Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: BJL on February 17, 2014, 10:53:45 am
-
A few interesting quotes from an article at http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3890662077/cp-2014-nikon-interview-our-cameras-need-to-evolve based on an interview with Nikon reps during CP+. Quesot bold; responses in italics.
Note that when he says "in Europe and the Americas, including North America we've determined that the market for mirrorless is shrinking", subsequent comments strongly suggest that he is talking most about Nikon's own "One" mirrorless system, whose sales have nose-dived in more recent quarterly sales reports.
Do you see the same market trends across the entire world?
… For example with mirrorless, the situation differs very much by geography. In Japan and Asia mirrorless is still growing, but in Europe and the Americas, including North America we've determined that the market for mirrorless is shrinking.
Why do you think that mirrorless has been relatively slow to gain popularity in Europe and America?
Let’s talk about North America because that’s one of the worst geographies when it comes to the mirrorless camera market. The market for our mirrorless cameras is not growing there. We’re still studying the reasons but we believe that North American customers believe that if they want image quality they’re supposed to buy DSLRs, not mirrorless. In reality, mirrorless can offer high image quality, it’s just a smaller system, but the American customers don’t view it in that way.
So you find that in America your customers equate physical size with quality?
Perhaps, yes. We have done some studies where we presented consumers with a DSLR and a mirrorless camera and ask them if the image quality was the same, which one they would chose, and generally they chose the DSLR. We asked them why and they said ‘of course bigger ones are better!’ We literally heard that response from one customer.
-
When you look at American food/cars/people it's hard not to argue with 'bigger is better' but maybe their mirrorless offerings are just not very good?
-
I would think that environment has a major influence about the way people define what a suitable size for them is.
This includes the size of the houses, the means of transportation, the activity patterns,...
Having lived in the area for more than 15 years, I can testify that Asian cities mostly rely on public transportation and on walking to and from the train/bus stations. This means that you nearly always carry your camera yourself instead of having a car carrying it for you. Nature photography is the same, it is rare to be able to get by car to a scenic spot, you have to walk there on path that are typically very hard to walk by most standards (Nepal's trekking route feel like 5 stars avenues compared to the steep hills around Tokyo).
People also tend to work longer hours, which means that a higher % of images is probably taken in a context where photography is not the mean purpose of the trip.
All that increases tremendously the perceived value of compactness.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I think the western world equates the DSLR with the high end of photography. When someone has one hanging around their neck, they feel like a pro. It's an image reinforced in movies, television and by 99.9% of working pros. In addition to that, the two biggest names, Nikon and Canon have really not done much with their mirror-less offerings yet, leading customers right to their very competitively priced DSLRs for any serious photography. I think the Panasonic and Olympus cameras are fantastic, but it may take a while for the prosumer to catch on, if ever.
-
It's hard to argue that the Nikons and Canon DSLRs, particularly FF, are still the most power photography tools. Although Leica M9 is my most used and favorable camera, I have admit it's still a nitch.
You want super wide angle? super tele? super fast flying bird capture? perspetive control? best bokeh? yes, you'll always find Nikon and Canon high in the list. Yes, they may not be the very top one, but very close.
All mirrorless, to my observations, are playing the marketing trick to be, more or less, the Leica M clone. Name one that is not! Fuji X? Sony A7x? OK, may be M43 is not.
-
Nikon's views on mirrorless cameras are a bit worrying, just because they seem incapable of making a decent mirrorless camera doesn't mean this isn't the future. They (and maybe canon) could well get their lunch eaten by sony and fuji - there is only so much they can do relying on brand image and slr lens lines. Every iteration of mirrorless cameras gets closer and IQ-wise they are not far off with sony sticking in the same sensors as the best DSLRs while DSLR innovation has almost stopped.
-
For me the reason is rather self-evident. As long as Nikon sells their slr cameras cheaper than the mirrorless, why should we buy a totally new system? I think if Nikon would sell a mirrorless version of their dx sensor for about the same price or slightly less as the D3000 series using the same Nikkor lenses, they would see the market heat up.
It makes no sense to me to buy mirrorless only for the sake of size. Phone cameras are getting better all the time, they are convenient, are a lot smaller than the mirrorless offerings, and connect to the internet and social media so easily. The phone, and the pads today are America's photo albums. For mirrorless cameras to make inroads, they need to supplant the slr by being a cheaper but equally viable alternative. As the technology advances, mirror boxes will disappear.
-
For me the reason is rather self-evident. As long as Nikon sells their slr cameras cheaper than the mirrorless, why should we buy a totally new system?
And indeed that might be the strategy at (Nikon and Canon) for now: avoid cannibalization of their core DSLR products by pricing their mirrorless systems to sell only to people who really want a mirrorless system, while pushing as many as possible to buy their DSLRs.
Phone cameras are getting better all the time, they are convenient, are a lot smaller than the mirrorless offerings, and connect to the internet and social media so easily.
True, but on other hand, phone-cameras generally have far smaller sensors and thus far worse handling of low-light and moving subjects, and mostly have no zoom lenses, so that zoom is down by cropping, using an even smaller sensor area and performing even worse with low light and moving subjects. I love my phone-camera as a go-everywhere snapshot tool, but it is vastly inferior to a mirrorless system camera as an all-round photographic tool. There is a large gap in size/performance trade-offs between DSLRs and phone-cameras, and many current mirrorless system cameras fill that gap nicely.
-
Nikon's views on mirrorless cameras are a bit worrying, just because they seem incapable of making a decent mirrorless camera doesn't mean this isn't the future. They (and maybe canon) could well get their lunch eaten by sony and fuji - there is only so much they can do relying on brand image and slr lens lines.
Having used the Nikon J1 and Nikon V2, these are cameras that solve some photographic problems better than any other cameras today thanks to their super fast AF and ability to capture 60 images per second in one second at full resolution.
Image quality is obviously not as good as that of large sensor equipped bodies, but a sharp V2 image capturing the optimum timing of a scene will still be superior to a blurry Fuji x image if AF wasn't able to track the subject or reacted too late.
So Nikon did select a certain market target that does not appeal the the LL crowd, but it still makes sense.
Canon, on the other hand, completely lost it with the M.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard will never ever miss a chance to dump on Canon. 67.32% of all his posts relate to his tireless goal. For the rest of us, it is just getting tired.
-
Bernard will never ever miss a chance to dump on Canon. 67.32% of all his posts relate to his tireless goal. For the rest of us, it is just getting tired.
Do you disagree with the content of what I wrote? Do you feel it is not relevant in the context of this post about North American mirrorless sales?
Frankly, how is the EOS M any interesting? What differentiator does/did it have? Have you even used one? Because I have and I was not impressed. Image quality was good, but then again pretty much middle of the road, AF was abysmal.
I have used and owned a variety of Canon cameras, think that some of their lenses are clearly best in class and am praying everyday that that they wake up and push the envelope of photography technology like they used to to provide me, as a photographer, more opportunities. With the latest adaptors available, I could use my lenses on such a body without much of a cost, why on earth would I not want to do that?
So I do take offense of your post that does absolutely not reflect how I feel.
I also challenge you to find any post from me, in the rare ones when I use the word Canon, where I wrote something negative about Canon that was not factual. Go ahead, you won't find any.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I also challenge you to find any post from me, in the rare ones when I use the word Canon, where I wrote something negative about Canon that was not factual. Go ahead, you won't find any.
this one:
Canon, on the other hand, completely lost it with the M.
This is an opinion, not a fact.
-
this one:
This is an opinion, not a fact.
Ok, it is an opinion, but considering that they gave up on selling the M outside Asia after having spent 1-3 years more than the other camera makers finetuning its specs, I think it is a very reasonable opinion that does not pre-requisite some form of irrationnal desire to bad mouth Canon.
Nikon took the same decision, the 1 series can also be considered a commercial failure, but at least it does have some unique qualities.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
My opinion is that neither the Canon M nor the Nikon 1 are the cameras for me :)
-
Although I stand by my comments that you have a propensity to be highly negative about Canon at every opportunity you have, I also want to make sure that did not come across has hostile or inflammatory. I do acknowledge and respect the multitudes of postings and insight you have brought to this form. But perhaps you could tone down the frequency of the anti Canon comments, just for the sake of being fresh. Yes, we all know by now the deficiencies of Canon sensors, but despite that we are managing to take great images anyway. And without starting another discussion, many will actually say the 1Dx pulls ahead of the game, the camera I use and am impressed with. I am in a position that I can buy what ever system I want, and all things considered with their long lenses and the TS offerings etc, my wallet has voted Canon. And who knows, in another half year I may be posting over and over how the new high megapixel Canon makes Nikon suck, and you will be telling me to tone it down. We Canonites are only one good body away from world domination!
-
We agree, Canon does make outstanding equipment overall. The 1DX sure seems like a great camera and it may very well be superior to the D4/D4s.
But the EOS M does Imho not belong to that group.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Canon or Nikon, both haven't really jumped on the mirrorless train. Even if the Nikon 1 is quite able for some tasks, as I learn, it is not in the league of FF Nikons or Canons. The Sony A7 however is. My impression is that it very well does take shares of the Canon and Nikon FF market.
I am not talking about Pros, but about enthusiastic amateurs primarily, because this is where cameras are sold. I very much doubt the statistics of Nikon. If they are talking about mirrorless, they might talk about their own half hearted try.
Funny thing is that the biggest drawback of the Sonys presently is the shutter shake problem, not admitted or even mitigated so far, which I assume had an quite a negativ impact on the A7r.
-
Canon or Nikon, both haven't really jumped on the mirrorless train. Even if the Nikon 1 is quite able for some tasks, as I learn, it is not in the league of FF Nikons or Canons.
Competing with 35mm format cameras is hardly a high priority for mirrorless systems like Nikon One and and Canon EOS-M, since they are far less expensive (and far smaller in normal usage, with one or more zoom lens in the kit). More relevant is that the Nikon One and Canon EOS-M systems do not compete very well with alternatives in the same price range, like Micro Four Thirds or Sony NEX/E-mount.
Bernard mentions the AF advantage that Nikon One had when it was the first and only mirrorless system to offer PDAF, but Sony NEX, Olympus MFT and Canon EOS-M now also have PDAF.
-
But you've got to admit that non of the others have that much requested feature of being able to shoot at 60fps. :-)
Later,
Johnny
-
Bernard mentions the AF advantage that Nikon One had when it was the first and only mirrorless system to offer PDAF, but Sony NEX, Olympus MFT and Canon EOS-M now also have PDAF.
Are all PDAF implementations equal?
But you've got to admit that non of the others have that much requested feature of being able to shoot at 60fps. :-)
It took me about 6 month to even consider using this capability on the V2 because I was just like you. Then I tried it and never looked back, this brings tremendous value when trying to capture children pictures. The ability to replay in slow motion that one second captured at 60 fps and to select the best frame at full resolution is really great.
Think of the guys claiming (I am sure rightfully so) that the 12 fps of the 1Dx vs the 10 fps of the D4 makes a big difference to capture the decisive moment... but here you've got 60 fps.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Are all PDAF implementations equal?
Not at all, but since you say that
... the Nikon J1 and Nikon V2 ... are cameras that solve some photographic problems better than any other cameras today thanks to their super fast AF ...
a better question is whether you have any evidence for those cameras' AF superiority over recent PDAF-equipped mirrorless competitors from Olympus and Sony? For example, reviews of the Olympus E-M1 are quite favorable about its AF.
-
Not at all, but since you say thata better question is whether you have any evidence for those cameras' AF superiority over recent PDAF-equipped mirrorless competitors from Olympus and Sony? For example, reviews of the Olympus E-M1 are quite favorable about its AF.
You did a partial quoting here. I meant that the combination of the fast AF and 60 fps did provide a unique value. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You did a partial quoting here. I meant that the combination of the fast AF and 60 fps did provide a unique value. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Indeed, but Johnny_Johnson had already addressed that other virtue!
-
Not at all, but since you say thata better question is whether you have any evidence for those cameras' AF superiority over recent PDAF-equipped mirrorless competitors from Olympus and Sony? For example, reviews of the Olympus E-M1 are quite favorable about its AF.
m43 do not use PDAF for focusing - only for tracking (E-M1), fast speed of m43 cameras is due to CDAF readouts = 120 measurements per second (first fast CDAF in panasonic GH2), 240 measurements per second (E-M5/GH3 generation sensors) and 480 measurments per second w/ the current generation of sensors ( Panasonic sensor in GH4/E-M1) + optics designed to be move fast by linear motors and respond to such rate of commands flow... I am not sure about the current generation of lenses but prev. generation like Panasonic 35-100/2.8 were capable to work with 240 commands (move forward/stop/move back) per second
PS: just from the recent interview of Panasonic engineers ( http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/20140224_633945.html )
1) about the progress of CDAF speed in Panasonic bodies : 寺坂：フレームレートはボディの進化に応じて増えていまして、シリーズで申しますとDMC-GH1の時が60fps、DMC-GH2の時が120fps、DMC-GH3で240fpsを実現しました ...
while most of other cameras (outside of m43) are still stuck @ 60fps
2) about the related progess with CDAF motors in lenses - the first lens capable to keep up with 240 commands from CDAF system in camera per second (that does not mean that there are 240 commands - that means that lock can be achieved w/ faster in S-AF mode or that when tracking moving object in C-AF you can execute much more focusing moves when necessary or use old-known-first-in-consumer camera depth from defocus CDAF technology in GH4 to achieve closer to PDAF performance using just CDAF) : 井上：いいえ、2012年発売のLUMIX GX VARIO 12-35mm F2.8 ASPH. POWER OIS以降のレンズはすべて240fps対応になっています。
-
Bernard mentions the AF advantage that Nikon One had when it was the first and only mirrorless system to offer PDAF, but Sony NEX, Olympus MFT and Canon EOS-M now also have PDAF.
m43 still can't match Nikon 1 in a good light, when Nikon 1 can engage PDAF
NEX, Fuji, etc can't match both m43 or N1 in any light (see fine print in releases of both NEX A6000 and Fuji X-T1 excluding both m43 and Nikon 1 from comparison)
-
AFAIK, the EM1 uses PDAF exclusively for stills AF when a four thirds SLR lens is in use, and a combination of PDAF and CDAF for stills AF when MFT lenses are attached. This suggests that the combination works better than PDAF alone when the lens has the linear stepper motors that support fast "jiggling" to search for focus.
Anyway, my point was simply that Nikon no longer has the monopoly on PDAF capabilities which at one stage gave it clearly the best CAF of any mirrorless system.