Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: rogan on October 14, 2015, 07:47:07 pm
-
So let's talk about Nikon's future(said by a Nikon user)
Do you really think know that Sony has attempted to get in the Pro game they will keep selling Nikon their best Sensors? Would you if you were Sony? (Play along, anyone who has used the recent Sony's know they aren't a "pro" camera but are very good and at least it has some new innovative features)
Name a Nikon feature in the past 5 years that was a game changer?
Name a Nikon lens in the past 5 years that was a game changer or even better than a third party option?
It seems like they(and Canon) have been treading water.
The D800-810 are amazing camera's. But Nikon need a mirrorless to supplement the system bad. And with them losing more and more money every year how much is going into pro R&D? Are they ripe to be bought? Sony?(would instantly round out their lens system) Samsung? Instantly a player in the camera game with unlimited cash for R&D and sensor making capabilities?
I know I won't invest another dime in Nikon until they release a pro mirrorless.
I have bought the Sony and the files and lenses are great but the cameras are so annoying to use. I would kill for Canon or Nikon to make one so it handles right, had usable buttons and a menu that made sense.
All above minus the sensor issue also applies to Canon as well.
Please note, I couldn't care less about camera companies. I have zero loyality. I use what works.
-
Same here, I have zero loyalties. I will mix and match cameras and lenses if I have to. With Sony E mount, that's what a lot of people are doing anyway!
I don't believe Sony will ever stop selling sensors to other camera makers. That's a huge business for them, now even in the Medium Format market!
I feel that Canon has been making great updated lenses with the 35 1.4 II and the 11-24, and their Tilt-Shift lenses. I'm a fan of the 5DsR in terms of the way the detail is rendered, and the grain structure. Highlights can be recovered better than most people think, but bring up the shadows and you have more noise than Sony/Nikon.
The RAW files from the A7RII that I've played with are fantastic. Haven't used the camera.
Nikon is capable of making great lenses. The 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR currently ranks number 2 in the world! (below the 85 Otus).
Also, I don't like this idea that Mirrorless should be a small camera body. Why? Nikon and Canon should release the same Pro bodies that we're used to using, but without the mirror!
-
Also, I don't like this idea that Mirrorless should be a small camera body. Why? Nikon and Canon should release the same Pro bodies that we're used to using, but without the mirror!
Never considered that but interesting. I do think the new Sony is slightly too small. Maybe the same size as the d810 wouldn't be a bad idea.
-
Sony sold off their chip division into it's own company, so I don't think Nikon will have trouble with chips.
Paul
-
A few elements:
- As far as I know, Nikon isn't loosing money, they are profitable,
- Many of their recent lenses focus on look more than on technical perfection (they are still very good technically though), and they are doing a very good job there,
- The best 35mm lenses (Otus, super teles,...) are only available natively on Nikon and Canon,
- Till now their bodies must have generated a majority of Sony's sensors sales in numbers, and probably even more in revenue, I doubt that Sony would want to do without these revenues,
- So far they have managed to extract better image quality from the Sony chips than Sony themselves,
- The ecosystem remains superior for Nikon/Canon, think about Profoto's TTL to cite just one example relevant to my needs,
- They have all the technical bricks to do mirrorless any time they deem relevant (Nikon 1 series remains the fastest focusing mirrorless camera).
Whatever the hype, I personally still find EVF to offer a significantly worse shooting experience that OVF, I don't think I am alone in that. That must somehow influence Nikon's strategy.
So yes, Sony has been playing very well and they have a bright future ahead of them, but I don't see Nikon and Canon going out of business. They still have strong assets and, besides for compactness, still offer the best photographic tools.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
Sony "spins off" the sensor production so it will be an independent business entity. It will of course sell sensors to anyone willing to buy.
Best regards
Erik
A few elements:
- As far as I know, Nikon isn't loosing money, they are profitable,
- Many of their recent lenses focus on look more than on technical perfection (they are still very good technically though), and they are doing a very good job there,
- The best 35mm lenses (Otus, super teles,...) are only available natively on Nikon and Canon,
- Till now their bodies must have generated a majority of Sony's sensors sales in numbers, and probably even more in revenue, I doubt that Sony would want to do without these revenues,
- So far they have managed to extract better image quality from the Sony chips than Sony themselves,
- The ecosystem remains superior for Nikon/Canon, think about Profoto's TTL to cite just one example relevant to my needs,
- They have all the technical bricks to do mirrorless any time they deem relevant (Nikon 1 series remains the fastest focusing mirrorless camera).
Whatever the hype, I personally still find EVF to offer a significantly worse shooting experience that OVF, I don't think I am alone in that. That must somehow influence Nikon's strategy.
So yes, Sony has been playing very well and they have a bright future ahead of them, but I don't see Nikon and Canon going out of business. They still have strong assets and, besides for compactness, still offer the best photographic tools.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A few elements:
- As far as I know, Nikon isn't loosing money, they are profitable,
- Many of their recent lenses focus on look more than on technical perfection (they are still very good technically though), and they are doing a very good job there,
- The best 35mm lenses (Otus, super teles,...) are only available natively on Nikon and Canon,
- Till now their bodies must have generated a majority of Sony's sensors sales in numbers, and probably even more in revenue, I doubt that Sony would want to do without these revenues,
- So far they have managed to extract better image quality from the Sony chips than Sony themselves,
- The ecosystem remains superior for Nikon/Canon, think about Profoto's TTL to cite just one example relevant to my needs,
- They have all the technical bricks to do mirrorless any time they deem relevant (Nikon 1 series remains the fastest focusing mirrorless camera).
Whatever the hype, I personally still find EVF to offer a significantly worse shooting experience that OVF, I don't think I am alone in that. That must somehow influence Nikon's strategy.
So yes, Sony has been playing very well and they have a bright future ahead of them, but I don't see Nikon and Canon going out of business. They still have strong assets and, besides for compactness, still offer the best photographic tools.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
"As of today I agree with you. Nikon may now be profitable but for how much longer? Sales are going down every year. Sooner or later something has to give.
Many of their recent lenses focus on look more than on technical perfection (they are still very good technically though), and they are doing a very good job there," Please tell me you are thinking of something other than the joke of a 58mm.
"The ecosystem remains superior for Nikon/Canon, think about Profoto's TTL to cite just one example relevant to my needs"
This is something profoto has to fix not sony or nikon. All they need to release is a Sony air remote.
- The best 35mm lenses (Otus, super teles,...) are only available natively on Nikon and Canon,
Actually Sony/zeiss seem to be holding their own. Super teles, no but how many actually use longer than 300mm? 5-10 percent. and there is no reason mirrorless couldn't use them just as well in the future.
With mp getting higher the biggest problem is af accuracy. Focussing thru all of dslr's glass and plastic as well as a flopping mirror leaves so much room for error. For someone who shoots like you not a huge deal but someone like me who is rarely below 2.8 on moving people this is huge. As well af tune is terrible to deal with and doesn't work well on zooms. Canon and Nikon have to wake up and add mirrorless to their system. It could work with all current lenses via an adapter. I am NOT saying they should discontinue anything but add to their lineup.
Nikon and Canon are so worried about keeping their systems closed. Sony has had to take a new way of looking at things and so far it has worked. Are they way ahead, no. But in two years they are right there. I just really want to see something new and exciting out of Nikon.
-
Nikon is a strong company and will certainly have a future, but I don't see a future for Nikon with me. And I say that as a long term Nikon user and former fanboi who has convinced many folks to get into the gold ringed ecosystem in the past.
The reasons are manyfold. To start with, ever since I have added a medium format kit to my arsenal, I rarely use the D800 for the highest quality work. There are many here who can fill an encyclopedia with numbers and charts to argue how the Nikon is actually better, but for my use, it doesn't compare. Not even close.
I have been "tolerating" Nikon color for a while now. My first DSLR was a D70s, which had a beautiful Pop to its colors. That was somehow lost in the D90, D300s and D800 I have used since then. I was so resigned to getting dead, unimpressive colors out of the camera and spending time in post fixing them up that I stopped caring about it. That was until I got myself a Fuji x e1. After setting up my own profiles for it, I see beautiful color from its files which would take a lot more work on the Nikons to match. I got the MF system primarily for its color rendering and now I have a supporting system that has similar priorities. The Nikon system sadly, is at the back of the line.
The whole internet and their grandma are waxing lyrical about the Sony CMOS sensors, so let me be the trend breaker and say, I am not a fan of the "Sony look" anymore. It is too clinical, too plasticky, too perfect for me. Same goes for my Nikkors. Fine texture just does not render the way I want it to be. Again, I see the MF kit and the Fuji (which might have that Sony sensor, but their own CFA makes the difference) doing it better, more naturally. I was thunderstruck by the 36MP claim of the D800 and loved it until I started working with MF. Lots of pixels is great, but lots of pixels used correctly is a different matter altogether. Again with the Fuji, I see 16, very high quality pixels in the files. Still not enough to make big prints like I do with the Nikon, but some day soon they will have a higher MP x-trans sensor and i will be waiting.
But most importantly for me, the difference in shooting experience is what matters. I love the shooting experience of the MF kit. It is very different from anything else and I have no problem carrying all that up any remote location, as I know exactly what I want to shoot with it. The Nikon kit, I used to find a chore to carry around. I still did it because there are many things an MF camera is not ideal for or is too much camera, but I found myself enjoying it less and less. It's too bulky to be used as a versatile solution and what it is supposed to do best (high quality, planned shots), my MF kit is better suited for.
It finally came to the point where I was just shooting pictures so that I can console myself that I shot something. That was when I decided to get myself the Fuji. It was a gamble for not so much money, but boy, it paid off. We went hiking for fall images the other day and for the first time in a long time, I found myself enjoying moving around with a smaller format camera and shooting. I loved how there are real dials for every setting rather than button presses and control wheels. It was something akin to what I used to feel when I used to walk around with my first proper camera, a Vivitar SLR with a lowly 28-70 lens.
I have all but decided that when Fuji comes up with a higher MP XE body, I will get rid of all the Nikon get and move all in into Fuji as my smaller system. Two bodies and 4 lenses can still be fitted into a side bag and I will actually enjoy using them.
There are lots of people out there for whom the Nikon offerings work great. Neither smaller formats, nor MF will satisfy their needs. I am not one of them. Not anymore
-
Many of their recent lenses focus on look more than on technical perfection (they are still very good technically though), and they are doing a very good job there," Please tell me you are thinking of something other than the joke of a 58mm.
I definitely think that the 58mm f1.4 is part of that trend (I don't own a copy but have seen many outstanding images shot with it), but it is only just one example. The whole f1.4 line up is focused on look.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I think that Nikon missed a trick with the Df.
If that at been a mirrorless FX format in a body the size of an FM2n, it would have provided the "retro" look they were after in a really attractive specification.
I love my D810 and D800E cameras but would have liked them to be slightly more compact and without the disadvantages of an archaic mirror/pentaprism mechanism.
-
Nikon and Canon should release the same Pro bodies that we're used to using, but without the mirror!
Amen!
Synn, I agree with you on MF, but have you tried MF with one of the Sony sensors? I have and I want one. But then I wouldn't use my 810 and I'm not sure it's worth it to get rid of all my Nikon gear. BTW, the Otus will hang right in there with MF Rodenstock lenses. But to touch on one more item before I close - Nikon color. Yuck! I don't know how Nikon did it, but going from the 800 to the 810 something got lost in translation as the colors take a lot of work in PP to get right. With the 800 I created a profile with the ColorChecker and it worked well, while a created profile for the 810 didn't (work well). Actually I wish they would have stayed with D700 color profiles.
I don't believe Nikon is sitting on their thumbs, but it would be nice to hear of something good coming in the pipeline.
-
I thought (the D800 sensor at least) Sony made sensors to Nikon's design? I like my D800E but I'm growing more and more sure this will be my last Nikon camera:
The level of innovation is so poor other than the latest Sony sensor, there is no compelling reason to upgrade and the DSLR as a whole is very limited and an evolutionary dead-end.
I now only own one Nikon lens (70-200) because of their huge price hikes, gaps in their lenses line (or very dated lenses) and their fast primes are started to be consistently outperformed by cheaper, better made third party lenses (Sigma/Tamron).
I sold all my Nikon flashes because they were so far behind modern third party alternatives (lithium powered V860) selling for a fraction of the price.
I've been badly treated by Nikon service and claiming 'impact damage' on every service request is getting ridiculous.
Huge quality failures on almost every major release, then releasing 'fixed' versions (D610, D810, SB910) so the used value get hammered.
-
I can agree on the service aspect, as my latest episode with Nikon Service was less than stellar. If you are not NPS, then service with Nikon is a bit of a crap shoot. But what really amazed me was how the D810 was sent back to me as I am sure if I had sent it in to Nikon Service that they would have claimed "damaged in shipment". And Nikon's service tech/line is a bit hard to work with also. As each person I called gave me me a different story on the repair. End result, Nikon did fix the camera, and I got it back.
Color:
I also love the colors from the Fuji X trans sensors, and still hope to see Adobe get closer to a solution for the finer details in LR or ACR. I still prefer the look of the Fuji from LR over C1. And if Fuji does make a 24MP (Please) sensor things will get interesting indeed. I also like the files from the Olympus and it's ability to create the 40Mp high detailed files, but just don't want to make that investment right now, maybe Fuji will follow along this line of technical improvements.
With Nikon, I find I don't have a lot of trouble with the D810, and do prefer it's color over the D800 series of cameras. Again, LR to me has more options, with their list of available profiles. I realize that it's an individual type call. I tried the A7rII, but ended up sending it back as I just did not see that much improvement over what I was getting from the D810, in the lower iso ranges. And as a Nikon shooter, the A7rII, just becomes a manual focus camera 100% of the time unless you are willing to invest in a lot of A mount glass, or Canon glass. If an adapter is made (that is quality and won't damage a lens like Metabones can do) that allows AF on Nikon glass with Sony, then I would reconsider for sure.
Paul
-
I now only own one Nikon lens (70-200) because of their huge price hikes, gaps in their lenses line (or very dated lenses) and their fast primes are started to be consistently outperformed by cheaper, better made third party lenses (Sigma/Tamron).
This is interesting because those same Sigma wonders are mostly considered by the Japanese photographers I know here in Tokyo to have an ugly rendering compared to their Nikon equivalents. ;)
They consider that look at f1.4 is the most important aspect of those lenses, far more so than their DxO rating.
This is what Nikon focuses on in their designs.
I personaly own the Sigma 35mm f1.4, and find it very sharp... but I am lot in love with its bokeh. I far prefer the overal feel of the images shot with the Nikon 35mm f1.4.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have been "tolerating" Nikon color for a while now.
Yeah, that's my one real gripe with Nikon after the switch from Canon.
The images out of the 800's are flat as a tack and need more work than what I shot on 1DsIII's.
That said, a little post and they can be amazing compared to what you got out of DSLR's previously.
As far as the future is concerned, I see Nikon as very much still in the game, but against a very determined Sony and a reawakening Canon.
All this competition is good for photographers.
-
Nikon has the 1 series of camera's for some time now while gathering experience and at some point they will introduce it to full frame.
I guess it will be this year or 2016. There are still some problems with the OVF -
slower - missing the action- the AF on the sensor means you mutilate the image a bit...
-
After further thought though I think it should have the ability to have it's own lenses and the G lenses.
The new 25 batis is so nice partly because you aren't designing around a mirror box. It makes lenses sharper and smaller.
Then an adapter to use G lenses at the same speed as it would be the same basic technology.
-
I'll guess Nikon will at some point come out with some huge megapixel mirrorless. I hope it isn't so flimsy and tiny that it will be like hanging a cellphone on the back of their 70-200mm f/2.8 though. Haven't been all that impressed with EVF either over optical, and LCD on the back is worse for me in daylight.
Aside, somewhere back I read that Sony was using Nikon's stepper technology to make the first large sensors for Nikon as well as Nikon's microscope imaging that Sony does not have. Seems it was a partnership of sharing some technology, just Nikon stipulated using it first before Sony could make their own iterations.
Thing that scares me about Sony is they just abandon stuff in a few years. Think about Betamax, Walkman, Watchman, XQD cards, Memory Sticks, Trinitron, and now they stopped making personal computers and just dumped their Vaio laptops too. I wouldn't trust building a system around Sony, plus their service always sucks no matter the device they made (and worse than Nikon too!). Lenses are a bit slow too against some of the faster Canon f/1.2 glass and some of the Nikons. I wouldn't be surprised if the dump the a lineup and go to a new mount, or just dump the entire line and make sensors and chips for cellphones.
I'm waiting to see what becomes of the Light.co L-16 thing too next year. I'm getting too old to lug this heavy stuff all over the place, plus the sheer size of it has gotten me into issues with permits and rangers too claiming (from its size) "It must be for commercial use and you need some $300 daily permit." If I could get good imaging out of some 1 pound bag of gear then I'd jump ship. No way would I attempt to bag and carry 4x5 or even MF now, much less plug-in another bag of tethering stuff too. Leave that stuff in the studio... forever. Don't know if the L-16 camera will be a game changer or not and hurt the big guys, but I saw where Apple took out a patent based on the Light.co folded-optics design last week so something must be in that for their future.
SG
-
I tried the EVF on the OM-D EM-5 mk.II and it was really amazing. That being said I used OVFs since my parents gave my a Olympus OM-1n when I was very little, so I can go either way.
As long as I can take pictures, I don't care!
-
Yeah, that's my one real gripe with Nikon after the switch from Canon.
The images out of the 800's are flat as a tack and need more work than what I shot on 1DsIII's.
That said, a little post and they can be amazing compared to what you got out of DSLR's previously.
I just don't get this. It all depends on profile used for shooting JPG or for NEF conversion. Both are editable, but the profiles in camera are more of a chore.
I highly recommend a colorchecker passport custom profile. Even if you just make a single dual illuminant profile for your camera and use that it will be much better than Adobe Standard in ACR or more neutral than any of the Nikon profiles. I found the size of correction mores dramatically decreased once I started with a custom profile.
-
Sony is into a world of other shit besides still photography, which is a minor part of their business so far. They are essentially a video and tv company with a great chip making capability. But there are certainly other chip makers, some in Japan of course, some in Korea, some in China that will come along. Samsung ate their lunch in the tv and blue ray market overnight. We're just looking at a snap shot right now, and there could be a totally different company we are talking about in 3 years - Fuji, Samsung, some German company, who knows. So is the world of photo today. It's all in flux now that still cameras are basically a sub-breed of video technology. I'll be you right now that if Sony wasn't licensing chips they wouldn't even be breaking even in still photo arena. They have so much invested in r and d just trying to produce an acceptable camera body, and really this latest version is the first really decent one. They might not even be breaking even without the chip sales. The printer market, that's pretty predictable, but the camera market, that's still up for grabs, and I would never count Nikon out. Who knows who will make their chips in a couple of years. Remember when everyone thought Apple would die because Motorola decided to quit selling them the Power Pc processor?
-
I just don't get this. It all depends on profile used for shooting JPG or for NEF conversion. Both are editable, but the profiles in camera are more of a chore.
I highly recommend a colorchecker passport custom profile. Even if you just make a single dual illuminant profile for your camera and use that it will be much better than Adobe Standard in ACR or more neutral than any of the Nikon profiles. I found the size of correction mores dramatically decreased once I started with a custom profile.
I have said this a hundred times on this forum before. I have created customs profiles, custom HSL settings, used a color checker, bought profiles such as Huelight, used phase one profiles etc Etc and Nikon colors still are not up to scratch. At least not to my standards. There is still a ton of contamination in the channels compared to MF.
There might be people who are extremely happy with the color rendering of the Nikons and good for them. I unfortunately have not shot a single frame on the nikons that didn't need extensive work later.
The D800 makes a hell of a B&Wcam though.
-
I think that Nikon "lost" it with the introduction of the D800... Up to that point, Nikon users were using "fat pixel" cameras that had lots of character, if Nikon would have introduced a realreplacement to the D 700 by using the D4 sensor on the D800 body as an alternative offering to the D800E, they would have established themselfs as the leading manufacturer in the FF market IMO... Every single D 700 user was expecting a replacement for his camera at that point and they where highly dissapointed!
It is a pity really, because the 16mp sensor that was used on the D4 was (and is IMO) the best FF sensor ever... Nikon had the sensor but never provided the body! I used D800 , D 800E & D4 after I replaced the D700, now I'm using D800E & DF... still missing the D700 replacement! How stupid marketing may a maker have not to replace his major success camera for what it is?
Speaking of color accuracy and profiling, D800E is a total mess if compared to the D4 (original)/DF... The 16mp sensor must be the most color accurate sensor out of all FF sensors in the market.
Speaking of lenses, I now only use the Nikkor 17-35/2.8 (to have for WAs) & the 85/2.8 micro PC (occasionally with Kenko DGX 1.4X attached to it - highly recommended combination) and also kept my old 35-70/2.8 as a walk around lens... Sold everything else after I got the JAS adapter ($850) which allowed me to use all my (7 lenses from 35mm to 210mm plus the mutar 1.4 TC) Zeiss for Contax 645 glass on the Nikons with full dedication (and really fast & accurate AF)... Now I'm much, much, much, too much happier than if I have kept using my Nikkor lenses.
-
Standards what they are, I find just the opposite to be true, in fact extremely.
My first Nikon since the D1x (6MP) camera was the D800e, back in 2012. Before that I was either Phase or Canon. The Phase I kept the Canon I sold, overnight.
For my workflow, I still find the Nikon 800 series an excellent platform to work with for landscapes, I don't do studio/wedding so skin tone I can't speak to, but colors, I find Nikon does great. The D810 tweak took this to a slightly better level even still. However I still work up a lot of series taken from the 800e. I use both LR and C1, just depends it seems as both offer great tools and there are sometimes the tool set of LR works better, others C1. When shooting a Pano, I always stay with LR, as their solution for simple one line nodal or non nodal pans is excellent.
I have been doing photography pretty much all my life, digital since 1999 with my first Sony. Color has never been an issue, I just find I can get there.
I also agree that the D4 sensor was a unique sensor that had some great possibilities. But the cost fact to get there, kept me away as the great megapixel count of the 800 series makes for sense for my large print workflow.
I read these negative Nikon posts, and just really don't get it as the Nikon for me offers amazing DR, and color, just using either the default LR Camera profiles or the C1 single Nikon profile. My workflow now involves much more work in LR or C1, very little in CC besides final sharpening and some clarity work from Topaz. But I realize that no two photographers will either see a subject the same way or develop a photograph the same way.
But if the colors are that bad, why stay? I left Canon after 15 years both film and digital as soon as I saw the range of a D800 file (here on Lula and Fred Miranda), and have never looked back.
It's also been shown again and again on this site, in countless reviews and comparisons.
Back to the OP, Nikon's Future? well they have made some good and bad calls IMO, but they seem to be making more good than bad currently. But if the whole world decided to go mirrors and EVF only overnight, both Nikon and Canon would have some serious catching up to do for sure.
Paul
-
Standards what they are, I find just the opposite to be true, in fact extremely.
My first Nikon since the D1x (6MP) camera was the D800e, back in 2012. Before that I was either Phase or Canon. The Phase I kept the Canon I sold, overnight.
For my workflow, I still find the Nikon 800 series an excellent platform to work with for landscapes, I don't do studio/wedding so skin tone I can't speak to, but colors, I find Nikon does great. The D810 tweak took this to a slightly better level even still. However I still work up a lot of series taken from the 800e. I use both LR and C1, just depends it seems as both offer great tools and there are sometimes the tool set of LR works better, others C1. When shooting a Pano, I always stay with LR, as their solution for simple one line nodal or non nodal pans is excellent.
I have been doing photography pretty much all my life, digital since 1999 with my first Sony. Color has never been an issue, I just find I can get there.
I also agree that the D4 sensor was a unique sensor that had some great possibilities. But the cost fact to get there, kept me away as the great megapixel count of the 800 series makes for sense for my large print workflow.
I read these negative Nikon posts, and just really don't get it as the Nikon for me offers amazing DR, and color, just using either the default LR Camera profiles or the C1 single Nikon profile. My workflow now involves much more work in LR or C1, very little in CC besides final sharpening and some clarity work from Topaz. But I realize that no two photographers will either see a subject the same way or develop a photograph the same way.
But if the colors are that bad, why stay? I left Canon after 15 years both film and digital as soon as I saw the range of a D800 file (here on Lula and Fred Miranda), and have never looked back.
It's also been shown again and again on this site, in countless reviews and comparisons.
Back to the OP, Nikon's Future? well they have made some good and bad calls IMO, but they seem to be making more good than bad currently. But if the whole world decided to go mirrors and EVF only overnight, both Nikon and Canon would have some serious catching up to do for sure.
Paul
The purpose of my post is completely different than your quote and thus it hasn't been answered... The "core" of my post is that it is bad marketing to "change a winning horse" that people bet on and is trusted... By not replacing D700, Nikon did exactly that! ...ie the biggest marketing mistake a company could ever do! Either if one likes the D4 sensor in a D800 body or not, the same one has to admit that no serious company changes its winning horse, nor it "spits" on the millions of customers that supported them with all their power to enter the FF market and where (over)patient to wait (for longer than they should) for the modern replacement that ...never arrived! The consequences are inevitable... if a company turns its back to all their (up to that point) FF market, it is inevitable that a large proportion of that same market will turn its back to the company....
-
nor it "spits" on the millions of customers
"D700" and literally "millions of customers" who were either D700 owners waiting for this type of camera upgrade or were waiting to upgrade to it from APS-C ? are you serious about "millions" ?
-
"D700" and literally "millions of customers" who were either D700 owners waiting for this type of camera upgrade or were waiting to upgrade to it from APS-C ? are you serious about "millions" ?
Yes.... D700 sold constantly more than 300K cameras for each year of its production... it never fell lower than 300K (for full 12 months sales), on 2009 the sales where more than half a million in one year only.
-
The purpose of my post is completely different than your quote and thus it hasn't been answered... The "core" of my post is that it is bad marketing to "change a winning horse" that people bet on and is trusted... By not replacing D700, Nikon did exactly that! ...ie the biggest marketing mistake a company could ever do! Either if one likes the D4 sensor in a D800 body or not, the same one has to admit that no serious company changes its winning horse, nor it "spits" on the millions of customers that supported them with all their power to enter the FF market and where (over)patient to wait (for longer than they should) for the modern replacement that ...never arrived! The consequences are inevitable... if a company turns its back to all their (up to that point) FF market, it is inevitable that a large proportion of that same market will turn its back to the company....
Theodoros, we can agree to disagree.
Nikon had to move from 12MP, or get surpassed by everyone else, not just Canon, it's just that simple and the move was overdue. To stay with a D700 Fat pixel body @ 12 or 16MP would have been a bad marketing move to me. In fact staying in place much longer would have allowed Canon taken over that market segment with their 20MP cameras as they were starting to already. At least that's how I see it. Moving from 12 to 16 as they did with the D4 is just not enough for the vast majority of photographers who shoot Nikon and were also looking for more resolution. I believe Nikon did this move with the DF, and from what I have read, it's been a camera only used by a niche market of users, mainly due to cost and MP resolution. Lot of people loved the form factor of the D700, but did not want to stay at 12MP. So what would you do and design to stay competitive? Make a D700 with the D4 chip? I guess that might work, as it's a great chip but just no enough perceived resolution.
So back to the point of the post, I don't perceive the move from D700 Full frame to D800 series, then D810 as a bad markeing move, but instead as a major advance in the market. But again there are plenty of articles on this site and others that agree with that move by Nikon. But I guess only sales figures really can answer that, from April 2012 till now, and I don't have that info.
Paul
-
Paul,
...what would you do and design to stay competitive? Make a D700 with the D4 chip?
Why not? The D700 used the D3 chip.
-
Theodoros, we can agree to disagree.
Nikon had to move from 12MP, or get surpassed by everyone else, not just Canon, it's just that simple and the move was overdue. To stay with a D700 Fat pixel body @ 12 or 16MP would have been a bad marketing move to me. In fact staying in place much longer would have allowed Canon taken over that market segment with their 20MP cameras as they were starting to already. At least that's how I see it. Moving from 12 to 16 as they did with the D4 is just not enough for the vast majority of photographers who shoot Nikon and were also looking for more resolution. I believe Nikon did this move with the DF, and from what I have read, it's been a camera only used by a niche market of users, mainly due to cost and MP resolution. Lot of people loved the form factor of the D700, but did not want to stay at 12MP. So what would you do and design to stay competitive? Make a D700 with the D4 chip? I guess that might work, as it's a great chip but just no enough perceived resolution.
So back to the point of the post, I don't perceive the move from D700 Full frame to D800 series, then D810 as a bad markeing move, but instead as a major advance in the market. But again there are plenty of articles on this site and others that agree with that move by Nikon. But I guess only sales figures really can answer that, from April 2012 till now, and I don't have that info.
Paul
You seem not to understand what I'm saying Paul... I don't say that D800 should not be as it was... I just say that there should be another version (D800S?) bearing the D4 "guts"... It would cost them absolutely nothing to develop and produce the camera since the D4 sensor and processor where already at Sendai like it was happening with D700/D3... But I do bet you my hat (I don't have any :D) that the (hypothetical) D800S would have crashed the market and would have established Nikon as the number 1 FF maker...
EDIT:It would have kept all the D700 users faithful to the firm and would have made additional sales since many would have chosen a D800/D800S combination and it would have even provide buck up cameras for the D4 users.... Not to mention the thousands of "wedding pros" (god help us all... :-X ) all over the world that where using D700s already and couldn't care less for the D800's 36mps.... see?
-
The D800/E pairing could have been a low light 16 MP 8 fps / 36 MP sans OLPF pair. But that was then. Future is mirrorless. With or without Nikon.
-
You seem not to understand what I'm saying Paul... I don't say that D800 should not be as it was... I just say that there should be another version (D800S?) bearing the D4 "guts"... It would cost them absolutely nothing to develop and produce the camera since the D4 sensor and processor where already at Sendai like it was happening with D700/D3... But I do bet you my hat (I don't have any :D) that the (hypothetical) D800S would have crashed the market and would have established Nikon as the number 1 FF maker...
I fully agree with you on that idea, and did miss your point. I would have loved to see a D800s to go after the D4. I really tried to make the D4 work for me as it's rendering was unique. I liked the Df, using the same chip as the D4, but the cost to me was out of line (talking about marketing) as that got you closer to that 16MP chip for sure.
I just started using the D750, and albeit it's not a D4, I do like what I am seeing from it. But still keep my eyes open for a used D4.
Paul
-
The (original) D4 sensor has (IMO) the nearest to MF looks behaviour out of all FF sensors ever... The DR of it is absolutely impressive, no other FF camera comes close with what's left of it after processing for natural looks... Further more, the sensor can print at 36ppi a print that is better than other cameras at 72ppi... (only some MF sensors can do that) ....and then is the color, not only it is more accurate than any other FF sensor, but again the closest to an MF camera than any other FF sensor... It's kind of magic sensor really... something like "Cmos properties but with CCD looks"... If one blows on his (well calibrated) monitor a image out of a Nikon 16mp sensor at 200%, it behaves like other FF sensors behave at 100% (again, only some MF sensors can do that)... One doesn't believe that what he sees is at 200% unless he reads the 200% mark at the lower left corner....
I guess one can choose to believe either his eyes and experience, or some DXO rubbish or "web reviews of crap" or even the fanboy "opinions" that the web is full of... My opinion is simpler.... I have read so many BS on web, that I trust nothing unless I test it myself... Have even developed my own method of testing... I shoot a byzantine icon that includes gold leafs and has areas of dark blue paint that darkens until black and then compare it with the absolute... a 16X 88mp "true color" file of the same subject out of my multishot MFDB, using the same lens... The "perfect" Zeiss 120mm f4 APO micro of the Contax 645...
-
Theodoros,
Can you ellaborate on this 36ppi statement? I seems like I may have totally overlooked something big. ;)
Thanks.
I agree with you that there is something very special with the colors of Nikon's pro body series. I have kept found memories of my D3. I will most probably get a D5 and couldn't care less it won't be mirrorless!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Theodoros,
Can you ellaborate on this 36ppi statement? I seems like I may have totally overlooked something big. ;)
Thanks.
I agree with you that there is something very special with the colors of Nikon's pro body series. I have kept found memories of my D3. I will most probably get a D5 and couldn't care less it won't be mirrorless!
Cheers,
Bernard
The D4 sensor is much better than the D3/D700 one for artifacts being present (especially moire), with D3/D700 if one blows the image up to 200%, it is more likely that artifacts that will ruin the print will be quite present. The same happens with the D800 sensor where one, if blows the image at 200%, he observes artifacts that are hidden at 100%... With the 16mp sensor (and some older MFDBs - especially the ones with the Dalsa 33mp chip), the resistance to artifacts seems to be great to the extend that it is very rare for artifacts to be present.
Now, if one has mastered printing well and does the appropriate work to the final image as to print it at the required size feeding the printer always with 360ppi (for Epson) or 300ppi (for Canon), he will find that that if the required size requires printing at less than 72ppi (I use Epson 9900) of the original file without it being treated, there will be artifacts even after the treatment/cleanning/upsampling process... With the Nikon 16mp sensor (and some fat pixel -above 7μm pixel size) MFDBs, one may find that he can print an image with 360ppi output (after the appropriate treatment/sampling) even if the original file would require a 36ppi output to achieve the size of the print.
To do that, (in the few cases that it may be needed since the size is even larger that what a D800 would print at 72ppi), the treatment must be with the original file at 72ppi using the upsampling software to treat/upsample up to 360ppi the file, and then return the result back to PS and work on the size only using "bicubic smoother" (sometimes "bilinear" may work a little better depending on how availiable ppis divide with 360) process...
-
The Nikon Df uses the D4 sensor, and clocks data at 1/2 the rate of the D4. The image has less noise in it than the D4. The camera cost less than 1/2 the price of the D4. It works with Nikon lenses going back to 1959, and even older using an N->F adapter.
You can still buy new manual focus Ais lenses, with the same solid construction of lenses of the 1970s.
About the only thing Nikon can do to destroy their future is to abandon their past. That strategy worked out well for Canon. Nikon users are different, want to add new capability without dumping everything that they grew up using.
-
Having owned both, I can ensure you that there is no image quality discrepancy between D4 & DF whatsoever... they are absolutely identical (no matter what DXO or other web source claims)...
As for the relation of Nikon users (more than other camera users) with the tradition bonds you mention, being a 35 years Nikon user, I have to agree with you up to some extend... It was strong up to the F-301 introduction... It then suffered a lot until it stabilized again to a lower degree after Nikon introduced their first AF lenses (which where Nikon series E lenses renamed as Nikkors) and after there was continuous releases of AF cameras of questionable body quality and reliability until they settled to the F5/F100/F6 design which was then past to digital... At those days, (the dark days) Nikon's marketing was all over the place and the image to the Nikon funs was only kept live (but smaller) by keeping the FM2n and the AI-S lenses in production. Then the "Nikon fanatism" returned with the "modern" F5/F100/F6 and the later AF lenses, which reunited the two different sections of Nikon customers as (after many years) both the fans of the FM/FE/FA/F2/F3 designs and the ones of the modern designs could accept (and use) all the cameras and lenses... Then the fanatics shrunk further because Nikon wouldn't answer to Canon's FF sensor and because Nikon decided -for no reason- to abandon the aperture ring until they where back again (to a much smaller percentage - still valuable to the firm to have) with the D3 & the D-700.... That until Nikon decided to turn its back to them by not replacing the D700....
If you want my opinion, Nikon's shrinkage can only be stopped if they release (even now that they are late) the D4 sensor on a D800 body and... bring the bloody aperture ring back! DF is nothing more than an incapable for pro (meaning action) use Nikon body of nice looks and nostalgic approach (but great IQ)... If it lucked the aperture control wheel (using lenses with aperture ring instead), had the "big" AF system and had two cards, it would be much more appreciated by traditional Nikon fans...
-
For me, aperture rings are needed (I dislike using wheels with my right hand), and above everything else, the return of a proper focussing screen with split-image. I never liked the micro-prism surrounds, which just made more viewfinder space useless. I have had to buy an af 50mm because of my failing eyesight, which would not have been required using the split-image. A screen with the addition of squares would help, too, engraved on the screen itself. I know this, because I still also own an F3 with split-image screen. What could be so damnned difficult, Messrs Nikon?
Rob C
-
Is there a technical reason that explains why DSLR viewfinders have to be so tiny compared to old film cameras?
-
Since the introduction of the Canon EOS-1Ds, digital SLR cameras have been good enough for 99% of photography needs. Nikon, Canon and others have nothing to worry about in terms of quality. Perception and marketing are the main problems that needs to be addressed. The quality of digital images far outstrips the quality of print or digital monitors.
However, a new generation of smart phone users might cause an added concern. They post billions of images each day. Quality vs quantity may be the main problem to consider.
Cheers,
-
Is there a technical reason that explains why DSLR viewfinders have to be so tiny compared to old film cameras?
Yes, they anticipated that DSLR users would end up having to wear glasses cos' of the time they spend looking at screens. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Is there a technical reason that explains why DSLR viewfinders have to be so tiny compared to old film cameras?
Are they? The view finder on my FF D810 doesn't seem to be any smaller than those on the F100, and is bigger than those on the FE. The size of the viewfinder is a function of the image circle and finder magnification. The magnification is a compromise. Magnify the finder image too much and it would become too dark to see.
On APC format DSLRs the view finder is smaller because the image circle is smaller. This is why optical view finder can't work very well with formats much smaller than APC.
-
Are they? The view finder on my FF D810 doesn't seem to be any smaller than those on the F100, and is bigger than those on the FE. The size of the viewfinder is a function of the image circle and finder magnification. The magnification is a compromise. Magnify the finder image too much and it would become too dark to see.
On APC format DSLRs the view finder is smaller because the image circle is smaller. This is why optical view finder can't work very well with formats much smaller than APC.
The only great VF ever on a 24x36mm SLR was if one would choose the DA-2 to use on an F3.... just the reason why my first AF 35mm size SLR camera, was a digital one.... In fact I used digital first with my Contax 645 and I only invested on a digital Nikon later...
-
On APC format DSLRs the view finder is smaller because the image circle is smaller. This is why optical view finder can't work very well with formats much smaller than APC.
Yes: with sub-35mm format SLRs, be they digital or film, the same degree of magnification in the OVF would give a far smaller image, and increasing the magnification to compensate gives a dimmer image, particularly problematic in lower-end DSLRs designed to be used with entry level zoom lenses of only about f/5.6 at the long end. So the "APS-C" DSLR OVF designs are usually a compromise; higher actual magnification than 35mm forms SLRs (like 0.82x in the entry-level Canons, 1x in higher level Canons) but still a smaller OVF image (the above two examples give images only as big as 0.51x and 0.63x respectively in a 35mm format SLR OVF.)
Depending on what one wants of a viewfinder, many would change your last sentence "This is why optical view finder can't work very well with formats much smaller than APC 35mm format" – and some would change it to ". . . smaller than medium format"!
-
I think Sony today is, overall, a substantially less competent competitor in the photography market than Canon. Sony as a company is also unfocused and complacent, far more so than Canon had been between 1990 and 2005. If Nikon can still be in the position it is in today after Canon's 1995-2005 onslaught, I don't think Sony would squeeze out Nikon from being one of the major players in digital imaging in the foreseeable future. If anyone can really hurt Nikon, it is still Canon, not really Sony. If anything, Sony has incentive to cooperate with Nikon to try to beat Canon.
-
Are they? The view finder on my FF D810 doesn't seem to be any smaller than those on the F100, and is bigger than those on the FE. The size of the viewfinder is a function of the image circle and finder magnification. The magnification is a compromise. Magnify the finder image too much and it would become too dark to see.
I concur. I also use the DK-17M 1.2x viewfinder Magnifying Eyepiece on my D810. It protrudes a little from the back of the body, but the entire frame is still easily viewable. I highly recommend it. Had the DK-21M (I think that is the model number for rectangular viewfinder Nikons) on the D7100.
-
I understand brightness can be a problem on DSLR with really big AF sensors (less light reflected upwards in the viewfinder), but that is marginal.
Here are relative sizes of some cameras I own (with a 50mm 1.4 lens on 35mm equivalent FOV compared to a 100% and 1.00x viewfinder):
1) OM-1n has 97% coverage and 0.92x magnification, effective size of 0.89x;
2) Nikon FM2(n) has 93% coverage and 0.86x magnification, effective size of 0.80x;
3) Mamiya ZE has 94% coverage and 0.85x magnification, effective size of 0.80x;
4) Nikon D200 has 95% coverage and 0.95x magnification, effective size of 0.60x (adjusted for crop);
5) Nikon D7000 has nearly 100% coverage and 0.95x magnification, effective size of 0.63x (adjusted for crop).
So clearly there is a lot of difference in between the crop and full frame cameras I own. Now, I tried both the D700 (from a friend) and the D810 rented two times. The D700 has 95% coverage and 0.72x magnification, for an effective size of 0.68x. The D810 isn't that far from it, with 100% coverage and 0.70x magnification, for a 0.70x effective size. They are slightly bigger than the viewfinders in my crop cameras, but not by such a huge margin as my film cameras.
So, to reiterate, is there any technical reason we can't have full frame DSLR viewfinders to be at least closer to film cameras?
As for the DK-21M, I tried it and it's a pain in the ass wearing prescription glasses. It does make things bigger, but it hides parts of the viewfinder in the process, so I have to move around to see every corner. Though that's the tradeoff with a crop camera, so I live with it.
-
The difference is not between DSLR and film. It is between autofocus and manual focus. When 35mm film SLR moved to autofocus, most autofocus film bodies chose to reduce finder magnification in order to brighten the finder image and increase eye point. This was probably judged a good trade off because critical focus is no longer done through the finder, so bigger image for seeing small details is no longer as important. But brighter image is judged to be better for composition and for low light situations. Higher eye point also makes the finder easier and more pleasant to use because it allows the entire image to be easily seen in one view without poking out your eyes with the finder eye piece.
As you recall, many older film bodies had nice big finder images that helped with manual focus in bright light. For dimmer light one resorted to visual focus aids like split prism. But their finder images were all fairly dim compared to later autofocus cameras. Finder brightness and finder magnification have an inverse relationship. There is only so much light coming through the lens and up the mirror into the finder. If you magnify the image, you spread the same amount of light over a larger image and each part of the image become dimmer.
As you might also recall, many older film bodies also had low eye point, meaning you have to stick your eye ball right up to the eye piece to see the whole image. With a larger finder image, you would need larger and more expansive eye piece optics in order to afford a high eye point. That's why even mid range manual focus cameras had low eye points. You had to go all the way up to an F3 to get high eye point finder. By accepting a lower finder magnification, lower level autofocus cameras can give he same high eye point as was once available only in the F3 with an action finder.
-
But the trouble, of course, is that not all of us want to use autofocus all the time. Personally, I find that having gone to it because of failing eyesight, I still discover myself having to override it much of the time.
I need no magnifier for my F3, but have one on both the D200 and D700; as I said earlier, give us a break - give us a split-image! My af camera screens (the above) suck big time; not just because unaided they feel small, but because the surface of the screens isn't manul focus-friendly.
Rob C
-
@Chuck: Thanks! That's what I wanted to know.
@Rob: I'm with you. The times I use my 50mm f/1.4 AF-D with the D200 I'm often struggling getting the eyes in perfect focus. It's a great little camera, but damn whenever AF doesn't work well it becomes a real pain to fix it manually.
-
Sony sold off their chip division into it's own company, so I don't think Nikon will have trouble with chips.
Paul
Pretty much, this should bring an end to any preferential treatment the Sony camera division might get, whats more that camera division is likely to either be put in the same situation or at least pushed to turn a profit so any loss selling to try and build market share will be much harder to achieve.
I think that Nikon missed a trick with the Df.
If that at been a mirrorless FX format in a body the size of an FM2n, it would have provided the "retro" look they were after in a really attractive specification.
I love my D810 and D800E cameras but would have liked them to be slightly more compact and without the disadvantages of an archaic mirror/pentaprism mechanism.
Really though that's a much bigger technical shift for Nikon, the Df was I'd imagine quite cheap/easy to create, a new body design but no new tech needed.
I do agree theres definitely a market for a mirrorless FX body. In the DX and 43 market I think reducing lange distance was a much bigger advantage because with the smaller sensor and lenses to match you are dealing with both a potentially smaller packeage and a user base often happier with more basic handling. You move up to FX though and I don't think the savin in flange distance is nearly so great an advantage, lenses are larger(and with a small flange sometimes actually longer than DSLR lenses) and generally users want more advanced handling that pushes the cameras beyond pocketable. I would actually say that the biggest size/weight saving factor with the Sony FE system isn't the flange distance reduction but rather then ability to remove the larger FX sized pentaprism and AF sensor.
Generally though I think the net tends to be a bit of an echo chamber for a relatively smaller number of gearheads to both post and surf a lot(hence lots of news stories aimed at them). I was just on the Amalfi Coast and DSLR's outnumbered mirrorless by probably 20-1 at least.
-
There is a persistent rumor that Nikon had field tested a mirrorless full frame body shortly after the release of the D700, and that camera could mount Nikon range finder mount lenses in addition to F mount lenses through an adaptor.
But Leica negotiated some sort of agreement with Nikon which caused Nikon to stop further development of that body.
-
There is a persistent rumor that Nikon had field tested a mirrorless full frame body shortly after the release of the D700, and that camera could mount Nikon range finder mount lenses in addition to F mount lenses through an adaptor.
But Leica negotiated some sort of agreement with Nikon which caused Nikon to stop further development of that body.
I never heart of such a rumour, but even if I would, I would think of it as the worst web trolling ever! (larger than Synn's posts ;D) What would Leica do? pay them off for them not to proceed? ...oh please!
-
I never heart of such a rumour, but even if I would, I would think of it as the worst web trolling ever! (larger than Synn's posts ;D) What would Leica do? pay them off for them not to proceed? ...oh please!
I've heard more than one version of the story. But they seem to agree on the essentials.
Nikon sometimes pull marketing stunts like release limited or special edition retro cameras on some anniversary that couldn't conceivably do much for the company's bottom line. I seem to remember Nikon released a special edition S-2 range finder after the turn of the new century just because it seems to be a slow year.
So how much Nikon would want for putting such a stunt on hold depends on who in Nikon is pushing for the project, whether the project is a stunt or a serious marketing move with a long term plan.
-
The difference is not between DSLR and film. It is between autofocus and manual focus. ...
@chuckfan: Thanks for an excellent explanation of the situation with the optical viewfinders of 35mm format SLR cameras – all I can add is to refer to the extra issues that arise with sub-35mm formats, as I mentioned above and supported by razrblck's examples:
4) Nikon D200 has 95% coverage and 0.95x magnification, effective size of 0.60x (adjusted for crop);
5) Nikon D7000 has nearly 100% coverage and 0.95x magnification, effective size of 0.63x (adjusted for crop).
@Rob C: The best of both worlds can be offered by EVFs, where the size and brightness of the VF image size are unrelated. Indeed the Leica SL offers a magnification of 0.8x, back in "manual focus SLR" territory, and even down in teeny-tiny 4/3" format, the Olympus EM-1 has a VF mag. of "1.48x @50mm", and so an effective image size of 0.74x ("35mm format equivalent"). That's a bigger image than Nikon offers in any of its auto-focus SLRs, film or digital.
-
@Rob C: The best of both worlds can be offered by EVFs, where the size and brightness of the VF image size are unrelated. Indeed the Leica SL offers a magnification of 0.8x, back in "manual focus SLR" territory, and even down in teeny-tiny 4/3" format, the Olympus EM-1 has a VF mag. of "1.48x @50mm", and so an effective image size of 0.74x ("35mm format equivalent"). That's a bigger image than Nikon offers in any of its auto-focus SLRs, film or digital.
Which gives us plenty of opportunity to look at the coarse pixels of those EVFs (granted I haven't tried the new Leica yet, only speaking about the Sony and Olympus).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Which gives us plenty of opportunity to look at the coarse pixels of those EVFs (granted I haven't tried the new Leica yet, only speaking about the Sony and Olympus).
If you can see the pixels on current EVFs, your eyes are clearly younger and far sharper than mine. Anyway, the primary use for the full view in an EVF is composition; for manual focusing, zooming quickly gives a far finer view than the secondary image scattered off the frosted glass (or plastic) screen of an SLR's viewfinder.
-
If you can see the pixels on current EVFs, your eyes are clearly younger and far sharper than mine. Anyway, the primary use for the full view in an EVF is composition; for manual focusing, zooming quickly gives a far finer view than the secondary image scattered off the frosted glass (or plastic) screen of an SLR's viewfinder.
I guess that it's the case.
Agreed in principle, yet:
- I am not sold on the current Sony implementation,
- I have a satisfactory ratio of critically focused images using the Otii on the D810, not that different than what I get with AF in fact.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
It is quite interesting for me. It seems that folks who actually use EVFs may tend to like them. On the other hand anytime an SLR user looks in my EVF they say, what an awful device. Personally, I see it as both plus and minus. EVF is great for focusing with magnified live view and can offer a lot of information. EVF is also great in darkness. On the other hand OVF works better in bright light.
I would say that the future belongs to the EVF, but that future may not be here, yet.
Best regards
Erik
I guess that it's the case.
Agreed in principle, yet:
- I am not sold on the current Sony implementation,
- I have a satisfactory ratio of critically focused images using the Otii on the D810, not that different than what I get with AF in fact.
Cheers,
Bernard