Nikon in trouble?

[John Koerner]

Did I say you weren't sipping your first morning cup of coffee and being generally serene? I don't remember that  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

[Rob C]

Lol, okay.

And I do think Leica is more Rolls than Porsche

And Bentley thinks itself the fast, bastard child of both.

Rob

[jwheadshots]

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.

[GrahamBy]

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?

[Rob C]

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

[John Koerner]

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

[Zorki5]

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".   

[John Koerner]

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, 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."

[eronald]

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

[John Koerner]

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.

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.

[eronald]

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.

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.

[Paulo Bizarro]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[eronald]

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

[Zorki5]

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.

[Rob C]

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.

[Zorki5]

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.

[dwswager]

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.

[Rob C]

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

[Rand47]

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