Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Nikon's Future  (Read 11837 times)

deanwork

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1949
Re: Nikon's Future
« Reply #20 on: October 16, 2015, 09:12:42 pm »

Sony is into a world of other shit besides still photography, which is a minor part of their business so far. They are essentially a video and tv company with a great chip making capability. But there are certainly other chip makers, some in Japan of course, some in Korea, some in China that will come along. Samsung ate their lunch in the tv and blue ray market overnight.  We're just looking at a snap shot right now, and there could be a totally different company we are talking about in 3 years - Fuji, Samsung, some German company, who knows. So is the world of photo today.  It's all in flux now that still cameras are basically a sub-breed of video technology. I'll be you right now that if Sony wasn't licensing chips they wouldn't even be breaking even in still photo arena. They have so much invested in r and d just trying to produce an acceptable camera body, and really this latest version is the first really decent one.  They might not  even be breaking even without the chip sales. The printer market, that's pretty predictable, but the camera market, that's still up for grabs, and I would never count Nikon out. Who knows who will make their chips in a couple of years. Remember when everyone thought Apple would die because Motorola decided to quit selling them the Power Pc processor?


Logged

synn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1235
    • My fine art portfolio
Re: Nikon's Future
« Reply #21 on: October 17, 2015, 01:48:40 am »

I just don't get this.  It all depends on profile used for shooting JPG or for NEF conversion.  Both are editable, but the profiles in camera are more of a chore. 

I highly recommend a colorchecker passport custom profile.  Even if you just make a single dual illuminant profile for your camera and use that it will be much better than Adobe Standard in ACR or more neutral than any of the Nikon profiles.  I found the size of correction mores dramatically decreased once I started with a custom profile.

I have said this a hundred times on this forum before. I have created customs profiles, custom HSL settings, used a color checker,  bought profiles such as Huelight, used phase one profiles etc Etc and Nikon colors still are not up to scratch. At least not to my standards. There is still a ton of contamination in the channels compared to MF.

There might be people who are extremely happy with the color rendering of the Nikons and good for them. I unfortunately have not shot a single frame on the nikons that didn't need extensive work later.

The D800 makes a hell of a B&Wcam though.
Logged
my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Nikon's Future
« Reply #22 on: October 17, 2015, 12:44:49 pm »

I think that Nikon "lost" it with the introduction of the D800... Up to that point, Nikon users were using "fat pixel" cameras that had lots of character, if Nikon would have introduced a realreplacement to the D 700 by using the D4 sensor on the D800 body as an alternative offering to the D800E, they would have established themselfs as the leading manufacturer in the FF market IMO... Every single D 700 user was expecting a replacement for his camera at that point and they where highly dissapointed!

It is a pity really, because the 16mp sensor that was used on the D4 was (and is IMO) the best FF sensor ever... Nikon had the sensor but never provided the body! I used D800 , D 800E & D4 after I replaced the D700, now I'm using D800E & DF... still missing the D700 replacement! How stupid marketing may a maker have not to replace his major success camera for what it is?

Speaking of color accuracy and profiling, D800E is a total mess if compared to the D4 (original)/DF... The 16mp sensor must be the most color accurate sensor out of all FF sensors in the market.

Speaking of lenses, I now only use the Nikkor 17-35/2.8 (to have for WAs) & the 85/2.8 micro PC (occasionally with Kenko DGX 1.4X attached to it - highly recommended combination) and also kept my old 35-70/2.8 as a walk around lens... Sold everything else after I got the JAS adapter ($850) which allowed me to use all my (7 lenses from 35mm to 210mm plus the mutar 1.4 TC) Zeiss for Contax 645 glass on the Nikons with full dedication (and really fast & accurate AF)... Now I'm much, much, much, too much happier than if I have kept using my Nikkor lenses.
Logged

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3979
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: Nikon's Future
« Reply #23 on: October 17, 2015, 03:06:05 pm »

Standards what they are, I find just the opposite to be true, in fact extremely. 

My first Nikon since the D1x (6MP) camera was the D800e, back in 2012.  Before that I was either Phase or Canon.  The Phase I kept the Canon I sold, overnight. 

For my workflow, I still find the Nikon 800 series an excellent platform to work with for landscapes, I don't do studio/wedding so skin tone I can't speak to, but colors, I find Nikon does great.  The D810 tweak took this to a slightly better level even still.  However I still work up a lot of series taken from the 800e.  I use both LR and C1, just depends it seems as both offer great tools and there are sometimes the tool set of LR works better, others C1.  When shooting a Pano, I always stay with LR, as their solution for simple one line nodal or non nodal pans is excellent. 

I have been doing photography pretty much all my life, digital since 1999 with my first Sony.  Color has never been an issue, I just find I can get there. 

I also agree that the D4 sensor was a unique sensor that had some great possibilities.  But the cost fact to get there, kept me away as the great megapixel count of the 800 series makes for sense for my large print workflow. 

I read these negative Nikon posts, and just really don't get it as the Nikon for me offers amazing DR, and color, just using either the default LR Camera profiles or the C1 single Nikon profile.  My workflow now involves much more work in LR or C1, very little in CC besides final sharpening and some clarity work from Topaz.  But I realize that no two photographers will either see a subject the same way or develop a photograph the same way. 

But if the colors are that bad, why stay?  I left Canon after 15 years both film and digital as soon as I saw the range of a D800 file (here on Lula and Fred Miranda), and have never looked back. 

It's also been shown again and again on this site, in countless reviews and comparisons. 

Back to the OP, Nikon's Future? well they have made some good and bad calls IMO, but they seem to be making more good than bad currently.  But if the whole world decided to go mirrors and EVF only overnight, both Nikon and Canon would have some serious catching up to do for sure.

Paul
Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Nikon's Future
« Reply #24 on: October 17, 2015, 03:51:11 pm »

Standards what they are, I find just the opposite to be true, in fact extremely. 

My first Nikon since the D1x (6MP) camera was the D800e, back in 2012.  Before that I was either Phase or Canon.  The Phase I kept the Canon I sold, overnight. 

For my workflow, I still find the Nikon 800 series an excellent platform to work with for landscapes, I don't do studio/wedding so skin tone I can't speak to, but colors, I find Nikon does great.  The D810 tweak took this to a slightly better level even still.  However I still work up a lot of series taken from the 800e.  I use both LR and C1, just depends it seems as both offer great tools and there are sometimes the tool set of LR works better, others C1.  When shooting a Pano, I always stay with LR, as their solution for simple one line nodal or non nodal pans is excellent. 

I have been doing photography pretty much all my life, digital since 1999 with my first Sony.  Color has never been an issue, I just find I can get there. 

I also agree that the D4 sensor was a unique sensor that had some great possibilities.  But the cost fact to get there, kept me away as the great megapixel count of the 800 series makes for sense for my large print workflow. 

I read these negative Nikon posts, and just really don't get it as the Nikon for me offers amazing DR, and color, just using either the default LR Camera profiles or the C1 single Nikon profile.  My workflow now involves much more work in LR or C1, very little in CC besides final sharpening and some clarity work from Topaz.  But I realize that no two photographers will either see a subject the same way or develop a photograph the same way. 

But if the colors are that bad, why stay?  I left Canon after 15 years both film and digital as soon as I saw the range of a D800 file (here on Lula and Fred Miranda), and have never looked back. 

It's also been shown again and again on this site, in countless reviews and comparisons. 

Back to the OP, Nikon's Future? well they have made some good and bad calls IMO, but they seem to be making more good than bad currently.  But if the whole world decided to go mirrors and EVF only overnight, both Nikon and Canon would have some serious catching up to do for sure.

Paul
The purpose of my post is completely different than your quote and thus it hasn't been answered... The "core" of my post is that it is bad marketing to "change a winning horse" that people bet on and is trusted... By not replacing D700, Nikon did exactly that! ...ie the biggest marketing mistake a company could ever do! Either if one likes the D4 sensor in a D800 body or not, the same one has to admit that no serious company changes its winning horse, nor it "spits" on the millions of customers that supported them with all their power to enter the FF market and where (over)patient to wait (for longer than they should) for the modern replacement that ...never arrived! The consequences are inevitable... if a company turns its back to all their (up to that point) FF market, it is inevitable that a large proportion of that same market will turn its back to the company....
Logged

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Nikon's Future
« Reply #25 on: October 17, 2015, 04:20:56 pm »

nor it "spits" on the millions of customers
"D700" and literally "millions of customers" who were either D700 owners waiting for this type of camera upgrade or were waiting to upgrade to it from APS-C ? are you serious about "millions" ?
Logged

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Nikon's Future
« Reply #26 on: October 17, 2015, 04:37:52 pm »

"D700" and literally "millions of customers" who were either D700 owners waiting for this type of camera upgrade or were waiting to upgrade to it from APS-C ? are you serious about "millions" ?
Yes.... D700 sold constantly more than 300K cameras for each year of its production... it never fell lower than 300K (for full 12 months sales), on 2009 the sales where more than half a million in one year only.

Logged

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3979
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: Nikon's Future
« Reply #27 on: October 17, 2015, 04:45:34 pm »

The purpose of my post is completely different than your quote and thus it hasn't been answered... The "core" of my post is that it is bad marketing to "change a winning horse" that people bet on and is trusted... By not replacing D700, Nikon did exactly that! ...ie the biggest marketing mistake a company could ever do! Either if one likes the D4 sensor in a D800 body or not, the same one has to admit that no serious company changes its winning horse, nor it "spits" on the millions of customers that supported them with all their power to enter the FF market and where (over)patient to wait (for longer than they should) for the modern replacement that ...never arrived! The consequences are inevitable... if a company turns its back to all their (up to that point) FF market, it is inevitable that a large proportion of that same market will turn its back to the company....

Theodoros, we can agree to disagree.
 
Nikon had to move from 12MP, or get surpassed by everyone else, not just Canon, it's just that simple and the move was overdue.  To stay with a D700 Fat pixel body @ 12 or 16MP would have been a bad marketing move to me.  In fact staying in place much longer would have allowed Canon taken over that  market segment with their 20MP cameras as they were starting to already.  At least that's how I see it.  Moving from 12 to 16 as they did with the D4 is just not enough for the vast majority of photographers who shoot Nikon and were also looking for more resolution.  I believe Nikon did this move with the DF, and from what I have read, it's been a camera only used by a niche market of users, mainly due to cost and MP resolution.    Lot of people loved the form factor of the D700, but did not want to stay at 12MP.  So what would you do and design to stay competitive?  Make a D700 with the D4 chip?  I guess that might work, as it's a great chip but just no enough perceived resolution. 

So back to the point of the post, I don't perceive the move from D700 Full frame to D800 series, then D810 as a bad markeing move, but instead as a major advance in the market.   But again there are plenty of articles on this site and others that agree with that move by Nikon.   But I guess only sales figures really can answer that, from April 2012 till now, and I don't have that info.

Paul
Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

AreBee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 638
Re: Nikon's Future
« Reply #28 on: October 17, 2015, 04:50:10 pm »

Paul,

Quote
...what would you do and design to stay competitive?  Make a D700 with the D4 chip?

Why not? The D700 used the D3 chip.
Logged

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Nikon's Future
« Reply #29 on: October 17, 2015, 05:04:17 pm »

Theodoros, we can agree to disagree.
 
Nikon had to move from 12MP, or get surpassed by everyone else, not just Canon, it's just that simple and the move was overdue.  To stay with a D700 Fat pixel body @ 12 or 16MP would have been a bad marketing move to me.  In fact staying in place much longer would have allowed Canon taken over that  market segment with their 20MP cameras as they were starting to already.  At least that's how I see it.  Moving from 12 to 16 as they did with the D4 is just not enough for the vast majority of photographers who shoot Nikon and were also looking for more resolution.  I believe Nikon did this move with the DF, and from what I have read, it's been a camera only used by a niche market of users, mainly due to cost and MP resolution.    Lot of people loved the form factor of the D700, but did not want to stay at 12MP.  So what would you do and design to stay competitive?  Make a D700 with the D4 chip?  I guess that might work, as it's a great chip but just no enough perceived resolution. 

So back to the point of the post, I don't perceive the move from D700 Full frame to D800 series, then D810 as a bad markeing move, but instead as a major advance in the market.   But again there are plenty of articles on this site and others that agree with that move by Nikon.   But I guess only sales figures really can answer that, from April 2012 till now, and I don't have that info.

Paul
You seem not to understand what I'm saying Paul... I don't say that D800 should not be as it was... I just say that there should be another version (D800S?) bearing the D4 "guts"... It would cost them absolutely nothing to develop and produce the camera since the D4 sensor and processor where already at Sendai like it was happening with D700/D3... But I do bet you my hat (I don't have any  :D) that the (hypothetical) D800S would have crashed the market and would have established Nikon as the number 1 FF maker...

EDIT:It would have kept all the D700 users faithful to the firm and would have made additional sales since many would have chosen a D800/D800S combination and it would have even provide buck up cameras for the D4 users.... Not to mention the thousands of "wedding pros" (god help us all...  :-X ) all over the world that where using D700s already and couldn't care less for the D800's 36mps.... see?
« Last Edit: October 17, 2015, 05:14:41 pm by Theodoros »
Logged

Torbjörn Tapani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 319
Re: Nikon's Future
« Reply #30 on: October 17, 2015, 05:07:31 pm »

The D800/E pairing could have been a low light 16 MP 8 fps / 36 MP sans OLPF pair. But that was then. Future is mirrorless. With or without Nikon.
Logged

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3979
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: Nikon's Future
« Reply #31 on: October 17, 2015, 05:16:25 pm »

You seem not to understand what I'm saying Paul... I don't say that D800 should not be as it was... I just say that there should be another version (D800S?) bearing the D4 "guts"... It would cost them absolutely nothing to develop and produce the camera since the D4 sensor and processor where already at Sendai like it was happening with D700/D3... But I do bet you my hat (I don't have any  :D) that the (hypothetical) D800S would have crashed the market and would have established Nikon as the number 1 FF maker...

I fully agree with you on that idea, and did miss your point.  I would have loved to see a D800s to go after the D4.  I really tried to make the D4 work for me as it's rendering was unique.  I liked the Df, using the same chip as the D4, but the cost to me was out of line (talking about marketing) as that got you closer to that 16MP chip for sure. 

I just started using the D750, and albeit it's not a D4, I do like what I am seeing from it.  But still keep my eyes open for a used D4. 

Paul
Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Nikon's Future
« Reply #32 on: October 17, 2015, 06:22:27 pm »

The (original) D4 sensor has (IMO) the nearest to MF looks behaviour out of all FF sensors ever... The DR of it is absolutely impressive, no other FF camera comes close with what's left of it after processing for natural looks... Further more, the sensor can print at 36ppi a print that is better than other cameras at 72ppi... (only some MF sensors can do that) ....and then is the color, not only it is more accurate than any other FF sensor, but again the closest to an MF camera than any other FF sensor... It's kind of magic sensor really... something like "Cmos properties but with CCD looks"... If one blows on his (well calibrated) monitor a image out of a Nikon 16mp sensor at 200%, it behaves like other FF sensors behave at 100% (again, only some MF sensors can do that)... One doesn't believe that what he sees is at 200% unless he reads the 200% mark at the lower left corner....

I guess one can choose to believe either his eyes and experience, or some DXO rubbish or "web reviews of crap" or even the fanboy "opinions" that the web is full of... My opinion is simpler.... I have read so many BS on web, that I trust nothing unless I test it myself... Have even developed my own method of testing... I shoot a byzantine icon that includes gold leafs and has areas of dark blue paint that darkens until black and then compare it with the absolute... a 16X 88mp "true color" file of the same subject out of my multishot MFDB, using the same lens... The "perfect" Zeiss 120mm f4 APO micro of the Contax 645...
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13613
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Nikon's Future
« Reply #33 on: October 18, 2015, 04:34:44 am »

Theodoros,

Can you ellaborate on this 36ppi statement? I seems like I may have totally overlooked something big. ;)

Thanks.

I agree with you that there is something very special with the colors of Nikon's pro body series. I have kept found memories of my D3. I will most probably get a D5 and couldn't care less it won't be mirrorless!

Cheers,
Bernard

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Nikon's Future
« Reply #34 on: October 18, 2015, 05:34:34 am »

Theodoros,

Can you ellaborate on this 36ppi statement? I seems like I may have totally overlooked something big. ;)

Thanks.

I agree with you that there is something very special with the colors of Nikon's pro body series. I have kept found memories of my D3. I will most probably get a D5 and couldn't care less it won't be mirrorless!


Cheers,
Bernard

The D4 sensor is much better than the D3/D700 one for artifacts being present (especially moire), with D3/D700 if one blows the image up to 200%, it is more likely that artifacts that will ruin the print will be quite present. The same happens with the D800 sensor where one, if blows the image at 200%, he observes artifacts that are hidden at 100%... With the 16mp sensor (and some older MFDBs - especially the ones with the Dalsa 33mp chip), the resistance to artifacts seems to be great to the extend that it is very rare for artifacts to be present.

Now, if one has mastered printing well and does the appropriate work to the final image as to print it at the required size feeding the printer always with 360ppi (for Epson) or 300ppi (for Canon), he will find that that if the required size requires printing at less than 72ppi (I use Epson 9900) of the original file without it being treated,  there will be artifacts even after the treatment/cleanning/upsampling process... With the Nikon 16mp sensor (and some fat pixel -above 7μm pixel size) MFDBs, one may find that he can print an image with 360ppi output (after the appropriate treatment/sampling) even if the original file would require a 36ppi output to achieve the size of the print.
To do that, (in the few cases that it may be needed since the size is even larger that what a D800 would print at 72ppi), the treatment must be with the original file at 72ppi using the upsampling software to treat/upsample up to 360ppi the file, and then return the result back to PS and work on the size only using "bicubic smoother" (sometimes "bilinear" may work a little better depending on how availiable ppis divide with 360) process...
Logged

BrianVS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 163
Re: Nikon's Future
« Reply #35 on: October 18, 2015, 06:09:25 pm »

The Nikon Df uses the D4 sensor, and clocks data at 1/2 the rate of the D4. The image has less noise in it than the D4. The camera cost less than 1/2 the price of the D4. It works with Nikon lenses going back to 1959, and even older using an N->F adapter.

You can still buy new manual focus Ais lenses, with the same solid construction of lenses of the 1970s.

About the only thing Nikon can do to destroy their future is to abandon their past. That strategy worked out well for Canon. Nikon users are different, want to add new capability without dumping everything that they grew up using.
Logged

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Nikon's Future
« Reply #36 on: October 19, 2015, 09:09:21 am »

Having owned both, I can ensure you that there is no image quality discrepancy between D4 & DF whatsoever... they are absolutely identical (no matter what DXO or other web source claims)...

As for the relation of Nikon users (more than other camera users) with the tradition bonds you mention, being a 35 years Nikon user, I have to agree with you up to some extend... It was strong up to the F-301 introduction... It then suffered a lot  until it stabilized again to a lower degree after Nikon introduced their first AF lenses (which where Nikon series E lenses renamed as Nikkors) and after there was continuous releases of AF cameras of questionable body quality and reliability until they settled to the F5/F100/F6 design which was then past to digital... At those days, (the dark days) Nikon's marketing was all over the place and the image to the Nikon funs was only kept live (but smaller) by keeping the FM2n and the AI-S lenses in production. Then the "Nikon fanatism" returned with the "modern" F5/F100/F6 and the later AF lenses, which reunited the two different sections of Nikon customers as (after many years) both the fans of the FM/FE/FA/F2/F3 designs and the ones of the modern designs could accept (and use) all the cameras and lenses... Then the fanatics shrunk further because Nikon wouldn't answer to Canon's FF sensor and because Nikon decided -for no reason- to abandon the aperture ring until they where back again (to a much smaller percentage - still valuable to the firm to have) with the D3 & the D-700.... That until Nikon decided to turn its back to them by not replacing the D700....
If you want my opinion, Nikon's shrinkage can only be stopped if they release (even now that they are late) the D4 sensor on a D800 body and... bring the bloody aperture ring back! DF is nothing more than an incapable for pro (meaning action) use Nikon body of nice looks  and nostalgic approach (but great IQ)... If it lucked the aperture control wheel (using lenses with aperture ring instead), had the "big" AF system and had two cards, it would be much more appreciated by traditional Nikon fans...

Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Nikon's Future
« Reply #37 on: October 19, 2015, 10:23:56 am »

For me, aperture rings are needed (I dislike using wheels with my right hand), and above everything else, the return of a proper focussing screen with split-image. I never liked the micro-prism surrounds, which just made more viewfinder space useless. I have had to buy an af 50mm because of my failing eyesight, which would not have been required using the split-image. A screen with the addition of squares would help, too, engraved on the screen itself. I know this, because I still also own an F3 with split-image screen. What could be so damnned difficult, Messrs Nikon?

Rob C

razrblck

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 482
  • Chill
    • Instagram
Re: Nikon's Future
« Reply #38 on: October 19, 2015, 11:29:57 am »

Is there a technical reason that explains why DSLR viewfinders have to be so tiny compared to old film cameras?
Logged
Instagram (updated often)

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1471
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Re: Nikon's Future
« Reply #39 on: October 19, 2015, 12:51:50 pm »

Since the introduction of the Canon EOS-1Ds, digital SLR cameras have been good enough for 99% of photography needs. Nikon, Canon and others have nothing to worry about in terms of quality. Perception and marketing are the main problems that needs to be addressed. The quality of digital images far outstrips the quality of print or digital monitors.

However, a new generation of smart phone users might cause an added concern. They post billions of images each day. Quality vs quantity may be the main problem to consider.

Cheers,
Logged
Tom Brown
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up