Equipment & Techniques > Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear
Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
shadowblade:
--- Quote from: dwswager on April 14, 2016, 09:25:26 am ---We are arguing different sides of the same coin. You're arguing what they do and I'm arguing what they would do if the pesky users would just do what they are told. There would be nothing but the D5, D4, D4s in the professional service program if Nikon corporate had their way. Since introduction, I would hazard to guess that the D750 is the best selling camera in the Nikon line for wedding photographers, but I guarantee, Nikon Corp would never release a statement advising professionals to buy the D750 for wedding photography. There is a reason it took 9 years from D300 to D500...Nikon did not want to make that camera. I think that is why the D800 was a total shock.
--- End quote ---
The thing about electronics and tech companies operating in a non-monopoly is that, if you don't do it, then someone else will. Better to cannibalise your own model than for someone else to do it to you and steal market share. Nikon suffered it badly in the early years of digital, with their lack of a CMOS sensor, then their lack of full frame. Then Canon suffered it when they failed to release a high-resolution follow-up to the 5D2/1Ds3, losing (the 5D3 was essentially a different kind of camera with a different audience), losing a huge group of non-action photographers to the D810 and A7r. If you want to compete for a subset of photographers, you need to produce tools which fit the needs of that subset, not just a general-purpose body - if you don't, then someone else will produce the tool and you'll lose those shooters.
Actually, I doubt Nikon's executives would want all pros to go for the D5. What they'd most likely prefer is to be able to sell the D810 for the same price as the D4/D5. Unfortunately, competition exists, so they can't.
dwswager:
--- Quote from: shadowblade on April 14, 2016, 09:52:58 am ---The thing about electronics and tech companies operating in a non-monopoly is that, if you don't do it, then someone else will. Better to cannibalise your own model than for someone else to do it to you and steal market share. Nikon suffered it badly in the early years of digital, with their lack of a CMOS sensor, then their lack of full frame. Then Canon suffered it when they failed to release a high-resolution follow-up to the 5D2/1Ds3, losing (the 5D3 was essentially a different kind of camera with a different audience), losing a huge group of non-action photographers to the D810 and A7r. If you want to compete for a subset of photographers, you need to produce tools which fit the needs of that subset, not just a general-purpose body - if you don't, then someone else will produce the tool and you'll lose those shooters.
Actually, I doubt Nikon's executives would want all pros to go for the D5. What they'd most likely prefer is to be able to sell the D810 for the same price as the D4/D5. Unfortunately, competition exists, so they can't.
--- End quote ---
Back in the film days, the F5 was for pros and everything else was just a toy.
It was not a bad assumption that once FX sized sensors became commercially viable, that they would supplant DX sized sensors for professional use. At the time they had real world benefits that far outweighed any benefits the smallers sensors brought. The issue was DR and SNR. But as the technology evolved and DX sized sensors boasted somewhat comparable quality, those benfefits like reach, DOF and smaller body and lens sizes came to the fore. But Nikon has been slow to break their mindset.
I almost switched back to Canon during the D2 to D3 cycle. I always understood that Nikon had a much smaller pool of resources on which to draw. Hence, they must be more judicious in the avenues they pursue. But things like a replacement to the D300 were a no brainer.
shadowblade:
--- Quote from: dwswager on April 14, 2016, 12:59:04 pm ---Back in the film days, the F5 was for pros and everything else was just a toy.
It was not a bad assumption that once FX sized sensors became commercially viable, that they would supplant DX sized sensors for professional use. At the time they had real world benefits that far outweighed any benefits the smallers sensors brought. The issue was DR and SNR. But as the technology evolved and DX sized sensors boasted somewhat comparable quality, those benfefits like reach, DOF and smaller body and lens sizes came to the fore. But Nikon has been slow to break their mindset.
I almost switched back to Canon during the D2 to D3 cycle. I always understood that Nikon had a much smaller pool of resources on which to draw. Hence, they must be more judicious in the avenues they pursue. But things like a replacement to the D300 were a no brainer.
--- End quote ---
The film days are very different for a number of major reasons:
1) In a film camera, you can change the sensor by changing the film. The most expensive cameras used exactly the same sensor as the cheapest. In other words, sensor characteristics were not a distinction between different cameras, and there was no tradeoff between resolution and frame rate. The F5 (and EOS-1/1N/1V) were the top cameras because they had all the other features for easier and faster shooting; the actual image quality was no better or no worse than the cheapest camera on the market. In other words, AF and frame rate - features for action photography - were the only real way to draw a distinction between a pro body and an entry-level body. Not so with digital - you're stuck with the sensor you've got, there is a real tradeoff between speed and resolution and there are many features (some of which are mutually exclusive and are unable to coexist within the same body) to optimise a camera either for non-action detail or high-speed action.
2) 35mm film wasn't much good for landscapers, studio photographers and anyone else who wanted real detail. It was a format for action photographers and amateurs. So, a professional-level 35mm film camera was an action camera - non-action photographers generally wouldn't bother with the format. Not so with digital - the best digital full-frame sensors significantly exceed the resolution of medium-format colour film, and there's also the option of stitching. With digital, 35mm sensors are viable options for both action and non-action professionals, with medium format reduced to a small niche.
dwswager:
--- Quote from: shadowblade on April 14, 2016, 01:30:29 pm ---The film days are very different for a number of major reasons:
--- End quote ---
Yes, I'm very aware. Please have this discussion with Nikon corporate leadership. While out of camera quality is a big issue, it is no longer the ONLY issue. Having the best image for post processing is now also a big consideration.
Rob C:
--- Quote from: shadowblade on April 14, 2016, 01:30:29 pm ---The film days are very different for a number of major reasons:
1) In a film camera, you can change the sensor by changing the film. The most expensive cameras used exactly the same sensor as the cheapest. In other words, sensor characteristics were not a distinction between different cameras, and there was no tradeoff between resolution and frame rate. The F5 (and EOS-1/1N/1V) were the top cameras because they had all the other features for easier and faster shooting; the actual image quality was no better or no worse than the cheapest camera on the market. In other words, AF and frame rate - features for action photography - were the only real way to draw a distinction between a pro body and an entry-level body. Not so with digital - you're stuck with the sensor you've got, there is a real tradeoff between speed and resolution and there are many features (some of which are mutually exclusive and are unable to coexist within the same body) to optimise a camera either for non-action detail or high-speed action.
2) 35mm film wasn't much good for landscapers, studio photographers and anyone else who wanted real detail. It was a format for action photographers and amateurs. So, a professional-level 35mm film camera was an action camera - non-action photographers generally wouldn't bother with the format. Not so with digital - the best digital full-frame sensors significantly exceed the resolution of medium-format colour film, and there's also the option of stitching. With digital, 35mm sensors are viable options for both action and non-action professionals, with medium format reduced to a small niche.
--- End quote ---
Tell that to most fashion photographers! We used a variety of formats, mostly 135 and 120, from at least the 60s onwards, until digital came knocking.
I won't bore you with a list, but amongst the many 135ers: Bailey, Donovan, Duffy, Klein, Horvat, Parkinson, Sieff, Moon, Peccinotti etc, etc. It was used also in studios, as well as locations. The reason? Some shoots work off a build-up of emotional expression and you can't afford to break the progression every twelve clicks. Size sure ain't everything, even in fairly static situations.
Also, the top-flight Nikons with horizontal shutters didn't always synch. as highly as did the far inferior, vertical shuttered FM and FM2 which brought it up a stop or two of speed.
For travel/calendar work, Kodachrome was kind of king; it withstood lack of refrigeration and didn't need rapid processing turnaround cf. Ektachrome; had wonderful sharpness and it was only rarely available in 120 format, so 135 was a default position.
MF, usually in the shape of 6x6 and 6x7 had other obvious advantages in some situations which made it a better bet. But by no means was 135 an also-ran.
;-)
Rob C
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version