Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: eronald on May 28, 2016, 11:17:49 pm
-
http://blog.planet5d.com/2016/05/nikon-pulls-out-of-professional-video-under-financial-melt-down/
Edmund
-
Nikon may be in a challenging spot, but I don't see how they could pull out of pro video since they never entered this market in the first place.
Anyway, with the D500 and D5 out they appear to be in less trouble than they were a few months ago, and only Sony may be in a better position aming their direct competitors.
I expect this to be even more clear after the Kina.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It's been on Thom Hogan's site since mid-May:
Grim Nikon Financials (http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/grim-nikon-financials.html)
More on Where Nikon Is (http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/more-on-where-nikon-is.html)
Looks like Sony is not that far away from their stated goal of becoming #2 camera manufacturer.
-
I'm a Nikon user, from the F onwards, and hope the Jeremiahs are mistaken. Having said that, if it happens to Nikon, that they sink, I don't see that as any long-term solution for the wider camera business.
There are simply too many working cameras out there, and people eventually do get pissed off spending money - often a lot of it - and later wondering why they'd bothered. Photography, to a vast majority, isn't essential; it's neither hobby nor work-related, but just another thing on which to blow some money - through which to buy some short-lived feel-good. Perhaps Leica turns out to be the only one to have understood the world.
As evidenced here in LuLa, there's a sizeable group of pixie-fans, but I don't think that they are plentiful enough to support something that's not a lot more than tiny incrementalist technical advances. From a practical perspective, I really don't need anything further developed than my first digi camera, the D200. My later D700 is hardly ever used anymore, and I see no reason why, now an amateur, I would buy anything more sophisticated (read expensive). It just doesn't matter, it doesn't make me a better or worse photographer and I've been around long enough to know that. All the more advanced camera does is increase my concerns about getting mugged. Imaginary projections of how huge a print I could make mean nothing to me when I have absolutely no desire to go beyond A3+, and even that has now been killed off courtesy HP and its relationship with the B9180.
If I were to think of buying another camera, about the only feature Nikon could offer to tempt me into it would be the provision of a split-image screen, something that allows non-af lenses, and even af lenses, to be used comfortably. No, live view is not a solution unless you are a person who lives on a tripod.
I'm afraid the era of the permanent sucker is drawing to a close, for pretty much all of these companies except probably one.
Rob
-
I'm a Nikon user, from the F onwards, and hope the Jeremiahs are mistaken. Having said that, if it happens to Nikon, that they sink, I don't see that as any long-term solution for the wider camera business.
There are simply too many working cameras out there, and people eventually do get pissed off spending money - often a lot of it - and later wondering why they'd bothered. Photography, to a vast majority, isn't essential; it's neither hobby nor work-related, but just another thing on which to blow some money - through which to buy some short-lived feel-good. Perhaps Leica turns out to be the only one to have understood the world.
As evidenced here in LuLa, there's a sizeable group of pixie-fans, but I don't think that they are plentiful enough to support something that's not a lot more than tiny incrementalist technical advances. From a practical perspective, I really don't need anything further developed than my first digi camera, the D200. My later D700 is hardly ever used anymore, and I see no reason why, now an amateur, I would buy anything more sophisticated (read expensive). It just doesn't matter, it doesn't make me a better or worse photographer and I've been around long enough to know that. All the more advanced camera does is increase my concerns about getting mugged. Imaginary projections of how huge a print I could make mean nothing to me when I have absolutely no desire to go beyond A3+, and even that has now been killed off courtesy HP and its relationship with the B9180.
If I were to think of buying another camera, about the only feature Nikon could offer to tempt me into it would be the provision of a split-image screen, something that allows non-af lenses, and even af lenses, to be used comfortably. No, live view is not a solution unless you are a person who lives on a tripod.
I'm afraid the era of the permanent sucker is drawing to a close, for pretty much all of these companies except probably one.
Rob
Rob, just go and buy an old Leica R9 and DMR with the right screen and you will be as close to heaven as you can get without dying ...If your eyes are really good enough to still do MF. You could even go and get one of those old F5 Frankencameras ie Kodak 760 or Kodak 770.
I thought the old Powerbooks I used as a journalist were better for writing. SO I went and restored an 80s PB180, using my skills as an engineer, and you know what - it really was as good as I remembered.
Edmund
-
Rob, just go and buy an old Leica R9 and DMR with the right screen and you will be as close to heaven as you can get without dying ...If your eyes are really good enough to still do MF. You could even go and get one of those old F5 Frankencameras ie Kodak 760 or Kodak 770.
I thought the old Powerbooks I used as a journalist were better for writing. SO I went and restored an 80s PB180, using my skills as an engineer, and you know what - it really was as good as I remembered.
Edmund
Edmund,
I still have an almost unused Nikon F3. I bought it after I bought an F4s because even back then I realised that newer and dearer does not inevitably equate with better. If there is one thing where digital is far better, IMO, it's in Nikon's Matrix metering, which really works. But then, so did the Invercone. My eyes suck now, but a recent, nostalgic peek through the F3 showed me that with a split-image, I'm back where I started before the ravages of age cut in.
Trouble is, as agreed (the only thing agreed) on another thread, film is now pretty much a lost cause due to the competition with digital ease and the end of the need to buy film, which has led to the difficulties surrounding it. Of course, we now need to keep buying bloody computers and eventually rent 'services' forever just to keep access open to our past files... instead, my two Dursts would have lasted all of my life, as would my enlarger lenses.
Actually, I liked the R6 and might have gone that way but for the viewfinder not doing 100%, which in those years, was very important to me. I toyed with a used one as companion to the Nikon outfit, but it didn't make sense.
Rob
-
Well, hopefully, Nikon will stop trying to "be a part of everything," and instead concentrate on doing just a few things really well.
I like their new Point-N-Shoot Camera models, not the CoolPix, but the DL Series (https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/premium-compact-cameras/premium-compact-cameras.page).
Rather than make cheap, crap P&Ss it is best to leave that to the cell phone market, and I like the idea of making high-end Point-n-Shoots.
It might ultimately be a healthy shot in the arm for Nikon to stop trying to be "bigger" than Sony & Canon gadgetry and instead simply be better within Nikon's own micro-market.
Let's not forget:
The Nikon D810 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d810) still produces the best low-ISO images of any DSLR, even though it's 2 years old.
The Nikon D500 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d500) is now the finest ASP-C;
The Nikon D7100 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d7100) still out-performs the brand new Canon 80D
Another interesting fact is of The Top 10 uber-prime lenses (http://www.lenscore.org), made (specs-wise), Nikon makes 4 of them, with Canon, Leica, and Zeiss only making 2 apiece.
Yet, of the bottom 20, worst primes, Canon lenses comprise 9 of them, Sony 7, Zeiss 3, while Nikon only makes 1 of the lowest-end primes.
I guess what I am saying is Toyota and GM may vie for the #1 and #2 "total sales" position globally, and although Porsche may never be in the running, volume-sales-wise, Porsche still make better automobiles than either one.
-
... Toyota and GM may vie for the #1 and #2 "total sales" position globally, and although Porsche may never be in the running, volume-sales-wise, Porsche still make better automobiles than either one.
Which matters only if Porsche (Nikon) is profitable. Otherwise, economic history is littered with unprofitable superior products or companies.
-
Which matters only if Porsche (Nikon) is profitable. Otherwise, economic history is littered with unprofitable superior products or companies.
True, which is why I hope they stick to what they're good at.
If you read the provided articles, the important takeaway was this:
- "But before everyone panics, let me say this: what we’re seeing now is a replay of what’s happened before. Nikon doesn’t seem to know how to not repeat its own history. Some of this is institutional. It’s traditional, for instance, to transition the upper management from one group to another as the business mix changes. Which, of course, forces the business mix to change.
...
"That said, Ushida-san (current CEO, from Precision) has had a couple of years to build his team and get them aligned to the tasks at hand. Any further issues in keeping the company running well are definitely going to accrue to his tenure now. It’s no longer possible for him to say that he inherited the problems. They’re his, and his to fix.
"Here’s what I expect to happen next: within a month or two we’re going to hear about adjustments in the upper management team. Those will be re-assignments that telegraph to the rest of Nikon’s employees subtle messages about who was deemed responsible for the problems, and who is charged with fixing them.
...
"2016 was supposed to be a 'renewal' year for the Imaging business. The year that Nikon abandoned the losers and sought to refresh and extend the winners in the lineup. So far, the results on that are lots of ink, very little action (I disagree, the D500 is a big deal). So Photokina is going to be key for Nikon: it’s their last chance to make 2016 even remotely like they thought it would be.
"People have asked me what I expect at Photokina, so here it is:
"The DL relaunch
The KeyMission relaunch
The SnapBridge relaunch
A D810 replacement
A new mirrorless camera, probably DX to replace the D3300
Two new lenses"
So the forecast is to trim the surplus gadgetry in favor of revitalizing their high-end strengths. They already came out with the D5 and the D500, and I really do like their DL high-end P&S concept a lot.
My guess is that, to these significant upgrades, we will soon see a D900.
I suppose we will have to see.
-
Nikon is stuck with a single real product, the dSLR, mostly built around Sony sensor tech. Sony is eating their lunch in luxury compacts RX100, all-in-ones RX10, Olympus and Panasonic in small sensor mirrorless, and Sony in large-sensor mirroless.
Canon at least have a pro and prosumer video positioning with C100 and C300 and the 5D3. And it's their own tech.
I'm not writing Nikon off completely, but they really haven't kept up with the times. A management failure.
Edmund
-
Which matters only if Porsche (Nikon) is profitable. Otherwise, economic history is littered with unprofitable superior products or companies.
That's why standards are falling down all over the place: good costs money, and money is getting tight unless, of course, you're one of those who has cornered the market on money.
In a deeply introspective moment a couple of days ago, I came to the conclusion that there is absolutely no justification for anyone to be paid more than a million bucks in any one year. Yes, of course, they can certainly earn it, but then those earnings should automatically be ploughed right back into the business and said business made even more productive, careful and devoted to quality. Wages/salaries would also be increased, and that would create more people able to purchase whatever takes their fancy.
Why stop at a million bucks, you ask? Well, nobody really needs more than that to live a very comfortable life; you want a yacht? Fine; instead of buying it and the other toys all in one year, pace yourself out, get more anticipation into your system and thus enjoy the desired thing longer even before you have it; everybody knows that every yacht is almost immediately back on the market. The more it costs, the more you can afford, the higher the ambition for the next one just to bloody the nose of the guy in the adjacent berth. (Heaven, of course, is being too big to be able get into a berth.) So, in reality, easy come cuts value.
I could map out a wonderful strategy, but really, the stress...
;-)
Rob C
-
Maybe there is an understanding that Sony delivers sensors and Nikon does not make FF cameras like the Sony7 before the year...
Fot that is what is missing in the lineup of Nikon ( and Canon) at the moment..
Maybe the D5 is the last dinosaur they produce ... I have a J5 and it has many good qualities DSLR's do not .
-
Nikon is stuck with a single real product, the dSLR, mostly built around Sony sensor tech.
"Mostly built" around Sony sensor tech?
What makes the D810 better than even Sony's own cameras at low ISO is Nikon technology.
What makes the Nikon D5 and the Nikon D500 have far superior AF for action is Nikon technology.
- "Autofocus and performance
Autofocus is the D500's great strength: along with the D5 it's the best we've ever used. Just as mirrorless cameras appear to be closing the gap when it comes to following simple subjects, the D500 comes and blows them (and its DSLR rivals) all out of the water. It's not just a question of the mirrorless-esque across-the-frame AF coverage or of the number of cross-type focus points, it's this plus some of the best subject tracking we've seen and the fine-grained customization that allows the behavior to be tailored to shoot a wide range of different sports."
Sony is eating their lunch in luxury compacts RX100, all-in-ones RX10, Olympus and Panasonic in small sensor mirrorless, and Sony in large-sensor mirroless.
Canon at least have a pro and prosumer video positioning with C100 and C300 and the 5D3. And it's their own tech.
Sony is bigger than Nikon and Canon put together. That Canon is bigger than Nikon, again, is meaningless.
When it comes to the best overall cameras, and best overall lenses, Nikon produces the finest quality.
Again, it is Nikon's own tech which makes its D810 a better overall camera than the A7rII and 5DSr, and makes the D500 a better overall camera than the 7D II and the A6300.
I'm not writing Nikon off completely, but they really haven't kept up with the times. A management failure.
Edmund
Nikon's only "failure" (IMO) is to try to be a huge giant, and dabble in "everything," rather than just sticking to what they do best: making the best DSLR cameras, and finest DSLR lenses, in the industry.
Even Zeiss' Otus line only occupies 2 of the top 10 slots, quality-wise, while Nikon's super-telephotos occupy 4 slots.
Nikon also makes the best entry DSLR, mid-level DSLR, landscape DSLR, and pro DSLR.
Though Sony's A7r II might be better at higher ISOs, it is crushed at base ISO by the D810.
Though the new Canon 1Dx2 has better video, it is beaten in high ISO capability, and crushed in AF speed + accuracy by the D5.
This isn't any kind of a "failure," it is Nikon owning the "DSLR excellence" department.
If Nikon sticks to their core competencies, and stops trying to do "everything" gadget-related, they will always have customers.
I renew the Porsche-Toyota analogy ... Toyota may have more market share, but that doesn't make their cars more desirable to drive than a Porsche.
-
Without reading the article, this is why Sony made the move to the A7 and ditched the A900 platform -- building an electronic camera is a lot less expensive than a mechanical camera, and Sony was losing money on the mechanicals of the A900. The Canon 5D is $400 more than the A7rII, and I doubt that is pure profit. I'm guessing Nikon is in that position now, where they can't meet the sales volumes necessary to sell at the price point the market requires. Since Nikon can't sell the camera at a profitable price point (guessing the initial msrp of $3,300 is where they needed to be), the only alternative is to cheapen the camera, as Sony did, or to own more of the production process, as Canon does. I hope Nikon can recover, because the overall D810 camera and lenses just feel right. It is the first digital camera I used that felt like a good camera, not just a good digital camera.
-
... Nikon's only "failure" (IMO) is to try to be a huge giant, and dabble in "everything," rather than just sticking to what they do best: making the best DSLR cameras, and finest DSLR lenses, in the industry...
With the DSLR market in decline, however...
Putting all eggs in one basket comes to mind.
-
With the DSLR market in decline, however...
Putting all eggs in one basket comes to mind.
DSLRs are here to stay, IMO.
Modern cell phone technology makes Point-and-shoots obsolete, IMO (and low-end DSLRs obsolete as well), but not high-end DSLRs.
This is why I think Nikon is going in the right direction with their DL Series (https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/premium-compact-cameras/premium-compact-cameras.page) of high-end P&Ss. No cell phone will be able to do what these P&Ss do.
Nikon already totally dominates the DSLR market, in quality, if not in sales.
The only "outside interest" Nikon should pursue, IMO, is video capability as bcooter suggests.
Manufacturing a bunch of cheap, meaningless P&Ss is a waste of time ... P&S sales will continue to decline as cell phone cameras continue to improve.
Manufacturing industry-leading DSLRs, in the entry-, mid-, landscape-, and professional-capability departments is what Nikon does best, and if they bring their video capability up to speed, they will dominate this sector.
They already do in every way, except video.
They don't have to be the biggest, just the best, to be profitable.
They should stop wasting efforts on anything but their core competencies IMO
-
Maybe Nikon's reflecting some photographers: do all of them have an interest in motion, and if so, is it now possible that stills shooters can be as competent with motion as were/are specialised film people? Can stills people even actually ever be as interested in motion?
Yes, motion seems to be a requirement today, but don't forget that stills people like Bailey, Donovan and Stern also directed a lot of commercials above and beyond their stills work, decades ago. I suppose they just didn't hold the actual cameras much. Must the same brain do both?
Rob C
-
We seem to think alike here.
The kids all seem to be doing video these days, and not only with the old style tools but also with drones, Gopros, you name it.. In fact I'm just now looking at a feature film which is not too bad, "Hardcore Henry", and a lot of it looks like it has been shot with a gopro to achieve the "1st person shooter" effect, with chases and Parcours..
Edmund
I usually don't care about conjecture, but for a long time I thought something was strange with Nikon's offerings.
It's been obvious since the 5d2 that video is a sales offering for professionals and amateurs, whether they use it or not..
But Nikon, unlike Canon, Sony, Panasonic, doesn't have a higher end video/cinema camera market to protect.
Nikon could have added any feature, in fact made the killer combo cam, but they didn't which is kind of strange considering the D90 was the first video capable dslr.
Also Nikon lenses have been used by indie and serious film production forever. I can get a Nikon mount or adapter for almost any cinema camera.
I'm just guessing, but I think this is the problem of having one company (sony) be the digital film for nearly every camera, except Canon, Leica sometimes Panasonic.
Once again, a guess, but Sony has kept their pdaf on sensor focusing for themselves, so maybe there is more than tech or marketing involved, maybe holding the good stuff back will allow Sony to become #2.
I mean why would Nikon offer their d5 with only 3 minutes of motion capture? Nobody can shoot motion footage seriously at 3 minutes and ok, the Nikon does offer pdaf, but nobody talks about the video focusing and the crop is 1.5 which is fairly severe.
I thought I read somewhere that Nikon has a hook up with Samsung, so things could change, but not being at NAB was not a good thing for any camera maker because without a video/cinema/still offering a company is limiting themselves.
I''m basically brand agnostic and I know Canon doesn't get much love on these tech centric forums, but Canon has been pushing a full line up of 4k cameras for a while and though it seems they do the electronic sales thing of limiting features to bump you up a notch Canon seems to be covering as much territory as possible, with the exception of Sony, who seems to be playing with a larger deck of cards than the rest and Canon seems to keep on with their own sensors, though a little slow on the draw when it comes to upgrades.
I just get the feeling that most of this smells of contracts and not technical ability, but hey this is just a guess.
http://www.eoshd.com/2016/01/nikon-d5-versus-canon-1d-c-cinematic-4k-video-wins/
IMO
BC
P.S. I was at a still camera rental house this week and they were loading up with new equipment. I asked what and was told, "everything has to offer video and very little flash, a lot of continuous light", so maybe that tells us a little bit about the market.
Just a guess.
-
With the DSLR market in decline, however...
DSLRs are here to stay, IMO.
You're both right, I think: SLRs are not going away, but they are destined for an ever smaller share of the overall non-phone camera market, losing share to a mix of mirrorless system and high end compacts. So I agree that
Putting all eggs in one basket comes to mind.
Does anyone know recent sales figures for Nikon One system? Do they back Thom Hogan's pessimism about that product line? Because if they do, I agree with him that Nikon needs to drop that in favor of a mirrorless system in DX format marketed as good enough for many enthusiastic photographers. DX (24x16mm) format, not 1" or 4/3", so that it can offer the attraction of full compatibility (via adaptors!) with the vast number of Nikon SLR lenses that people already own, and the prestige of being usable with Nikon F-mount lenses even for customers who do not yet own any. Maybe also full 36x24mm FX format mirrorless, but I do not think that is where the biggest revenue growth potential is.
Still, for overall revenue, all traditional camera makers have to downsize in adaption to the reality that the family snap-shot camera market will never again be as big for them as it was before 2007, and it's too late for them to become successful smart-phones makers – even Sony has mostly failed there.
-
Let's not forget:
The Nikon D810 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d810) still produces the best low-ISO images of any DSLR, even though it's 2 years old.
The Nikon D500 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d500) is now the finest ASP-C;
The Nikon D7100 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d7100) still out-performs the brand new Canon 80D
Another interesting fact is of The Top 10 uber-prime lenses (http://www.lenscore.org), made (specs-wise), Nikon makes 4 of them, with Canon, Leica, and Zeiss only making 2 apiece.
Yet, of the bottom 20, worst primes, Canon lenses comprise 9 of them, Sony 7, Zeiss 3, while Nikon only makes 1 of the lowest-end primes.
Yeah, all true. BUT now go to the bottom of the table of zoom lenses and see who's the "champion" there.
Among 10 worst zooms: 3 Nikkors, 2 Canons, 2 Sonys, 2 Tamrons, and 1 Sigma. They fail miserably at what's important for the mass market.
They still pretty much own high-end DSLR and primes segments (quality-wise), but what is the volume of those? And BTW whatever is the volume, these are exactly the segments that probably shrink faster than anything else (with the exception of low-end compacts, or course).
Their mirrorless offering is the absolute worst among big players. Yes, Canon's line of EOS-M cameras is as boring as it gets, but at least they have a future-proof mount already, and some lenses with surprisingly good performance/cost ratio for it.
Since early DSRL days, Nikon failed in pretty much every really new venue they tried. Their DL line of fixed-lens compacts is quite promising, but so was Coolpix-A that they eventually had to kill.
The "retro" segment? When I first saw Nikon Df, I couldn't stop laughing -- it instantly reminded me of heavy tanks of the 1930th, with half a dozen battlements... (see attached images) That's not "retro", that's "antique!" They couldn't even capitalize on their great past properly.
So, the way things are going, Nikon looks like almost set to become a niche player, unfortunately. Do hope that history will prove me wrong, though.
-
Bythom.com is clearly the reference about everything that's wrong at Nikon:
- Great (probably best in many regards) technologies but worst product planning (which means great engineers but poor higher mgt), with the 1 series AF tech implemented in FF sensors they could have killed the Sony a7 before it was even born...
- Numerous quality issues with recent releases,
- Brain dead marketing (they apparently still haven't understood that Canon's success is largely due to just giving a name "L" to their high end lenses),
- Poor understanding of the market needs (too Japan centric,...) and of how people use their cameras,
- ...
Yet, their cameras and lenses enable many photographers to execute on their vision so not everything is black, but things could be much better with me as their CEO! ;)
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/8/7621/27230483602_6e5b309a79_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yeah, all true. BUT now go to the bottom of the table of zoom lenses and see who's the "champion" there.
Among 10 worst zooms: 3 Nikkors, 2 Canons, 2 Sonys, 2 Tamrons, and 1 Sigma. They fail miserably at what's important for the mass market.
You forgot to mention Nikon owns 4 out of the top 10 Zooms, a split with Canon.
Top Primes: Nikon 4, Canon 2, Sony 0
Top Zooms: Nikon 4, Canon 4, Sony 0
Top DSLRs: Nikon 3, Canon 0, Sony 1
TOTAL TOP PRODUCTS: Nikon 11, Canon 6, Sony 1
They still pretty much own high-end DSLR and primes segments (quality-wise), but what is the volume of those? And BTW whatever is the volume, these are exactly the segments that probably shrink faster than anything else (with the exception of low-end compacts, or course).
I am not interested in whether they sell more cameras than Canon, only that their cameras are better than Canon's when I buy.
(Same as if I could afford a Porsche, I wouldn't care that Toyota sells more Corollas ...)
Their mirrorless offering is the absolute worst among big players. Yes, Canon's line of EOS-M cameras is as boring as it gets, but at least they have a future-proof mount already, and some lenses with surprisingly good performance/cost ratio for it.
As I said, I think their new DL line of Point-n-Shoots is a good direction for them ...
Since early DSRL days, Nikon failed in pretty much every really new venue they tried. Their DL line of fixed-lens compacts is quite promising, but so was Coolpix-A that they eventually had to kill.
The "retro" segment? When I first saw Nikon Df, I couldn't stop laughing -- it instantly reminded me of heavy tanks of the 1930th, with half a dozen battlements... (see attached images) That's not "retro", that's "antique!" They couldn't even capitalize on their great past properly.
So, the way things are going, Nikon looks like almost set to become a niche player, unfortunately. Do hope that history will prove me wrong, though.
Which, again, is why I think they should stop with the gadgetry and stick to what they do best: make the best DSLRs, and accompanying lenses, on the planet.
Not every company has to be Microsoft, Sony, etc.
It really is okay to be a super-good, mid-sized company that makes impeccable products.
Porsche will never be Toyota, in size, but yet driving a Toyota will never feel the same as driving a Porsche :)
Jack
-
DSLRs are here to stay, IMO.
Of course they are... but this is totally irrelevant, with tech advancement being almost dead... People don't care anymore to "upgrade" their older DSLRs... Why one should change his D4 (not D4S) for a D5 or other? It (and the DF) still has the best Image quality out of all FF cameras ever made... doesn't it?
-
You forgot to mention...
No, I didn't forget. I only mentioned what was relevant to the topic of this discussion.
I am not interested in whether they sell more cameras than Canon, only that their cameras are better than Canon's when I buy.
(Same as if I could afford a Porsche, I wouldn't care that Toyota sells more Corollas ...)
Well, you will be, as soon as Nikon's ability to produce top-notch gear will suffer as the result of them failing in various categories in which you're "not interested".
As Bernard correctly pointed out, bythom.com is THE source for Nikon related information. And Thom keeps pointing out that Nikon's service dept is getting hit after hit. This already affects NPS! That is, their woes already affect their top-of-the-line cameras.
Speaking of which, with all due respect to Nikon, they are not Porsche of photography world; Leica is. So same rules that apply to Canon apply to them as well. Granted, they do have a bit of a cult following; to the best of my knowledge, there is no counterpart of nikonians.org in the Canon land but, ultimately, market trumps it all. Nikonians won't have any say at Nikon's board meetings.
-
Nikon makes fine lenses, as many other makers. But their latest 24-70 f2.8 zoom is worse than other competitors. And this is a bread and butter lens. High quality lenses are expensive, and thus are bought only by pros (for whom the DSLR still offers the best tool set) or by amateurs that can afford them. These latter ones are the ones that migrated in great numbers to mirrorless systems, including the Sony Alpha 7.
Why carry a larger DSLR when you can carry a smaller camera? With even better video?Amateurs do not need blazingly fast AF, and so on. And you can actually mount hundreds of lenses in the A7...
Actually, regarding lenses, I think Sony are doing a great job, with finally high quality f2.8 zooms, and f1.4 primes. With Zeiss also in the picture, with Batis and Loxia, makes for a very compelling case. Why carry say a D810 (or equivalent Canon) with a big and heavy Zeiss Milvus, when you can carry a A7 with Loxia 21, 35, 50, or Batis 18, 25, 85? Much lighter to carry around...
-
Speaking only for myself, I was sorely tempted to switch to Nikon when they launched the D800 series but felt I'd be stepping down by trading Canon's latest 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8s plus the 100-400 and 200-400 for Nikons equivalent offerings and I had no interesting in replacing any of those zooms with a bag full of primes. Nikon often seems to catch up with their zooms but Canon usually seems to offer them first. I'm sure there are lots of exceptions to this but not in the focal lengths that interest me the most.
I don't base my decisions on charts or graphs and I can't imagine buying on the basis of who makes the worst of anything--all lens-makers seem to come up with some dogs. Then there's service--CPS has been great for me, my Nikon-shooting counterparts are often not thrilled with their service. I still covet the D810 sensor but now carry a cute little Sony A7r II and Metabones for when I absolutely need higher dynamic range.
They all make great tools. If all my gear was stolen today and my insurance company said here's a bag with everything you need I could be happy with whatever brand was in the bag. My gear has to pay for itself. I can afford to buy whatever brand I want but I can't afford to switch back and forth. It would be a terrible shame if Nikon stumbles, competition benefits us all. As to the theory that digital cameras were good enough 10 years ago and that technology since then is basically without benefit: Not if you make your living selling prints.
YMMV
-
If you have the investment in Canon, the A7 series only makes sense. The adapters out on the market are much more advanced than those available for Nikon. Even the Novoflex which is very well made has no way of indicating the aperture as it has no clicks only a smooth turn. The metabones I tried, 1 was broken and the 2nd locked on one of my lenses, requiring the lens to be shipped to SK Grimes to cut off the Metabones adapter. As mentioned the Novoflex adapter is much superior in construction, but I prefer to have at least a guesstimate as to where my aperture is.
As for glass, I have used both, find both to be excellent and really can't see much differentiation between the two any more. It's always been a step up process for both companies. Examples, the Canon new 100-400 which is an excellent lens, but so is the Nikon 200-500, and for the price probably the best tele zoom I have used between either company. Both also still off the stellar telephoto primes if the user can afford them.
My issues with Nikon are that they seem to have overlook QA at least in the D600, (oil issues) D750 Shutter issues, and D810 White dot issues all of which required the cameras being returned to Nikon for either replacement or parts. Sure it was all covered by warranty, but it's not a good track record. I am still wondering if the D500 will have a similar issue, and need a recall.
As for the Video, most of the reviews I have read all state that the D500 due to the crop factor does not really fit that well as the resulting video crop is even tighter, around 2.5. The snap bridge connection is also a bit questionable but that may see firmware updates to improve over time. The D500 seems like a well thought out camera as does the D5 and hopefully they will do well for Nikon.
Paul C
-
Nikon makes fine lenses, as many other makers. But their latest 24-70 f2.8 zoom is worse than other competitors. And this is a bread and butter lens. High quality lenses are expensive, and thus are bought only by pros (for whom the DSLR still offers the best tool set) or by amateurs that can afford them. These latter ones are the ones that migrated in great numbers to mirrorless systems, including the Sony Alpha 7.
In the quest for quality I have dumped zooms altogether.
Do I really need a 24-70 f/2.8, when I can have a 50mm f/1.2 and take a few paces forward, or backward, and take better photos each time?
Why carry a larger DSLR when you can carry a smaller camera? With even better video?Amateurs do not need blazingly fast AF, and so on. And you can actually mount hundreds of lenses in the A7...
Because the larger camera can do more ...
Why buy "a mount" for a Sony, when Nikon make class-leading primes that I can mount them directly to my camera, also class-leading, as well as much more customizable than the A7?
Actually, regarding lenses, I think Sony are doing a great job, with finally high quality f2.8 zooms, and f1.4 primes. With Zeiss also in the picture, with Batis and Loxia, makes for a very compelling case. Why carry say a D810 (or equivalent Canon) with a big and heavy Zeiss Milvus, when you can carry a A7 with Loxia 21, 35, 50, or Batis 18, 25, 85? Much lighter to carry around...
Not so. Sony's lenses are more expensive, and rate very low as to quality. Not a single Sony lens can make it to the top 20.
For example, the Sony 300mm F/2.8G II (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892394-REG/Sony_sal300f28g2_300mm_F_2_8_G_Super.html) is $7,498, while the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/672200-USA/Nikon_2186_AF_S_NIKKOR_300mm_f_2_8G.html) is $5,496, and yet the Nikon blows the Sony out of the water, quality-wise. The Sony 300 barely has the resolution figures of a decent zoom, at 920 (according to LenScore (http://www.lenscore.org)), whereas the Nikon has true Prime Quality resolution of 1320. Why would anyone want to spend $7500 on a Sony lens that can't keep its head above mere zoom level, qualitatively?
Jack
-
No, I didn't forget. I only mentioned what was relevant to the topic of this discussion.
Wrong, you selectively-omitted the other end of the spectrum.
Well, you will be, as soon as Nikon's ability to produce top-notch gear will suffer as the result of them failing in various categories in which you're "not interested".
How is Nikon going to suddenly lose their ability to produce high-end cameras by their dumping the low-end P&S market? ::)
If they're not making revenue from the low-end gear (which, in the cell phone age, no one will be), why wouldn't they dump this aspect and focus on what they do best?
As Bernard correctly pointed out, bythom.com is THE source for Nikon related information. And Thom keeps pointing out that Nikon's service dept is getting hit after hit. This already affects NPS! That is, their woes already affect their top-of-the-line cameras.
No comment.
Speaking of which, with all due respect to Nikon, they are not Porsche of photography world; Leica is.
Mmm, I don't know.
Leica only makes 2 top 10 primes, while Nikon makes 4.
Even Leica's ultra-expensive lenses don't rate any higher than Nikon's very best, stats-wise.
I would say that Leica is more like the Rolls of cameras expense-wise, super-expensive :o
So same rules that apply to Canon apply to them as well. Granted, they do have a bit of a cult following; to the best of my knowledge, there is no counterpart of nikonians.org in the Canon land but, ultimately, market trumps it all. Nikonians won't have any say at Nikon's board meetings.
The Nikonian cult following is there for a reason I suppose, i.e., a satisfied, loyal customer base.
-
1. Rob, I like you a lot but don't miss my point.
2 I'd be quite happy if it was only a still shoot, or a motion picture (covers a lot of territory) . . . but the world has changed and no offense but in the commercial side, your not busting ass to pick up business.
My brain runs at 100 mph, thinking of what's good for me, my client's the time and money I want or should invest and where I should do it. But I'm made for commerce especially if the creative brief is exciting.
Look at how a still camera and most products are introduced, through a video. Not my rules, but that's the way it's done, because everybody has a little tv in their pocket.
Personally I don't believe in limitations. To me great image makers, can make great images, period, if they apply themselves and are willing to invest and the budget allows.
But two cameras, one brain, one set of hands. It's difficult, but so often requested.
Personally learning to edit, made my still photography better, or the ability to piece together a story even a simple one, so unless you get bogged down, knowledge is always a plus.
A few years ago I had a camera maker ask me what I would like to see in a camera. I said don't ask me, ask my clients. They might not know technique, but they know what they want to present.
What's different today is not the creative briefs, they're still pretty much the same as they were in the film days. It's the compression of time, money, expectations and options.
It's also a matter of familiarity and speed and traveling with two cases of cameras instead of 5 or 6.
In regards to Nikon obviously they have a sales issue and obviously they need to find a solution. The low end doesn't work because that's a race to the bottom. The option is to be better at everything, from capture, to useability, or giving the customers more than they could anticipate.
I think Sony is doing that, though they throw a lot of stuff out there to see what sticks, usually not fully cooked.
But camera sales holds little interest to me. I just use them.
In the film days I used Nikons, in digital I've used them all, but my favorite is the Canons because they cover a lot of territory and the REDs because they shoot the best motion file I want to invest in.
10 years ago who would have thought that a sunglass guy would build a camera company? So if Nikon makes it good, but my brand loyalty is based on my needs, not my wants.
IMO
BC
1. Thank you for that, and it's reciprocated for many reasons, not least the work that you do and the way you do it, but also how you treat people.
2. You're absolutely right - I wouldn't have the energy anymore, however much I might wish that I did. But it's not just that: my main interest in becoming a photographer was to pass my days shooting pictures of beautiful women. It took a long time to get there, but I did, and enjoyed it very much. I had flirted with the idea of movies before I got my first reasonable stills camera, but I lived over 400 miles from London, was a boy, and had not a snowball's chance of supporting myself away from home. I wrote to David Lean asking for advice on how to get into the business, and he was kind enough to write back and suggest the tea-boy route, but obviously that didn't do anything to solve the money problem I faced! BUT, it was damned nice of him to bother answering some kid in Scotland!
Yeah, probably unrealistically obsessed with one kind of photography, but that's the mindset I came with, I'm afraid. I sometimes thought of getting myself a 4x5 kit and going after the whisky trade - of which, locally, there was lots - but I never could convince myself I wanted to do that kind of work. Financially blind of me, but as I said, the mindset.
However, I do realise there's the demand for motion with stills, even fashion shoots seem to be covered by 'making of' videos, but I don't know if they are made on still/motion hybrids or on normal video cameras.
Basically, it's become too complicated a world for me now, and I would probably have lacked the ability and patience to cope with/learn so much additional stuff had it been the same in my day. No regrets really, just wish I'd been tougher!
Rob
-
In the quest for quality I have dumped zooms altogether.
Do I really need a 24-70 f/2.8, when I can have a 50mm f/1.2 and take a few paces forward, or backward, and take better photos each time?
Jack
Wish you hadn't said that! I had more or less got over the one (my only zoom) I'd bought, sight-unseen (nobody stocked anything like that in these parts), and quite apart from its size, my tests with it were a huge disappointment. I think it must have been the quality variations that now seem to haunt manufacturers - lack of final pre-dispatch tests - because I've seen images from the same (theoretically!) lens that look very good (Russ Lewis) ... Perhaps it's these now regular problems of quality control that are coming back to haunt the camera business. If something finally works, do you really want all the hassle again with something new?
Rob C
-
In the quest for quality I have dumped zooms altogether.
Do I really need a 24-70 f/2.8, when I can have a 50mm f/1.2 and take a few paces forward, or backward, and take better photos each time?
Zooms exist for a reason, flexibility, when you don't have the time to move forward or backward to adjust your position and framing. If you have the time, fine.
Because the larger camera can do more ...
It depends. I fail to see what a Sony A7RMKII is really missing compared to other amateur FF DLSRs. I am not comparing to pro DSLRs like the 1DX or D5. Actually, the eye tracking AF of the Sony is really good for portraits.
Why buy "a mount" for a Sony, when Nikon make class-leading primes that I can mount them directly to my camera, also class-leading, as well as much more customizable than the A7?
I was talking about Sony E mount lenses, not A mount. As for primes, the current ones from Nikon are not that good, compared to Zeiss Batis, Zeiss Loxia, or Sony G and Sony GM lenses. Again, E mount, not A mount.
Not so. Sony's lenses are more expensive, and rate very low as to quality. Not a single Sony lens can make it to the top 20.
Maybe that will change, have they tested the new E mount Sony 85 f1.4 GM? Or Sony E mount 90 Macro G lens?
For example, the Sony 300mm F/2.8G II (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892394-REG/Sony_sal300f28g2_300mm_F_2_8_G_Super.html) is $7,498, while the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/672200-USA/Nikon_2186_AF_S_NIKKOR_300mm_f_2_8G.html) is $5,496, and yet the Nikon blows the Sony out of the water, quality-wise. The Sony 300 barely has the resolution figures of a decent zoom, at 920 (according to LenScore (http://www.lenscore.org)), whereas the Nikon has true Prime Quality resolution of 1320. Why would anyone want to spend $7500 on a Sony lens that can't keep its head above mere zoom level, qualitatively?
Jack
Again, I was talking about lenses for Sony E-mount. Plus, one can adapt a lot of top quality Leica M mount glass from Leica, Zeiss, and Voigtlander...
-
I am now officially fed up with that Porshe analogy. Even a 2CV beats it:
-
Wrong, you selectively-omitted the other end of the spectrum.
John, just listen to yourself...
You take this wa-a-a-ay too seriously and personally. Take a deep breath and relax.
Look, no-one argued that Nikon does great high-end stuff. Those top zooms you mentioned are still high-end stuff costing many thousand of bucks (with probable exception of 80-400; don't know which version is on table though; if it's old screw-drive one, it's cheap... but it wouldn't be there at the top... just thinking out loud here).
My point was that not all was that great at Nikon at the low end, so I drew my example to illustrate that. That's all.
If you feel so strong about all that Nikon stuff, let's talk about something else then...
I'm here to have fun and learn a thing or two in the process. Not to pick silly fights. Cheers.
-
I love the divine logic of the advertising!
Rob
-
John, just listen to yourself...
You take this wa-a-a-ay too seriously and personally. Take a deep breath and relax.
Look, no-one argued that Nikon does great high-end stuff. Those top zooms you mentioned are still high-end stuff costing many thousand of bucks (with probable exception of 80-400; don't know which version is on table though; if it's old screw-drive one, it's cheap... but it wouldn't be there at the top... just thinking out loud here).
My point was that not all was that great at Nikon at the low end, so I drew my example to illustrate that. That's all.
If you feel so strong about all that Nikon stuff, let's talk about something else then...
I'm here to have fun and learn a thing or two in the process. Not to pick silly fights. Cheers.
Huh?
I wrote what I wrote sipping my first morning's cup of coffee.
The visions people get in their heads ... that have nothing to do with reality ;D
-
I am now officially fed up with that Porshe analogy. Even a 2CV beats it:
;D
-
They say no one is zealous more than converts. John was a Canon warrior until he saw the light. That light apparently had a greater dynamic range ;)
-
Wish you hadn't said that! I had more or less got over the one (my only zoom) I'd bought, sight-unseen (nobody stocked anything like that in these parts), and quite apart from its size, my tests with it were a huge disappointment. I think it must have been the quality variations that now seem to haunt manufacturers - lack of final pre-dispatch tests - because I've seen images from the same (theoretically!) lens that look very good (Russ Lewis) ... Perhaps it's these now regular problems of quality control that are coming back to haunt the camera business. If something finally works, do you really want all the hassle again with something new?
Rob C
I think the very nature of zooms makes their quality insufficient, Rob.
It is hard enough to make high-end primes, at one focal length, let alone to have that quality span the transition of several focal lengths.
I much prefer shooting primes now, for this reason.
I have also found that "24-70" is a negligible difference in positioning oneself, as far as framing goes.
There is no reason I need a zoom in this range, when walking a bit forward will suffice :)
-
I wrote what I wrote sipping my first morning's cup of coffee.
Did I say you weren't sipping your first morning cup of coffee and being generally serene? I don't remember that :D That said, I do remember reading that Göring ordered Luftwaffe attack on Poland while relaxing in his golden bath... ;)
Anyway, coffee and Göring might not be good subjects either...
Lets talk about Porsche vs <something>. At least, it'll keep Slobodan entertained!
-
Did I say you weren't sipping your first morning cup of coffee and being generally serene? I don't remember that :D That said, I do remember reading that Göring ordered Luftwaffe attack on Poland while relaxing in his golden bath... ;)
Anyway, coffee and Göring might not be good subjects either...
Lets talk about Porsche vs <something>. At least, it'll keep Slobodan entertained!
Lol, okay.
And I do think Leica is more Rolls than Porsche ;)
-
Lol, okay.
And I do think Leica is more Rolls than Porsche ;)
And Bentley thinks itself the fast, bastard child of both.
Rob
-
I sure hope they're not in too much trouble. I love my Nikon gear and I think this has been one of the more impressive Nikon lineups in recent years. The cameras are blazing fast, loaded with features, lenses are stellar. It's just a sign of the waning interest in photography in my opinion, more so than there being a problem with the actual products. I think Nikon and other manufacturers will have to manage their expectations as the photography bubble is slowly about to burst as demand continues to dwindle.
-
I think the very nature of zooms makes their quality insufficient, Rob.
Saturday night I was shooting a concert in a small space using available light. I mostly used a 15 year old 70-200/2.8 Sigma. On an apc Pentax, at ISO up to 51,000.
* First, there was no way I could have done it with primes. At times I was hanging upside down from the mezzanine... a few steps forward were not possible.
* Second, even wide open, earlier in the evening with enough light coming through the skylights to use reasonable ISO and focus, the quality was just fine printed at 13x19.
* Third, later on when I was having to approximately hand-focus and using max ISO, the photos made the subjects very happy :) They liked the contrast, the framing, the content in short.
In brief, for me the difference in quality between a Nikon 50/1.2 on an 810 and an old Sigma on a K3 is irrelevant, because of the style of photography I do. Michael Reichman wrote some time ago of the difficulty people had distinguishing prints from tripod-mounted MFD and a compact camera balanced on top of the big one. For me, it doesn't matter. For many people, it doesn't matter.
For a few, it does, that's great. But here's a question: if tomorrow all the Nikon hardware were swept up in some sort of photographic rapture and the world was left to get by with Canon, Sony, Fuji, Pentax and various portable phones... would anyone looking at photos be able to tell?
-
For a few, it does, that's great. But here's a question: if tomorrow all the Nikon hardware were swept up in some sort of photographic rapture and the world was left to get by with Canon, Sony, Fuji, Pentax and various portable phones... would anyone looking at photos be able to tell?
But they might not be the people making the photos... for those who do make them, it certainly would matter.
Rob
-
I sure hope they're not in too much trouble. I love my Nikon gear and I think this has been one of the more impressive Nikon lineups in recent years. The cameras are blazing fast, loaded with features, lenses are stellar. It's just a sign of the waning interest in photography in my opinion, more so than there being a problem with the actual products. I think Nikon and other manufacturers will have to manage their expectations as the photography bubble is slowly about to burst as demand continues to dwindle.
Not the waning interest in photography, just the waning interest in buying cameras to take photos.
My brother knows I am into photography; in fact, he helped me build my website.
He does not own a DSLR and just left for Europe with his wife and family.
I told him to buy a DSLR to preserve his memories and he knows I like Nikon. He was looking at the D3300 and I tried to raise him to the D7200.
Ultimately, he bought the Nikon D3300, took it home, and was trying to figure it out. He ended up returning it, and he and his family are just going to use their cell phones (Galaxy Note 5s). They felt their phones were less hassle to carry, easier, and produced images "good enough" for them.
It wasn't that they "weren't interested" in taking photos (photography); it's that they didn't feel the need to plop down a few hundred dollars in order to do so, when their cell phones did all they needed, could immediately be shared to FB, etc.
Jack
-
I think this has been one of the more impressive Nikon lineups in recent years. The cameras are blazing fast, loaded with features, lenses are stellar. It's just a sign of the waning interest in photography in my opinion, more so than there being a problem with the actual products.
Quite the opposite might be true -- it might be the sign of Nikon nearing perfection!
Because, according to one of Parkinson's laws, "perfection of planned layout is only achieved by institutions on the point of collapse". ;) :-[
-
Saturday night I was shooting a concert in a small space using available light. I mostly used a 15 year old 70-200/2.8 Sigma. On an apc Pentax, at ISO up to 51,000.
* First, there was no way I could have done it with primes. At times I was hanging upside down from the mezzanine... a few steps forward were not possible.
How about cropping? If you had a high-end camera, and a high-end prime, wouldn't your crops be superior (or at least equal to) a low-end zoom on a mid-level camera?
* Second, even wide open, earlier in the evening with enough light coming through the skylights to use reasonable ISO and focus, the quality was just fine printed at 13x19.
A 2.8 "wide-open" is not the same as a 1.2 wide-open, is it? ;)
Using a 1.2, even at 1.4 or 2.0, you could have lowered your ISO and gotten better-quality images.
You also can't get the same bokeh, character, and separation of subject and background on a mid-level zoom as you can on a high-end prime.
* Third, later on when I was having to approximately hand-focus and using max ISO, the photos made the subjects very happy :) They liked the contrast, the framing, the content in short.
Client satisfaction = client satisfaction, 'nuff said.
In brief, for me the difference in quality between a Nikon 50/1.2 on an 810 and an old Sigma on a K3 is irrelevant, because of the style of photography I do. Michael Reichman wrote some time ago of the difficulty people had distinguishing prints from tripod-mounted MFD and a compact camera balanced on top of the big one. For me, it doesn't matter. For many people, it doesn't matter.
"For you" ... however, for others, there is a noticeable difference.
Michael also wrote a second article, Nikon's Jewel (https://luminous-landscape.com/nikons-jewel), about the 50mm f/1.2 Ai-S ... however, I don't remember any such fond articles being written about the old Sigma Zoom ...
For a few, it does, that's great. But here's a question: if tomorrow all the Nikon hardware were swept up in some sort of photographic rapture and the world was left to get by with Canon, Sony, Fuji, Pentax and various portable phones... would anyone looking at photos be able to tell?
I understand your point, but my response is, "What Rob C. said, above."
-
I like photography, I really do. But Cheap SLRs and compacts are just not improving enough.
The Samsung S6 phone I carry actually does well for me when it has enough light. Here is a pic today from the bus in Nice.
The only pocketable cam I know that can do better is the RX100, and it is much larger and fragile.
Next phone I buy I will make sure i can take uncompressed pix.
Edmund
Not the waning interest in photography, just the waning interest in buying cameras to take photos.
My brother knows I am into photography; in fact, he helped me build my website.
He does not own a DSLR and just left for Europe with his wife and family.
I told him to buy a DSLR to preserve his memories and he knows I like Nikon. He was looking at the D3300 and I tried to raise him to the D7200.
Ultimately, he bought the Nikon D3300, took it home, and was trying to figure it out. He ended up returning it, and he and his family are just going to use their cell phones (Galaxy Note 5s). They felt their phones were less hassle to carry, easier, and produced images "good enough" for them.
It wasn't that they "weren't interested" in taking photos (photography); it's that they didn't feel the need to plop down a few hundred dollars in order to do so, when their cell phones did all they needed, could immediately be shared to FB, etc.
Jack
-
I like photography, I really do. But Cheap SLRs and compacts are just not improving enough.
The Samsung S6 phone I carry actually does well for me when it has enough light. Here is a pic today from the bus in Nice.
The only pocketable cam I know that can do better is the RX100, and it is much larger and fragile.
Next phone I buy I will make sure i can take uncompressed pix.
Edmund
I agree with you, Edmund.
I think low-end DSLRs and P&Ss are a waste of money, and a hassle, for 99% of the population, including you and me.
This is why I think Nikon is making a good move, shifting away from "Cool Pix" and moving to uber-quality Point-N-Shoots, like the DL Series (https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/premium-compact-cameras/premium-compact-cameras.page).
I am anxiously awaiting my DL 18-50. I am a private investigator and insurance adjuster by trade.
Documenting cases "with photographs" comprises a huge part of what I do for a living.
One of the reasons many clients ask me to handle their cases, by name, is because of my images.
Where most investigators just pull out their cell phones these days, and fire-off a few images and move on ... as of now I bring a D810, and a couple of prime lenses, and so when the clients get my reports, along with the supporting documents, the difference in quality (format and orientation) is literally night-and-day.
A photo of a building where an occurrence took place, taken with "vertical composition" by a cell phone isn't quite what a wide-angle photo, properly composed "horizontally" looks like through a D810 (even if the client isn't sophisticated enough to pinpoint "why").
That said, a high-end point and shoot (like I had with the G15) would give me far better quality than a cell phone, it has raw format to tweak in Photoshop, and yet is not such a burden to carry on a case as is a D810 + lenses in the field. As soon as I get my Nikon DL point and shoot I am not going to bring my D810 any longer out in the field, unless I am doing surveillance (and, in that case, I will move to my D500--whenever I get that!).
I believe there is still room for point-and-shoots (even in the cell phone age), just not low-level ones, and not with the average person.
For the average person, it is 1000x easier (and better) to use a cell phone now than a junk P&S, because again, you can immediately share your phone images on FB.
The only room for P&Ss now, IMO, are the really good ones ... and only to those who need that extra bit of difference.
-
I agree with you, Edmund.
I think low-end DSLRs and P&Ss are a waste of money, and a hassle, for 99% of the population, including you and me.
This is why I think Nikon is making a good move, shifting away from "Cool Pix" and moving to uber-quality Point-N-Shoots, like the DL Series (https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/premium-compact-cameras/premium-compact-cameras.page).
I am anxiously awaiting my DL 18-50. I am a private investigator and insurance adjuster by trade.
Documenting cases "with photographs" comprises a huge part of what I do for a living.
One of the reasons many clients ask me to handle their cases, by name, is because of my images.
Where most investigators just pull out their cell phones these days, and fire-off a few images and move on ... as of now I bring a D810, and a couple of prime lenses, and so when the clients get my reports, along with the supporting documents, the difference in quality (format and orientation) is literally night-and-day.
A photo of a building where an occurrence took place, taken with "vertical composition" by a cell phone isn't quite what a wide-angle photo, properly composed "horizontally" looks like through a D810 (even if the client isn't sophisticated enough to pinpoint "why").
That said, a high-end point and shoot (like I had with the G15) would give me far better quality than a cell phone, it has raw format to tweak in Photoshop, and yet is not such a burden to carry on a case as is a D810 + lenses in the field. As soon as I get my Nikon DL point and shoot I am not going to bring my D810 any longer out in the field, unless I am doing surveillance (and, in that case, I will move to my D500--whenever I get that!).
I believe there is still room for point-and-shoots (even in the cell phone age), just not low-level ones, and not with the average person.
For the average person, it is 1000x easier (and better) to use a cell phone now than a junk P&S, because again, you can immediately share your phone images on FB.
The only room for P&Ss now, IMO, are the really good ones ... and only to those who need that extra bit of difference.
Joe,
I'm sure you choose the right tools for your job, and I congratulate you for having found a way to monetize photo your photo skills while bypassing all those photo editors and art directors.
What I find paradoxical is that I now deliberately leave my camera behind when I travel and get much nicer images because I have time to see what I'm looking at :)
And on top of that I "share" my images a bit, on the go, which is really hard to do with the big cameras.
I think the real reason why dSLR camera sales are going down is the lack of "social" integration. Who wants to sit in front of Lightroom every evening on vacation?
Edmund
PS. If I could find a tough compact that works well in low light and has a decent zoom range, I would go for it! As of now, I'm just hoping that my next phone has an even better camera.
-
Cell phone cameras are getting really good for lots of folks. Many decades ago, Kodak made a hit with a camera that people could use easily to take photos and keep the memories.
To say that people are losing interest in photography is just wrong; everyday photos are being taken by the millions, how is that losing interest? Why must we be snobs and judge quality? For the vast majority of people taking photographs, it is still a means of keeping memories that are important to them.
As it as always been, it's all about convenience. So what is wrong about using the camera in one's phone to take those memories? Nothing.
-
Cell phone cameras are getting really good for lots of folks. Many decades ago, Kodak made a hit with a camera that people could use easily to take photos and keep the memories.
To say that people are losing interest in photography is just wrong; everyday photos are being taken by the millions, how is that losing interest? Why must we be snobs and judge quality? For the vast majority of people taking photographs, it is still a means of keeping memories that are important to them.
As it as always been, it's all about convenience. So what is wrong about using the camera in one's phone to take those memories? Nothing.
Couldn't agree more.
What phones can do today is way ahead of what basic Kodak film cameras were able to achieve.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I sent some vacation pix back home today.
My 5 year old told mom that he wants some pictures "with papa in them" ie. selfies.
Literally a billion people are making cellphone images every day and emailing them - and the japanese camera manufacturers still haven't figured out that people need that networked functionality in their compacts and dSLRs.
It's a management failure. I would pay really good money for an RX100 - level camera that has a decent Android cellphone built in.
Edmund
Couldn't agree more.
What phones can do today is way ahead of what basic Kodak film cameras were able to achieve.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Literally a billion people are making cellphone images every day and emailing them - and the japanese camera manufacturers still haven't figured out that people need that networked functionality in their compacts and dSLRs.
It's a management failure. I would pay really good money for an RX100 - level camera that has a decent Android cellphone built in.
+1000
I'd probably add GPS to the list. On many occasions, I found myself pulling out cell phone instead of RX100II that I always have with me to take a shot because I wanted to know later where exactly I was while taking that shot.
It is also completely beyond me why WiFi and not Bluetooth was chosen for connecting camera with phones. In 99.(9)% all I want is transferring images to phone that is 1m from camera, not control a camera with a phone that is 100m away. I'm very wary of the limited juice in my a6000, so more often than not I have camera in "airplane" mode, bacause WiFi is a hog; with Bluetooth, I wouldn't have to do that. So modern camera connectivity options suck whichever way you look at them.
-
Be careful for what you wish. If that dream comes true, it really will be the beginning of the end of 'better' cameras. The pro has always been a secondary consideration for the mainstream manufacturers; should they identify a new market that allows simplification of production and increases sales/profits, the 'better' machines are done.
Rob C
P.S.
This isn't in reply to the point made above by Zorki5 re. connectivity, which interests me not at all: I don't want Fbook or any other of them.
-
Be careful for what you wish
...
This isn't in reply to the point made above by Zorki5 re. connectivity, which interests me not at all: I don't want Fbook or any other of them.
I'm yet to post a single image to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. "Connectivity" is a much broader thing.
You're right with your "be careful" remark though. If manufacturers understand "connectivity" as some sort of automatic means of posting to Facebook etc. from a high-end camera, that would be another blunder.
-
Obviously, the cell phone camera has caused a downward trend in camera sales. The convenience, constant availability and immediacy provided by these devices is winning the day. The question is how long and far does the trend go?
But there is no downtrend in photography. Rather, a massive up trend. It is a change in device type.
But, for all the benefits of a cell phone camera (I own a Google Nexus 6P, the camera provided is comparable to Samsung S6 and Iphone), most images are just terrible. However, it provides a device, that one usually has on them, that requires no photographic knowledge to take that bad picture! And if you apply some photographic knowledge, you can take some good images.
-
Obviously, the cell phone camera has caused a downward trend in camera sales. The convenience, constant availability and immediacy provided by these devices is winning the day. The question is how long and far does the trend go?
But there is no downtrend in photography. Rather, a massive up trend. It is a change in device type.
But, for all the benefits of a cell phone camera (I own a Google Nexus 6P, the camera provided is comparable to Samsung S6 and Iphone), most images are just terrible. However, it provides a device, that one usually has on them, that requires no photographic knowledge to take that bad picture! And if you apply some photographic knowledge, you can take some good images.
I concluded, after a lengthy time, that it just isn't worth the bother using a cellphone for snaps. Fine for easy, never-to-be-processed visual references to things you want to buy in a hardware store and don't know how to describe precisely enough, but for 'serious' stuff - nope, not for me.
Cost me some work: a chap I know who's familiar with my website wanted to order some prints for a yacht - distressed paint - and I had to turn him down because there's no way I could make a decent job of making display prints from this kind of source.
I stopped wasting time there and then.
http://www.roma57.com/cellpix.html
Rob C
-
Which matters only if Porsche (Nikon) is profitable. Otherwise, economic history is littered with unprofitable superior products or companies.
Slobodan,
I think we should say, profitable "enough." Sadly, too many profitable products/companies get whacked because they don't meet an ROI target.
Rand
-
"Connectivity" is a much broader thing.
I should probably expand on that a bit. Especially considering that it would allow me to stay on topic of Nikon being in trouble.
"Connectivity" is very closely related to what can be called "interoperability". And that is something Nikon is/was traditionally very bad at.
I remember that when I was deciding which DSLR route to take, Nikon's encryption of WB info in NEF files (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8306390752/nikon-encryptnef) played significant role in my choice of Canon back then.
That dreaded encryption as such is surely not a big deal, but it's a bad omen of things to come. For instance, can you expect great connectivity from cameras of the manufacturer that is desperate to lock customers into their system?
Japanese companies are terrible SW manufacturers, they just do not get it, alas.
P.S. Speaking of small things being bad omens for the future: Canon's infamous "direct print" button and utterly-stubborn refusal to make MLU more accessible, while not all that important per se, show that the company clearly thinks it knows better than their customers what they need. Which, in turn, might as well be the reason why I'm now shooting Sony while my Canons are gathering dust.
-
I concluded, after a lengthy time, that it just isn't worth the bother using a cellphone for snaps. Fine for easy, never-to-be-processed visual references to things you want to buy in a hardware store and don't know how to describe precisely enough, but for 'serious' stuff - nope, not for me.
Cost me some work: a chap I know who's familiar with my website wanted to order some prints for a yacht - distressed paint - and I had to turn him down because there's no way I could make a decent job of making display prints from this kind of source.
I stopped wasting time there and then.
http://www.roma57.com/cellpix.html
Rob C
I hear ya! I cringe every time I hear someone ask what POS camera should they buy for their trip of a lifetime! If photography is your passion, then the correct answer to that is the best damn camera you can physically lug. It's like working out: You hate it for the 5 hours a week you're doing it, but are glad you did for the other 163!
My daughter is playing a soccer tournament in Spain this summer and my wife is going to throw a Sh!t fit when I whip out both the D500 and D810. I'll shoot the soccer action with the D500, but for everything else, I will lug the D810. And for every minute after the trip ends, I will be thankful I did! And if I don't have a clean shirt, I'm OK, cause my tripod will fit in my suitcase!
-
Actually, most times I find the cellphone much more useful than the camera because people let me use it, including places where photography is "forbidden" like museums or in my kid's school. Never a stare, never any issues, never a complaint, and perfect spontaneous images. I just would like a "cellphone" that takes really good pictures, ie with a real 2x zoom and stabilisation.
The problems I have run into with cameras in public in France are unbelievable. I've had people run after me in the street because I photographed their building, or their shop window, and was once stopped by the guards from photographing the Louvre pyramid because my equipment was "professional" and there is -no joke- a law that forbids photography of even the outsides of national museums.
Where the "big" camera shines is in forcing people to concentrate for portraits or documentary stuff. And then the bigger, the better. The larger the lenshood and the front element the better.
I've used everything from ancient plate cameras to MF digital, and IMHO the best images came from the large format plate cams, and from my digital Leica M8, which would hang whenever it could find an excuse. And even the Leica is too much camera to show around.
Edmund
I hear ya! I cringe every time I hear someone ask what POS camera should they buy for their trip of a lifetime! If photography is your passion, then the correct answer to that is the best damn camera you can physically lug. It's like working out: You hate it for the 5 hours a week you're doing it, but are glad you did for the other 163!
My daughter is playing a soccer tournament in Spain this summer and my wife is going to throw a Sh!t fit when I whip out both the D500 and D810. I'll shoot the soccer action with the D500, but for everything else, I will lug the D810. And for every minute after the trip ends, I will be thankful I did! And if I don't have a clean shirt, I'm OK, cause my tripod will fit in my suitcase!
-
It's a matter of perception: nobody (yet?) sees a cellphone as threat: from the average Joe's experience, it doesn't do much that's going to hurt 'em or exploit 'em. Maybe private detectives use them today...
What, apart from the filter issues, was wrong with the M8 that it went on strike? Was it a special French issue? It's been suggested it would make a very good black/white camera.
Rob C
-
Actually, most times I find the cellphone much more useful than the camera because people let me use it, including places where photography is "forbidden" like museums or in my kid's school. Never a stare, never any issues, never a complaint, and perfect spontaneous images. I just would like a "cellphone" that takes really good pictures, ie with a real 2x zoom and stabilisation.
The problems I have run into with cameras in public in France are unbelievable. I've had people run after me in the street because I photographed their building, or their shop window, and was once stopped by the guards from photographing the Louvre pyramid because my equipment was "professional" and there is -no joke- a law that forbids photography of even the outsides of national museums.
Where the "big" camera shines is in forcing people to concentrate for portraits or documentary stuff. And then the bigger, the better. The larger the lenshood and the front element the better.
I've used everything from ancient plate cameras to MF digital, and IMHO the best images came from the large format plate cams, and from my digital Leica M8, which would hang whenever it could find an excuse. And even the Leica is too much camera to show around.
Edmund
Edward;
It is for these reasons that my brother and his family decided not to buy a dedicated camera (one, so as not to carry paperweight around his neck), and the other reason is because tourists taking photos with cell phones is "okay," "cute," unobtrusive in the public's eye.
Jack
-
Maybe private detectives use them today...
I can assure you that they do ;)
Walking around with a cell phone, having a "mock conversation," while actually taking photos is a common surveillance trick. This can be done while running video, also.
However, one has to be careful about the laws (which vary by state).
It is illegal in many states to capture a person speaking on recording, yet taking silent video footage of them (or still photos) is okay, so long as they are visible from a public place where you have a right to be. Taking audible recordings, documenting a person's conversation, however, without his/her permission, can get you in trouble ... whereas your silent surveillance camera captures their movements, or still photo camera, is perfectly okay to do.
Funny but true,
Jack
-
It's a matter of perception: nobody (yet?) sees a cellphone as threat: from the average Joe's experience, it doesn't do much that's going to hurt 'em or exploit 'em. Maybe private detectives use them today...
What, apart from the filter issues, was wrong with the M8 that it went on strike? Was it a special French issue? It's been suggested it would make a very good black/white camera.
Rob C
Typical event:
Check camera, meet model, go to location, camera goes on strike.
Check camera, go on press trip, camera goes on strike.
It's a latchup phenomenon which is somehow related to bad batteries, and in my experience occurs when one takes several shots in quick succession.
Leica advice: Take battery out of camera and wait 24 hours. Very funny.
Actually if one has a "good" fresh battery people say one can restart the camera.
I still have the M8, but now the sensor has a bad column ...
Edmund
-
Leica only makes 2 top 10 primes, while Nikon makes 4.
Given that LenScore only tested 12 Leica lenses and 40+ Nikon lenses and 40+ Canon lenses that is not too bad I guess...
Also, as all 4 Nikon lenses are 200mm or longer, it is a bit comparing apples to oranges IMO...
That being said, LenScore does seem to do a decent job I have the impression and claim to be independent which increases their credibility.
I would love to see them test the 24-90mm and 90-280mm zoom lenses for the Leica SL.
-
Given that LenScore only tested 12 Leica lenses and 40+ Nikon lenses and 40+ Canon lenses that is not too bad I guess...
True.
Also, as all 4 Nikon lenses are 200mm or longer, it is a bit comparing apples to oranges IMO...
I would say that a lot more work goes in to making a 200-800mm into an exquisite lens than a 50mm ...
That being said, LenScore does seem to do a decent job I have the impression and claim to be independent which increases their credibility.
Agree 100%.
I like their transparency and simplicity as to method, as well as their marks as to which categories a given lens excels (or fails) at (e.g., bokeh, sharpness, etc.).
I would love to see them test the 24-90mm and 90-280mm zoom lenses for the Leica SL.
I'd love to see them all up there :)
They will test a lens you send them, I think.
They don't even test my old all-manual lenses, but I'd sure like to see how they scored too.
-
IMO, it is best if Nikon "breaks" internally to two companies... One aimed for the DSLR market and the other for the rest of the stuff they make... Then the DSLR division, should have a subdivision that would concentrate to the up to D5xxx products and respective lenses and let the rest to design the policy on information coming straight from prosumer needs...
There are also immediate actions that should be made...
1. Rename the D500 to D9xxx, the D750 to D6xx, the D620 to D4xx and perhaps introduce a (FF) D2xx line too...
2. Convert all lenses to E-series lenses and bring the aperture ring back exactly as it is with the PCE lenses...
3. Introduce a D811 that would be the same as the D810 but with the sensor of the DF...
4. Start preparing the D6 on the D800 body, but with interchangeable finders, screens and sensors (slotted in by the left side of the camera) and then offer sensors of high res (that would make it an D6X), low res/fast/LL (that would make it a D6S), B&W sensor (that would make it D6BW), Astrophotography sensor (that would make it D6A), video dedicated sensor (that would make it D6C) and so on... Just my two cents...
-
I would say that a lot more work goes in to making a 200-800mm into an exquisite lens than a 50mm ...
My point was more, if you need a 50mm lens you are not going to buy a 200-800mm one... You really only want to compare with other 50mm (or close enough focal length) lenses...
And I would say it is probably more difficult to make a quality wide-angle lens as none of them seem to do particularly well...
Additional point, lenses like the Noctilux 0.95 are really specialty lenses designed to be shot wide open, nobody really cares how they perform stopped down...
-
Typical event:
Check camera, meet model, go to location, camera goes on strike.
Check camera, go on press trip, camera goes on strike.
It's a latchup phenomenon which is somehow related to bad batteries, and in my experience occurs when one takes several shots in quick succession.
Leica advice: Take battery out of camera and wait 24 hours. Very funny.
Actually if one has a "good" fresh battery people say one can restart the camera.
I still have the M8, but now the sensor has a bad column ...
Edmund
Are those models able to be returned to Papa for free replacement sensors? If so, might be worth your while, even if only for 'collectability' value some day. You are still a young man - worth holding and waiting (the camera, I mean).
Rob C
-
Rob, just go and buy an old Leica R9 and DMR with the right screen and you will be as close to heaven as you can get without dying ...If your eyes are really good enough to still do MF. You could even go and get one of those old F5 Frankencameras ie Kodak 760 or Kodak 770.
I thought the old Powerbooks I used as a journalist were better for writing. SO I went and restored an 80s PB180, using my skills as an engineer, and you know what - it really was as good as I remembered.
Edmund
Powerbook 180- 1992? About as old as my DCS200ir, which I also keep running.
My favorite computer is the Micron Trek II, Pentium II- circa 1998. Four of the original batteries still hold full charge. Don't make them like they used to. My Lab is like Wall-E's van, full of spare parts.
-
Powerbook 180- 1992? About as old as my DCS200ir, which I also keep running.
My favorite computer is the Micron Trek II, Pentium II- circa 1998. Four of the original batteries still hold full charge. Don't make them like they used to. My Lab is like Wall-E's van, full of spare parts.
I got a new battery for the PB and also integrated an SSD. I still need to build some sort of serial link to make it easier to get files off this thing. Be aware that the small (laptop) old disks are basically guaranteed to fail - I have something like 6 Powerbooks of that vintage and all have issues. The big disks seem to live forever.
What are you doing with your DCS?
Edmund
-
I can't really think of anything Nikon could bring out that would make me switch.
But then I didn't think I would be sinking a ton of money into a Sony system until they brought out the A7Rii, either.
I'm with Cooter on the need for stills/video convergence. Any modern system with the readout speed for LiveView has the potential to record video. If you're going to do it, do the best job of it you can. Even though stills camera ergonomics aren't ideal for shooting video, a bit of thought and firmware can go a long long way to helping (peaking, audio levels, RGB histogram with clip warnings, log gammas, log gamma with R, G, B channels encoded separately so you can white balance in post, suitable video modes for AF and IS, etc.) I'll be interested to see how good a job Hasselblad have done with video on the H6D.
If I'm going on a stills shoot I take the Hasselblad.
If I'm going on a video shoot I take the RED.
But I take the Sony A7RII to every shoot, every time. I need to travel light, I'll take just the Sony. (OK so I also throw in a 7D or GH4 and a boggo standard zoom since I have them lying around, so I have a backup. When Sony comes out with an A7Riii I'll buy that and use A7Rii as backup.)
Two cases versus five makes a hell of a difference flying out somewhere to shoot, and even in the UK can make the difference between taking my car and needing to hire a van.
Now if only I could get continuous lighting kit that would genuinely do for both highest-quality stills and video, I'd be super happy.
Maybe Nikon should start making really, really good lights :-)
Cheers, Hywel
-
Canon could shut down their camera business (still and video) and they would still have their printers and scanners. Not as big as the camera division, but I'm sure that segment makes a good profit too.
Nikon does make some interesting products for scientific and industrial applications, but no one is buying those products for their home or small business, so not a lot of sales there.
Nikon also has the Sport Optics Division making rifle scopes, binoculars, and spotting scopes. I have no idea what kind of volume they do. They make some very nice binoculars and spotting scopes although nothing that approaches a Swarovski or Leica quality product. They also don't cost as much as the Swarovski products. There were a number of years where they were very actively sponsoring outdoor television and giving sport optic product to journalists.
-
It's a matter of perception: nobody (yet?) sees a cellphone as threat:
Some do. The only time I've observed someone chase a photographer down the street, she was using a phone. She had just taken a photo through the window of a fashion/design store with very prominent "no photography" signs, so it wasn't unexpected.
I've never been hassled in Paris, although I tend to avoid the most obvious tourist spots and I've never tried setting up a tripod. Just happens not to be my style. Given that at the moment you can end up in a coma for taking photographs that the riot police don't appreciate (of them body-slamming a woman over a railing, for eg) and the general level of post-terrorist pre-football security paranoia, I'll be sticking to less obvious targets.
-
Some do. The only time I've observed someone chase a photographer down the street, she was using a phone. She had just taken a photo through the window of a fashion/design store with very prominent "no photography" signs, so it wasn't unexpected.
I've never been hassled in Paris, although I tend to avoid the most obvious tourist spots and I've never tried setting up a tripod. Just happens not to be my style. Given that at the moment you can end up in a coma for taking photographs that the riot police don't appreciate (of them body-slamming a woman over a railing, for eg) and the general level of post-terrorist pre-football security paranoia, I'll be sticking to less obvious targets.
Putting up a 'no photos' sign in a fashion shop is crazy: the moment the product's out there so are the pirates - probably right from the first PR handout that hits the press, if not earlier due to industrial espionage before the fact.
I wouldn't put so much emphasis on riot police behaviour: having watched a lot of France24 since I decided that I hated Sky News, I've noted that a lot of the folks they have to deal with come very well prepared for battle. I have seen females as active as their boyfriends; in some areas of violence women are more to be feared than men. Regarding the innocent bystanders: unless on your way to work, why would you gather at a place everyone knows is going to be a trouble spot? To be entertained? To play at war photographer? To post pictures of your heroism online? Few innocents around, I fear.
As for security due to bloody football: easy solution would be to have none, and let the inevitable happen and piss the world off the entire sorry industry. The concept of grow men kicking balls around and getting paid for it as they do seems strangely otherworldly. Just like most other so-called sport, really; great for schoolchildren but more than as little iffy for adults. But of course, it would only be the politicians and security people that would get the stick, not those advocting less efficacy of effort. Maybe the floods are a heavenly warning... loved the bit about hotel prices for the period: some are sold out at well over 100% above normal room charges; sport is love.
;-)
Rob
-
I think the very nature of zooms makes their quality insufficient, Rob.
It is hard enough to make high-end primes, at one focal length, let alone to have that quality span the transition of several focal lengths.
I much prefer shooting primes now, for this reason.
I have also found that "24-70" is a negligible difference in positioning oneself, as far as framing goes.
There is no reason I need a zoom in this range, when walking a bit forward will suffice :)
John, Have you tried a Canon 5DSr with the 24-70 2.8II? In my experience, the Canon 24-70 2.8II is as sharp or sharper than most primes, that is why it's such a big deal. I also like primes but the 24-70 is THE most important lens to most working pros. To say you can use a 50 and just move closer or farther away is silly as pro's don't always have that option. A small space requires a wide shot and 70mm gets you nice compression quickly when you want it.
According to one very respected reviewer, the new Sony 24-70mm 2.8 is the first zoom that tests better than the Canon, which had set the bar since it's release a a few years ago. The new Canon 11-24 is also the first WA zoom to outperform the Nikon 14-24 which was the best for a while. As great as you think Nikon is, to me, the evidence is not there to support it. I do think the D810 is a great body, but not good enough to make up for the other issues for what I shoot. I have no personal attachment to any brand at all, I just buy or rent the best tool for the job and for me and many others, Nikon isn't it.
-
According to one very respected reviewer, the new Sony 24-70mm 2.8 is the first zoom that tests better than the Canon, which had set the bar since it's release a a few years ago. The new Canon 11-24 is also the first WA zoom to outperform the Nikon 14-24 which was the best for a while. As great as you think Nikon is, to me, the evidence is not there to support it. I do think the D810 is a great body, but not good enough to make up for the other issues for what I shoot. I have no personal attachment to any brand at all, I just buy or rent the best tool for the job and for me and many others, Nikon isn't it.
We all have different needs, you obviously know best what works for you. I also find the enthousiasm of our friend John/Jack a bit over the top. It was over the top when he was shooting Canon and it still is over the top now that he is shooting Nikon. ;)
As far as the 24-70 f2.8 lenses go, I have been using the new Nikon VR version on the D5 and it is a very good lens, much better in real world use than the lukewarm test results led me to believe. The look is nice, it is a sharp lens that is overall well behaved... and the AF is extremely fast. It is the first time I see a general purpose lens that focuses as fast as the super tele lenses, be it in very low light. Truly impressive in my book.
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/8/7394/27651927426_0874410d63_o.jpg)
VR also helps in some circumpstances and had a major impact on the lens design, so its a bit hard to compare apple to apple with lenses not featuring VR. We'll have to see whether Canon can/wants to maintain the level of optical quality of the current 24-70 f2.8 II after adding VR and an AF of similar capability. I sure hope they do but we'll only know when the lens hits the market some day. Sony is obviously benefiting from their startegic investement in sensor bases stabilisation and it is clearly the better way forward since it keeps lens design simpler.
Not trying to change your mind or to paint Nikon in a special light, just sharing my first hand experience with this lens that is IMHO under-estimated by many.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
John, Have you tried a Canon 5DSr with the 24-70 2.8II? In my experience, the Canon 24-70 2.8II is as sharp or sharper than most primes, that is why it's such a big deal. I also like primes but the 24-70 is THE most important lens to most working pros. To say you can use a 50 and just move closer or farther away is silly as pro's don't always have that option.
No, I haven't tried the 5DSr. I wasn't willing to spend $3500 for a camera that, ultimately, isn't as good as the $2,900 Nikon D810.
Also, I no longer use zooms at all, as they simply suck in some important areas compared to primes (especially in the bokeh department, but also in the close-range department).
And what do you define as a "working pro," exactly?
I can assure you that, as a person who documents death, dismemberment, injuries, and other forms of horrific crimes/property damage insurance claims, there is nothing "silly" about the need for good equipment ... and (IMO) some of your concerns, quite frankly, I find "silly" compared the gravity of the work which I do.
With that reality check in place, I do admit that (in minor cases) hell a cell phone is all that is needed, or a P&S. Most cases, really.
Therefore, I would have to agree that the Canon 24-70 II would be an excellent choice in most cases. (FYI, I used to use the original 24-70 and it remains the best zoom I ever used).
However, in *some* cases of my work, specialization is necessary.
For example, one of the trouble with zooms is, they don't have close-range capabilities. Both the elder, and newer, 24-70 Canon lenses had a min. focus distance of 1.25' (15").
By contrast, my Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AI-S (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/28mmnikkor/28mmf28.htm) has a min focus distance of 8.4", and it also has close-range correction, which can be a key in getting all the details of the damage/injury in relationship to the background captured.
So, when you speak of "professionalism," IMO, you're confusing "casual snapshooter" with truly niched professionalism ;)
And finally, as far as 50mm goes, your 24-70 "at 50mm" can never do what my Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AI-S (https://luminous-landscape.com/nikons-jewel) can do, and that is totally isolate the subject and turn the background into creamy-blur. Not only is this "artistic," but is is impactful in certain contexts.
So, we agree on some basic principles (you carry the 24-70 II, while I carry the 28mm AI-S + 50mm AI-S in this fine leather bag (http://highonleather.com/products/handmade-leather-camera-bag)), but the reality of the situation is ... I can do anything you can do with these two lenses ... but you canNOT do things with with your "catch-all" zoom ... that I can do with my specialized tools ... and those "things" that my equipment allows me to do are important to the professionalism of my work, if not yours ;)
According to one very respected reviewer, the new Sony 24-70mm 2.8 is the first zoom that tests better than the Canon, which had set the bar since it's release a a few years ago. The new Canon 11-24 is also the first WA zoom to outperform the Nikon 14-24 which was the best for a while. As great as you think Nikon is, to me, the evidence is not there to support it.
Honestly, I could care less about zooms anymore. They all fail miserably when compared to specialized primes.
As great as you think Nikon is, to me, the evidence is not there to support it. I do think the D810 is a great body, but not good enough to make up for the other issues for what I shoot.
Bullshit. The evidence is not there to support the Canon 5DSr. It is ranked LOWER than the Nikon D810 in every ranking system, and website, on the internet.
Wake up and smell the coffee (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/coffee.png)
I have no personal attachment to any brand at all, I just buy or rent the best tool for the job and for me and many others, Nikon isn't it.
We simply disagree, and you simply don't have a factual leg to stand on.
There is NO rating system that doesn't rate the 5DSr lower than the Nikon D810.
Denial isn't rebuttal; it is only denial.
Jack
-
We all have different needs, you obviously know best what works for you. I also find the enthousiasm of our friend John/Jack a bit over the top. It was over the top when he was shooting Canon and it still is over the top now that he is shooting Nikon. ;)
Interesting spelling of the word, enthusiasm ;)
When I was shooting Canon, I used the 50mm f/1.4, but it is a toy compared to the Nikkor AI-S that Michael Reichmann also felt compelled to devote an article to ...
As far as the 24-70 f2.8 lenses go, I have been using the new Nikon VR version on the D5 and it is a very good lens, much better in real world use than the lukewarm test results led me to believe. The look is nice, it is a sharp lens that is overall well behaved... and the AF is extremely fast. It is the first time I see a general purpose lens that focuses as fast as the super tele lenses, be it in very low light. Truly impressive in my book.
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/8/7394/27651927426_0874410d63_o.jpg)
In your book, maybe. Can you at least straighten the horizon?
VR also helps in some circumpstances and had a major impact on the lens design, so its a bit hard to compare apple to apple with lenses not featuring VR. We'll have to see whether Canon can/wants to maintain the level of optical quality of the current 24-70 f2.8 II after adding VR and an AF of similar capability. I sure hope they do but we'll only know when the lens hits the market some day. Sony is obviously benefiting from their startegic investement in sensor bases stabilisation and it is clearly the better way forward since it keeps lens design simpler.
Not trying to change your mind or to paint Nikon in a special light, just sharing my first hand experience with this lens that is IMHO under-estimated by many.
Cheers,
Bernard
Have you been drinking, Bernard?
Sushi, sake, and pole-dancing can affect any man's senses and writing ;D
Jack
-
According to one very respected reviewer - / - The new Canon 11-24 is also the first WA zoom to outperform the Nikon 14-24 which was the best for a while. As great as you think Nikon is, to me, the evidence is not there to support it. I do think the D810 is a great body, but not good enough to make up for the other issues for what I shoot. I have no personal attachment to any brand at all, I just buy or rent the best tool for the job and for me and many others, Nikon isn't it.
The reviews forget that the Nikon zooms they're comparing to new Canon models have been around for years and years and years. When I was a die-hard Canon guy I had a test of the then new Nikon 14-24 on their new 24 MP body as part of a test Nikon kit and it made my Canon 16-35 L II look downright pedestrian - in fact embarrassing so.
I feel the same about any new camera comparisons to the now fairly old Nikon 800 series.
My first D800e made my Canons look like expensive boat anchors with poor resolution and no dynamic range.
Sure, Canon have caught up on the lenses and the resolution, but they followed Nikon down this path, they didn't lead.
I also don't have blind brand loyalties and expect serious competition between these guys as it keeps them innovating and that can only be a good thing for all of us.
-
In your book, maybe. Can you at least straighten the horizon?
Certainly not. Not every picture needs to be taken horizontally or vertically my friend and this one works fine the way it is. In my book.
Regarding your other comments, I am sure you had understood that I was commenting both on the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 VR and about Sony 24-70 f2.8.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Certainly not. Not every picture needs to be taken horizontally or vertically my friend and this one works fine the way it is. In my book.
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/sarasticlaugh.gif)
Regarding your other comments, I am sure you had understood that I was commenting both on the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 VR and about Sony 24-70 f2.8.
Cheers,
Bernard
Nice side-step of the main question (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/sarasticlaugh.gif)
Cheers back (don't spill) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/sarasticlaugh.gif)
-
.... I also find the enthousiasm of our friend John/Jack a bit over the top...
Oh, no! Someone stole the High(est) Priest of the Nikon Evangelists Order role from you? Ah, those Young Turks :D
-
Oh, no! Someone stole the High(est) Priest of the Nikon Evangelists Order role from you? Ah, those Young Turks :D
Indeed.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Certainly not. Not every picture needs to be taken horizontally or vertically my friend and this one works fine the way it is. In my book.
Regarding your other comments, I am sure you had understood that I was commenting both on the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 VR and about Sony 24-70 f2.8.
Cheers,
Bernard
I'm with you on this one Bernard! I love the angle.
-
The reviews forget that the Nikon zooms they're comparing to new Canon models have been around for years and years and years. When I was a die-hard Canon guy I had a test of the then new Nikon 14-24 on their new 24 MP body as part of a test Nikon kit and it made my Canon 16-35 L II look downright pedestrian - in fact embarrassing so.
I feel the same about any new camera comparisons to the now fairly old Nikon 800 series.
My first D800e made my Canons look like expensive boat anchors with poor resolution and no dynamic range.
Sure, Canon have caught up on the lenses and the resolution, but they followed Nikon down this path, they didn't lead.
I also don't have blind brand loyalties and expect serious competition between these guys as it keeps them innovating and that can only be a good thing for all of us.
Agree on the 14-24, it was ground breaking when it came out, (and I still have mine that I use on my Sony until I upgrade to the new Canon), although the 11-24 Canon has surpassed it now. The Canon 16-35 2.3II was not a great lens. But it's not relevant in comparing the D810 to a 5DSr or lens to lens, as most buyers are probably already invested in a system and won't cross over just for one lens or one body. My points were just trying to bring John down to earth about his beloved Nikons. All in fun, as gear heads, it's a candy store of great tech these days!
-
We simply disagree, and you simply don't have a factual leg to stand on.
There is NO rating system that doesn't rate the 5DSr lower than the Nikon D810.
Denial isn't rebuttal; it is only denial.
Jack
The discussion is about why Nikon seems to be failing in the market. My comments were to explain that my standards are extremely high and I am truly not brand centric and I have found better solutions for all types of my work. Nikon failed me in architecture as they have no answer to Canon's exclusive TS-E lenses. Many landscape shooters have the same need. There was a time when Nikon had the best lenses other than maybe Leica, but now they no longer have an exclusive on that. I think their financial issues have probably hurt their R&D for years now and it's starting to show. Let's hope they over come their problems and hang around as competition is good for everyone.
-
Interesting spelling of the word, enthusiasm ;)
In your book, maybe. Can you at least straighten the horizon?
Jack
I'm pretty anal about level horizons in photos ( I use a hot shoe spirit level if I'm doing any serious photography & can spot a .2 degree tilt in a horizon ). Bernard's picture is terrific & does not need straightening.
Not sure what I'm even doing on this thread as I'm using a 5 year old Canon 60D & a little plastic EFS 24mm. Better go & do some work.
-
They still make lovely microscopes :)
Although my department went with Olympus, also superb microscopes.
Re: old AIS lenses - fun to shoot with these (on adapter, in my case). As far as the venerable AI-S 50 f/1.2 shot at f/1.2, as mentioned in an old article here on LL, the expected spherical aberrations of the double Gauss design can be a feature. It certainly was the cream of the crop in the old days.
-
The discussion is about why Nikon seems to be failing in the market.
Being #2 globally is "failing?"
Having the highest dynamic range DSLR, the highest ISO-capable camera, the finest APS-C, etc. is "failing?"
All you can do is talk about the 11-24, which is kind of a bulbous freak, and really only usable at about 14mm.
About half the people I know who've bought them, return them or sell them.
My comments were to explain that my standards are extremely high and I am truly not brand centric and I have found better solutions for all types of my work. Nikon failed me in architecture as they have no answer to Canon's exclusive TS-E lenses.
If I were shooting architecture, I would agree with you.
I haven't seen your "standards," so I can't comment there.
Many landscape shooters have the same need.
Uh, sorry. More landscape shooters have dumped Canon for Nikon (or Sony) than the reverse.
Canon is at its weakest here compared to everybody, not just Nikon.
There was a time when Nikon had the best lenses other than maybe Leica, but now they no longer have an exclusive on that. I think their financial issues have probably hurt their R&D for years now and it's starting to show. Let's hope they over come their problems and hang around as competition is good for everyone.
Again, you need to wake-up and smell the coffee (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/coffee.png)
Of the top 10 primes made, Nikon makes 4 of them, with Zeiss, Leica, and Canon only having 2 apiece.
R&D troubles? Dude, what planet are you on?
Canon is the one whose very best, most modern "landscape camera" can't even equal the DR of Nikon's prosumer cameras.
The 7D Mark II fails in every sensor-respect to every other camera manufacturer on the market (except other Canons).
Meanwhile Nikon's D500 leads every other manufacturer's offering, in every respect.
And every review on Nikon's new AF system concludes that it is quantum-levels-superior to any other AF system of any other manufacturer.
Honestly, there is no point discussing the subject with someone who has just makes things up to have something to say.
I do like some of Canon's lenses, but not too many.
-
Oh, no! Someone stole the High(est) Priest of the Nikon Evangelists Order role from you? Ah, those Young Turks :D
:P
-
They still make lovely microscopes :)
Although my department went with Olympus, also superb microscopes.
Re: old AIS lenses - fun to shoot with these (on adapter, in my case). As far as the venerable AI-S 50 f/1.2 shot at f/1.2, as mentioned in an old article here on LL, the expected spherical aberrations of the double Gauss design can be a feature. It certainly was the cream of the crop in the old days.
I love 'em - when I can focus 'em! Some days I can and other days I can't.
This is with an old manual 2/35 Nikkor wide open at f2 and on a D700 at 1/2500. ISO 200 - it won't go lower as a 'normal' ISO... Shame, as there's not a lot of need to shoot at such a high shutter speed in the normal scheme of things (mine).
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/6372557_orig.jpg)
Rob
-
Being #2 globally is "failing?"
Having the highest dynamic range DSLR, the highest ISO-capable camera, the finest APS-C, etc. is "failing?"
All you can do is talk about the 11-24, which is kind of a bulbous freak, and really only usable at about 14mm.
About half the people I know who've bought them, return them or sell them.
If I were shooting architecture, I would agree with you.
I haven't seen your "standards," so I can't comment there.
Uh, sorry. More landscape shooters have dumped Canon for Nikon (or Sony) than the reverse.
Canon is at its weakest here compared to everybody, not just Nikon.
Again, you need to wake-up and smell the coffee (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/coffee.png)
Of the top 10 primes made, Nikon makes 4 of them, with Zeiss, Leica, and Canon only having 2 apiece.
R&D troubles? Dude, what planet are you on?
Canon is the one whose very best, most modern "landscape camera" can't even equal the DR of Nikon's prosumer cameras.
The 7D Mark II fails in every sensor-respect to every other camera manufacturer on the market (except other Canons).
Meanwhile Nikon's D500 leads every other manufacturer's offering, in every respect.
And every review on Nikon's new AF system concludes that it is quantum-levels-superior to any other AF system of any other manufacturer.
Honestly, there is no point discussing the subject with someone who has just makes things up to have something to say.
I do like some of Canon's lenses, but not too many.
John, if you look at the list on LenScore the first Nikon on the list that isn't 200mm or longer is like #33. Most people shoot with lenses from 24-100mm and of course the 70-200. Not sure who shoots what in your circles but in the commercial world, that's what I see. I would think most wedding shooters also need the medium zooms for 90% of their work. Your dislike for zooms is your personal choice but most of us rely on them on a daily basis and the latest Canon and Sony's are superb with the Nikon not far behind. Reading the reviews shows Zeiss primes on top with Leica in the mix as I would expect. If you are a user of super tele's then I'd say you have the right system.
I'm not saying that Nikon makes poor lenses, they don't, only that they are certainly not any better when it comes to the majority of lenses people need. I loved my D810 and actually used my Leica R's on it with fantastic results. No bias here. It was only the lack of shift lenses that moved me to Sony, and of course the ability to use Nikon, Canon, Zeiss, Sony, Leica,etc.. lenses on them. But the discussion here was about Nikon's financial problems and I'm not sure we as a group at the high end of the pyramid, have much to do with that. I was only trying to express why Nikon may be having a hard time in a very competitive camera market.
Nuff said.
-
Re: lenses
1. Canon 11-24 vs Nikon 14-24
I call this a tie. Sure, the 11-24 is 3mm wider, but these extra millimetres are only useful in a very small number of shots - the rest of the time, you either don't want such a wide angle of view, or are stitching for greater resolution. The 14-24 is also a stop faster, with almost no coma aberration - very useful for shooting at night or other situations with lots of pinpoint lights (stars, candles, light globes, etc.). The 11-24 is more flare-resistant, though. Both lenses have big, bulbous front elements that need special care and special filters. Also, the 11-24 is several years newer - no doubt, an updated Nikon 14-24 would match the Canon.
2. Superteles and wildlife
Could swing either way, depending on your exact requirements. The new Nikon superteles are probably slightly better than the slightly-less-new Canon superteles on an optical test bench. In front of an actual sensor - even the high-resolution A7rII sensor - there's no visible difference. The real kicker here is the Canon 200-400 with inbuilt TC vs the Nikon 200-400. The Canon is prime-sharp optically, and the inbuilt TC is incredibly useful. That lens alone probably makes Canon a better system for shooting wildlife, unless you're always at 500mm and above and using 500/600/800mm primes exclusively (which would also make the D500 and long Nikon lenses likely the best option for shooting birds).
3. Other lenses
A mixed bag, but with Nikon generally on the losing end, if only by a little bit.
Zeiss glass is generally the sharpest, but lacks AF and weather sealing, making it irrelevant for many applications. Some Sigma lenses come very close (35 Art, 50 Art, etc.) and are equally usable on both systems. The best macros available are also third-party and available to both systems. The latest Sony 24-70 and 70-200 are incredibly sharp, beating out both the Canon and Nikon offerings, but, obviously, cannot be used on either Canon or Nikon. So, the competition is really among the handful of lenses where the isn't a better alternative that works equally well on both Canon and Nikon - 24-70, 70-200, 135mm, 200 f/2.0, 100-400/80-400. The 200/2.0 on each side is superb, with little between them; among the others, the Canon version generally beats the Nikon, if only slightly. Canon 24-70 beats the new Nikon 24-70 by a bit, Canon 70-200 has similar centre sharpness to the Nikon 70-200 but better corner sharpness and fewer aberrations, etc.
As for zooms not being 'good enough', that may have been the case 15 years ago, but not now:
Canon 24-70L II - was the sharpest autofocus lens across the whole image (as opposed to just one part of it) in that focal length range for a period of time, until recently surpassed by the Sony 24-70.
Nikon 14-24 and Canon 11-24 - you'd struggle to find another lens - prime or zoom, AF or MF - that's as sharp as these two in that focal length range
The main advantage of primes in normal (24-200mm) focal lengths these days isn't so much sharpness, but maximum aperture and bokeh characteristics - important for certain artistic work at shallow depths of field, but completely irrelevant for those who shoot stopped down. There's also distortion, but that's only really relevant to architectural photography and art/document reproduction, and easily corrected in software.
There's a reason the 24-70 and 70-200 are staples of photojournalists and wedding photographers, and are incredibly popular even with those shooting landscapes and other subjects. You can't foot-zoom when you're in a crowded room, you can't foot-zoom when it would mean walking 500m off a cliff (and dramatically changing the composition) to change the framing, you don't have time to change lenses when things are happening fast, you don't want to change lenses in a dust-storm or in seaspray and you don't want to carry 5 different primes when you need to leg it up a hill to shoot in a place where there aren't any roads.
-
I find it amazing that a discussion which started on potential financial trouble of Nikon degenerated in a "mine is bigger" / "mine is better" CaNikon pissing contest.
My thoughts on it are:- Nikon users should root for their brand and hope it survives
- Non-Nikon users should root for Nikon to survive, strong competing brands are good for everybody, and irrespective if you like or not like them they made their mark in the industry and forced their competition to keep innovating as well.
- A camera that's best for everybody doesn't exist (despite what some people try to tell you) and while one camera might outscore another one on a lot of parameters if for instance it doesn't fit your hands (and there is no score for that) it can't be the best camera for you. Also given the technological advancements any advantage one camera has is temporary and overtaken by another one in due time.
-
I find it amazing that a discussion which started on potential financial trouble of Nikon degenerated in a "mine is bigger" / "mine is better" CaNikon pissing contest.
I don't. Regrettably. In the online world enthusiasm for brand cheerleading often exceedes enthusiasm for taking & enjoying photos.
IMO the more healthy camera/photo systems we have, the better.
-Dave-
-
I find it amazing that a discussion which started on potential financial trouble of Nikon degenerated in a "mine is bigger" / "mine is better" CaNikon pissing contest.
My thoughts on it are:- Nikon users should root for their brand and hope it survives
- Non-Nikon users should root for Nikon to survive, strong competing brands are good for everybody, and irrespective if you like or not like them they made their mark in the industry and forced their competition to keep innovating as well.
- A camera that's best for everybody doesn't exist (despite what some people try to tell you) and while one camera might outscore another one on a lot of parameters if for instance it doesn't fit your hands (and there is no score for that) it can't be the best camera for you. Also given the technological advancements any advantage one camera has is temporary and overtaken by another one in due time.
I am in total agreement with you. I just can't help myself when people make claims that I know are untrue...... I need to work on that :-)
Steve