net negative for the photo industry.
-Dave-
*The current bout of 35mm mirrorless enthusiasm could, of course, turn out to be no more than a bubble.
-
What does concern me is how easily led around higher-end buyers *seem to be. The result IMO is and will be lotsa folks buying into systems over-spec'd for their needs in less significant areas (pixel counts, for instance) and yet less than optimal in more significant ones (bulk, portability). IOW there's likely a mismatch between the baubels catching folks' eyes and the tools they'd be best served by. In the longer term this could be a net negative for the photo industry.
-Dave-
We could deal with low pixel count sensors via stitching. I had a Nikon D300 for a number of years and never felt limited by the 12 mega-pixel sensor but I also never print bigger than 17x25.
-
We could deal with low pixel count sensors via stitching. I had a Nikon D300 for a number of years and never felt limited by the 12 mega-pixel sensor but I also never print bigger than 17x25.
I can see if you only print to a certain size, then a low pixel camera is fine...but thinking you can stitch your way into larger prints really limits your subject matter. There are so many subjects that cannot be stitched...if one feels they might need more pixels, I would buy more pixels from the start than relying on stitching.
-
I can see if you only print to a certain size, then a low pixel camera is fine...but thinking you can stitch your way into larger prints really limits your subject matter. There are so many subjects that cannot be stitched...if one feels they might need more pixels, I would buy more pixels from the start than relying on stitching.
Don't get me wrong; I certainly agree with the point you made. The question is how many times do you print to a size greater than 17x25? An answer to that question then suggests the pixel size of the camera.
-
I once worked at fuji tru color processing plant. We would print 10,000 to 20,000 rolls per day. I would watch as six streams of pints came flying out of the gigantic printer. I estimate about 98% of those photos could now be taken with a phone.
Kent in SD
-
Something interesting cropped up on one of the rumor sites... The new Sony 60 MP 24x36 mm sensor (which is almost exactly the sensor some folks on here predicted by "what would a bigger version of the 26 MP APS-C sensor / a smaller version of the 100 MP GFX 100S sensor look like") may be capable of 16-bit readout - a frame rate at 16 bits appeared in a spec leak (it's a big speed loss compared to running the sensor at 14 bits). Right now, only a few very high-end medium format sensors used by Hasselblad and Phase One have 16-bit readouts. The 50 MP medium format sensor in the Pentax 645Z, Fuji GFX 50 S and R and Hasselblad X1D along with some of the more affordable backs does not. I haven't seen anything one way or the other on the GFX 100 sensor, but this suggests that it at least might.
This suggests two things - first, that the GFX 100 might feature 16-bit output (even if the sensor is capable of 16-bit readout, the rest of the pipeline after the sensor also needs to support 16-bit to get it to the output). Second, we could see a 24x36mm camera that supports 16-bit mode as soon as next year. Right now, the highest dynamic range cameras (D850/Z7/A7r II/A7r III) are pushing right at the edge of what's possible with a 14-bit file. When the Nikon D3x came out a decade ago, it was the first non medium-format camera to support 14bit, and it was at a time when 12-bit sensors were right up against the edge of their readout, as 14-bit sensors are now.
It made about half a stop or a bit more of difference in low-ISO dynamic range against the Sony Alpha 900, which used a very similar sensor, but with a conventional 12-bit output (or against the D3x itself in 12-bit mode). The early 14-bit sensor in the D3x also took close to a 75% performance hit in 14-bit mode. It looks from one line on a spec sheet that the 60 MP sensor will take about a 60% performance hit in 16-bit mode - might the D3x experience be a guide to what we could expect from the 60 MP sensor - about half a stop of extra DR over the best conventional sensors , mostly close to base ISO?
Of course, the D3x was also terribly expensive - it had the best image quality yet seen short of medium format, but you paid much more than a linear jump in price for it. A big part of that was probably the 14-bit pipeline... The first 16-bit 24x36mm camera may also carry a big premium.
Over the next few years, 16-bit sensors may become the norm, the performance hit will go down (the D800, four years after the D3x, was one of the first cameras where 14-bit mode came without a performance penalty), and the actual dynamic range will get close to what the readout can support.
-
Thanks for the incisive posts. Here are two thoughts from a novice who recently bought a camera.
Fuji: The "worms" (watery raw conversion artifacts in images with a lot of fine detail, especially foliage) have got to be costing them a large number of sales. I was extremely close to getting an XT-2 a few months ago and eventually demurred because of this. What's the point of buying a good camera and good glass if the raw files have these problems? I realize they might be relatively uncommon, but there's really no excuse for serious flaws like this if I'm going to pay thousands of dollars for a camera and lenses. Yes, I realize messing with LR sharpening settings helps. And yes, I realize that moving to Capture One helps more. (Though that's an additional $300 cost.) But there are worms even in C1, from what I can tell. The Fuji raw format itself seems to be the culprit.
(I would love to be corrected on this. If I can find definitive proof there's a way to make the worms 100% disappear with some reasonable post-processing combination, I'll buy a XT-3 with my next paycheck. But I've searched long and hard and haven't found one.)
Also, the cameras appear to "bake in" lens corrections to the raw files that can't be removed in lightroom. Do you want your fisheye to show the characteristic distortion? Too bad, you don't have that option!
Sony: The E-mount is essentially a crop sensor sized mount. In the longer term Nikon and Canon have much more room for innovative and ultra-fast lenses with the large throat diameters on their new mirrorless mounts. And Sony ergonomics, menus, and customer support are apparently awful. That really put me off their cameras.
-
Worms in Fuji files with C1? I’m working many years with this combination and have never seen any worm effects at all. The last time I’ve seen these worms was several years ago with Adobe’s CameraRaw, so I’m familiar with the effect itself.
My humble suggestion: invest in a decent RAW converter. It just might bring you better results than the latest and greatest camera. By the way, C1 for Fuji is free, right?
Regards,
Jaap.
-
Sony: The E-mount is essentially a crop sensor sized mount. In the longer term Nikon and Canon have much more room for innovative and ultra-fast lenses with the large throat diameters on their new mirrorless mounts. And Sony ergonomics, menus, and customer support are apparently awful. That really put me off their cameras.
This? Again? I'll have to bin my f1.2 lenses which I thought worked perfectly on my A7.
-
Sony: The E-mount is essentially a crop sensor sized mount. In the longer term Nikon and Canon have much more room for innovative and ultra-fast lenses with the large throat diameters on their new mirrorless mounts. And Sony ergonomics, menus, and customer support are apparently awful. That really put me off their cameras.
I suggest less sitting on the net and reading other people's posts...instead get a camera and try it out for yourself. Way too much internet echo BS out there manufactured by Sony haters.
-
I suggest less sitting on the net and reading other people's posts...instead get a camera and try it out for yourself. Way too much internet echo BS out there manufactured by Sony haters.
The Sony E mount is to mirrorless what the F mount has been to DSLRs. It is too small to be optimal but large enough to design excellent lenses.
Stating the the Z and R mount are significantly superior isn’t Sony hatred, it is a fact.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The Sony E mount is to mirrorless what the F mount has been to DSLRs. It is too small to be optimal but large enough to design excellent lenses.
Stating the the Z and R mount are significantly superior isn’t Sony hatred, it is a fact.
Cheers,
Bernard
The question for me, as usual, is quantitative rather than yes/no: how much of a difference does the extra mount diameter make? This will mostly be for lenses offering very low f-stops. If Nikon and Canon can use clearly better designs for things like a 50/1.2 or 85/1.2 or maybe a standard zoom faster than f/2.8, they might have some significant advantage, if only in some specific and rather high end use-cases. OTOH, if the extra options are just very extreme designs like f/0.95, the difference will be almost entirely about bragging rights.
I doubt that Canon and Nikon both stupidly burdened themselves with oversized mounts, but it is not clear yet what fraction of ILC users will experience significant benefits.
-
The Sony E mount is to mirrorless what the F mount has been to DSLRs. It is too small to be optimal but large enough to design excellent lenses.
Stating the the Z and R mount are significantly superior isn’t Sony hatred, it is a fact.
Cheers,
Bernard
Seems like there are some exceptional lenses designed for the Sony mount...some that are class leading as tested by Lensrental. Sure...maybe one can't get f0.95 lenses onto the Sony mount...but then who in the hell wants to lug a monster around with them?
Bernard...have you looked at the Sony 12-24 zooms which kills the Nikon 14-24 or perhaps the 24-105 zoom which is the best 24-105 made or perhaps the 100-400 zoom which again is the best out there. Have you looked at the Sony 85 prime?
Sure if one shoots test charts one might see some improvements in the deep corners of lenses designed for the larger mounts...but tell me this Bernard...is it test charts that you shoot?
I can guarantee you that YOU could not pick out which lens was used to create say 24x36 prints in a gallery from the 30 that are hanging there. That's the bottom line...the rest is just fanboyism running rampant on the net and the camera manufactures marketing teams have everyone jumping for that last pixel in the deep dark corner of the image.
-
The question for me, as usual, is quantitative rather than yes/no: how much of a difference does the extra mount diameter make? This will mostly be for lenses offering very low f-stops. If Nikon and Canon can use clearly better designs for things like a 50/1.2 or 85/1.2 or maybe a standard zoom faster than f/2.8, they might have some significant advantage........
I think what you're missing is the advantage in creating wide angle lenses. Those have historically been the most difficult.
Kent in SD
-
I think what you're missing is the advantage in creating wide angle lenses. Those have historically been the most difficult.
Kent in SD
Could be. Good wide angle designs are hard, but I have no idea how much the difficulties relate to a narrower vs wider throat. One thing that makes them hard for SLRs is the need to have the rear elements so far from the focal plane, so on that count, all the new mirrorless mounts make it easier. (Aside: this is one reason that all the hopes/predictions about staying with existing SLR mounts makes no sense.)
-
Sure...maybe one can't get f0.95 lenses onto the Sony mount...but then who in the hell wants to lug a monster around with them?
Leica's 50/0.95 Noctilux exhibits no more corner vignetting on an A7iii than on a Leica. Which is to say, there is some but it's intrinsic to the lens. Sony's FE mount is likely on the edge of acceptability for such ultra-fast lenses, but then such lenses are on the edge of practicability for real-world applications.
When different camera systems are effectively equal in real-world value, outlier cases are what brand acolytes must seize upon to justify their continued allegiance.
-Dave-
-
Seems like there are some exceptional lenses designed for the Sony mount...some that are class leading as tested by Lensrental. Sure...maybe one can't get f0.95 lenses onto the Sony mount...but then who in the hell wants to lug a monster around with them?
Bernard...have you looked at the Sony 12-24 zooms which kills the Nikon 14-24 or perhaps the 24-105 zoom which is the best 24-105 made or perhaps the 100-400 zoom which again is the best out there. Have you looked at the Sony 85 prime?
Sure if one shoots test charts one might see some improvements in the deep corners of lenses designed for the larger mounts...but tell me this Bernard...is it test charts that you shoot?
I can guarantee you that YOU could not pick out which lens was used to create say 24x36 prints in a gallery from the 30 that are hanging there. That's the bottom line...the rest is just fanboyism running rampant on the net and the camera manufactures marketing teams have everyone jumping for that last pixel in the deep dark corner of the image.
The Nikon 14-24 f2.8 is a 10 years old design, I sure hope that the Sony betters it. Not sure why you use the word kill.
I am also not sure why you speak about good enough in a conversation focused on better performance in relation to the mount.
Even the good old Nikon 14-24 f2.8 is good enough isn’t it?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The Nikon 14-24 f2.8 is a 10 years old design, I sure hope that the Sony betters it. Not sure why you use the word kill.
I am also not sure why you speak about good enough in a conversation focused on better performance in relation to the mount.
Even the good old Nikon 14-24 f2.8 is good enough isn’t it?
Cheers,
Bernard
Not the one I had. Sucked big time in the corners...easily saw issues in my prints.
The Sony 12-24 is better than the Canon 11-24 which weighs twice as much and costs at least twice the Sony. Yeh...head to head with the Nikon...Sony truly kills it...I used both.
-
... the Sony 12-24 zooms which kills the Nikon 14-24...
I think we all agree that the 46.5mm deep Nikon F-mount was a disadvantage, and this is especially so for short focal lengths, where it constrains the rear elements to be far further from the focal plane than is possible with 18mm deep E-mount (or any modern non-SLR mount). To makes things worse, F-mount also has a slightly narrower throat than E-mount, 44mm vs 46.1mm.
The more forward-looking question is how Z-mount lenses will compare in performance and bulk to E-mount lenses, especially ones at the challenging extremes of speed and wide-angle coverage.
-
Leica's 50/0.95 Noctilux exhibits no more corner vignetting on an A7iii than on a Leica.
No surprise: E-mount is a bit wider and distinctly shallower than Leica M mount, so a lens designed for the latter will be fine on the former. The existence and performance of that 50/0.95 shows that it is possible to design a fairly extreme lens like that for E-mount—the next question is whether Z-mount (or Canon R-mount, which no one here seems to care about!) allows optically better and/or less bulky designs for such lenses.
-
I see this thread has resolved to the usual LL discussion, pixels, mounts and other numbers but in response to an earlier post.
Conjecture: the photojournalism landscape changes so much in the next 5–10 years that sports photography as a business all but disappears.
Photojournalism has transitioning from any specialization whatsoever for at least 10 years now and dedicated stills shooters aren't even considered.
https://www.thebaron.info/news/article/2018/11/18/reuters-accelerates-news-picturesvideo-merger
-
I see this thread has resolved to the usual LL discussion, pixels, mounts and other numbers but in response to an earlier post.
Photojournalism has transitioning from any specialization whatsoever for at least 10 years now and dedicated stills shooters aren't even considered.
https://www.thebaron.info/news/article/2018/11/18/reuters-accelerates-news-picturesvideo-merger
Yes and the rumoured A7S3 sounds like a killer system for this purpose.
-
Photojournalism has transitioning from any specialization whatsoever for at least 10 years now and dedicated stills shooters aren't even considered.
https://www.thebaron.info/news/article/2018/11/18/reuters-accelerates-news-picturesvideo-merger
Yep. I had videography in mind as well as stills…but failed to make that explicit.
-Dave-
-
(Aside: this is one reason that all the hopes/predictions about staying with existing SLR mounts makes no sense.)
Nikon is a smaller company with limited resources. When the switch was made from S mount rangefinder to Nikon F around 1960, I can't find any new S lenses introduced after then.
Kent in SD
-
The S system had many fewer users than the F mount has now, and Nikon is a much bigger company now than it was in postwar Japan (1960 was still before the Japanese economy took off). I'd be shocked not to see F mount lenses - we may see a decline in numbers as they try to fill out the Z line, but they'll still design lenses for the F mount. Sony has actually released several A mount lenses since the E mount came out, and the A mount is much less successful than the F mount. Is the long term future of Nikon the Z mount? Probably... Would I worry about a lack of support for the F mount in the next 5-10 years? NO.
-
My guess would be that we will see very few F mount lenses in the coming 2 years.
In my view, the only widely used lens that isn't best in class in their line up is the 14-24mm f2.8 and even so it remains pretty good in absolute terms. So Nikon is probably not feeling a strong need to consolidate further their leading position in the DSLR segment.
They will invest their best people and tools 99% on z mount until the line up is competitive, and that will take 2 years or so.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I think this makes the most sense Bernard. The existing F mount lenses are so strong and the range of Z mount glass so limited Nikon are sure to work on it very hard. In the mean time existing F glass with the adapter will make the system very functional.
-
I agree with Bernard and Martin: for a while Nikon and Canon will prioritise expanding their new 35mm format mirrorless mount product lines, for much the same reasons that Sony has recently produced more new products in 35mm format than APS-C. Some will interpret this as abandoning SLRs and/or APS-C, but that would be jumping to conclusions.
-
Given that the D850 is an outstanding camera, one wonders whether all of Nikon R&D will be oriented towards mirrorless cameras. Can the D850 really be improved upon?
-
Given that the D850 is an outstanding camera, one wonders whether all of Nikon R&D will be oriented towards mirrorless cameras. Can the D850 really be improved upon?
The could pop the new 60MP Sony sensor in it at the same time they upgrade the Z7 to Z8. Keep parity between mirrorless and DSLR.
-
... Can the D850 really be improved upon?
Of course it can, but the relatively low marginal utility and ROI probably put such improvements on the back burner for now. Some possibilities though: IBIS, better video (for all those news and sports photographers under increasing pressure to deliver video as well as stills but who still prefer Nikon’s DSLR AF), a future higher resolution sensor.
-
My two cents all cameras could benefit from better glass, some cameras with better glass need better AF systems in the lens to move the elements (not sure market will pay for that) and all cameras can benefit from better design (that the biggest area for improvement) todays cameras have yesterdays design.
My guess is the $5000 threshold is binding progress at this point in time, with cameras in a $1000 smart phone the masses are satisfied with the images and posting crap on line.
-
Given that the D850 is an outstanding camera, one wonders whether all of Nikon R&D will be oriented towards mirrorless cameras. Can the D850 really be improved upon?
If the Z8 is a mirrorless 850, then the 850 *will* be improved upon -- the size alone will be a large improvement.
All I hear are *crickets* when I repeatedly bring this up, but I really think size is the critical dimension in new cameras. You [Alan] said in an earlier post that you had a D300 and didn't feel restricted by the 12mp sensor, and I've pretty much given up my D800 for a 21mp m4/3, so I don't see why people should really be enthralled by the prospect of a 60mp sensor, or a 50...or anything really above something in the 20s. (I mean, I know there are a few reasons, like having the wrong lens and having to zoom by cropping, but...don't have the wrong lens.) Maybe that's where this is headed, though: we'll all carry 100mp cameras with nothing but a short zoom, and then zoom with the otherwise pointless mp's.
-
My guess would be that we will see very few F mount lenses in the coming 2 years.
I will go Bernard one further... I think we will see very few new F mount lenses in any coming years. There will likely be a few "next version" of long fast glass for sports shooters, particularly with the 2020 Olympics, but aside from that, what else is really missing from the current Nikkor lineup. Nikon needs to sell bodies, and aside from a D6 and perhaps a D860, new bodies will be Z mount. Anyone anticipating a variety of new F mount lenses is likely to be very dissapointed.
-
I will go Bernard one further... I think we will see very few new F mount lenses in any coming years. There will likely be a few "next version" of long fast glass for sports shooters, particularly with the 2020 Olympics, but aside from that, what else is really missing from the current Nikkor lineup. Nikon needs to sell bodies, and aside from a D6 and perhaps a D860, new bodies will be Z mount. Anyone anticipating a variety of new F mount lenses is likely to be very dissapointed.
They have been making F-mount lenses for 60 years. Where are the holes in the lineup?
-
Slow, compact primes worthy of their sensors. All too easy :)
I agree that there won't be many F-mount lenses from here on out. For the next 2-3 years, Nikon critically needs to get Z lenses out, and they've publicly committed to doing so with the roadmap. Sure, it isn't legally binding, but it'd be severely embarrassing for them to not come pretty close to what they've promised.
And in 2-3 years, when they'd have the option to ease up a bit, mirrorless will have taken over current sales, and projections for a lens' ~8 year lifespan will be even more favorable to mirrorless. Why would they revert to legacy production then?
They're not going to say the quiet part--everyone rebuying their lens kits in Z mount is *great* for Nikon--aloud, but it's not too hard to imagine it said in headquarters meetings...
-
If the Z8 is a mirrorless 850, then the 850 *will* be improved upon -- the size alone will be a large improvement.
All I hear are *crickets* when I repeatedly bring this up, but I really think size is the critical dimension in new cameras. You [Alan] said in an earlier post that you had a D300 and didn't feel restricted by the 12mp sensor, and I've pretty much given up my D800 for a 21mp m4/3, so I don't see why people should really be enthralled by the prospect of a 60mp sensor, or a 50...or anything really above something in the 20s. (I mean, I know there are a few reasons, like having the wrong lens and having to zoom by cropping, but...don't have the wrong lens.) Maybe that's where this is headed, though: we'll all carry 100mp cameras with nothing but a short zoom, and then zoom with the otherwise pointless mp's.
Certainly for me size is a big consideration. If I do go mirrorless, it would probably be with the Z6 as I don't see the need for the larger sensor of the Z7. We still don't have any full service camera stores here in the Washington DC area so I don't have the opportunity to hold one of these models in my hand. I really would like a lighter set for international travel than my D810.
-
I really would like a lighter set for international travel than my D810.
I've been using a D5300 with Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 for exactly that. It works very well. If it were to get stolen or dropped over the edge of a waterfall I wouldn't cry nearly as much as if I had dropped a Z6.
Kent in SD
-
All I hear are *crickets* when I repeatedly bring this up, but I really think size is the critical dimension in new cameras.
You're not alone in this, particularly when extending size considerations to lenses as well as bodies. I posted the attached pic in another thread, helping to make the point. The Domke shoulder bag contains a GX8, my 24–600mm "equiv" travel lens kit and fits under an airplane seat. :)
-Dave-
-
... I've pretty much given up my D800 for a 21mp m4/3, so I don't see why people should really be enthralled by the prospect of a 60mp sensor, or a 50...or anything really above something in the 20s. (I mean, I know there are a few reasons, like having the wrong lens and having to zoom by cropping, but...don't have the wrong lens.)
Agreed. I accept that some photographic niches require more detail than 645 color film ever gave (about 24-30MP?), but my feeling is that a great majority of even serious amateur and professional photographers do not have much need for more sensor pixels than mainstream formats (APS-C or even MFT) are now offering—or what the Z6 and other entry-level 35mm format cameras are offering.
Also, a close alternative to a 2X crop for increased reach is a 2X TC: same two-stop loss of speed, but better DR, as it takes the light that would go into the 2X crop, but spreads that light over the whole sensor.
I will however aim for about twice as many pixels on the sensor as I want on the final image, to allow for loose framing with erratically moving subjects like wildlife. But 20-24MP is already about there for me, going by 12MP after crop being fine for images viewed "normally": from a range where you are viewing the whole image, not "cropping with your feet" by standing too close.