Nikon in difficulty?

[Peter_DL]

Peter,

I believe that the answer for photographers is the quality of the lenses. Because not only did Nikon not enter the APS-C mirrorless market early enough, they also didn't provide their APS-C DSLR customers the high end DX lenses they would have needed.

Now, to be fair, yes your comparison shows a mirrorless as large or larger than a DX Nikon body but it doesn't tell the full story since the X-T2 is much better featured. It is also 3 times more expensive. It takes a d7200/d500 to beat the Fuji and they are larger than the D3400.

Fully agree, Bernard.

I think Nikon is leaving out some "long hanging fruits" by not offering premium versions of their smaller cameras (and lenses). There's a relevant (or even key) market which is not price driven; see Fuji, Sony.

Nikon’s apparent strategy is that you always have to buy the bigger camera if you want a better one – which, fwiw, strongly conflicts with my philosophy.

I would be of no help if Nikon comes out with mirrorless cameras which are down-specified again, or crippled by the choice of gold ring lenses, based on the idea to protect their FX market.

Peter
--

[BernardLanguillier]

Canon have double-pixel tech in their sensor, which basically solves the focus issues for any future camera, and also allow  video AF in various forms.

Both Canon and Nikon have a great on sensor AF tech.

Both companies have chosen not to deploy this tech in their consumer DSLRs. Using a 80D in live view all the time is a terrible usage experience.

So again, Canon is just the same as Nikon today, perhaps a tiny bit more advanced with the M5 although I feel ten times more tempted by a Fuji X-T2.

So to my eyes, Nikon and Canon are pretty much in the same tough spot. Canon has played 2 more cards (5Dmkiv and M5) while Nikon is still staying put and this reminds me of the saying "quiet prople at least leave hope that they may have something smart to say".

Cheers,
Bernard

[Guillermo Luijk]

So to my eyes, Nikon and Canon are pretty much in the same tough spot. Canon has played 2 more cards (5Dmkiv and M5) while Nikon is still staying

But the M5 isn't just a camera body, it's a whole high IQ mirrorless system which puts Canon quite ahead of Nikon at the moment. I wonder if the M mount can fit a FF sensor, and if Canon plans to do it. That would be a serious move from Canon.

Regards

[Manoli]

Bernard - by the way, those that

could afford to maintain 5 systems in parallel without making a dent in their bank
account.

are more likely to be playing with the new iPhone7,  rather than a Nikon!
and those with a bit of grey matter to boot, moved into Sony A7's ages ago...

[/just-pulling-your-leg ]

[eronald]

Canon's 80D *will* be used in liveview mode in video use, and if you put an EVF in it and shortened the lenssmount you would have a good mirrorless camera.

Edmund

Both Canon and Nikon have a great on sensor AF tech.

Both companies have chosen not to deploy this tech in their consumer DSLRs. Using a 80D in live view all the time is a terrible usage experience.

So again, Canon is just the same as Nikon today, perhaps a tiny bit more advanced with the M5 although I feel ten times more tempted by a Fuji X-T2.

So to my eyes, Nikon and Canon are pretty much in the same tough spot. Canon has played 2 more cards (5Dmkiv and M5) while Nikon is still staying put and this reminds me of the saying "quiet prople at least leave hope that they may have something smart to say".

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Canon's 80D *will* be used in liveview mode in video use, and if you put an EVF in it and shortened the lenssmount you would have a good mirrorless camera.

Which is what the M5 is supposed to be, right? It is a decent camera, but it doesn't have the lenses to get me excited. Granted, those that are there are ok, but they don't come close to the Fuji offering and they are far from revealing a deep investement from Canon in mirrorless, this is still lukewarm toe tipping.

So as far as I can tell, there are little facts to back up the trendy belief that Canon is significantly less screwed that Nikon in the grand scheme of things... Where will Sony be by the time the 36 mp 5D mkV is announced after the Tokyo Olympics?

Cheers,
Bernard

[shadowblade]

Which is what the M5 is supposed to be, right? It is a decent camera, but it doesn't have the lenses to get me excited. Granted, those that are there are ok, but they don't come close to the Fuji offering and they are far from revealing a deep investement from Canon in mirrorless, this is still lukewarm toe tipping.

Canon's regular lenses also work with the system.

At a moment's notice, they could release a full-frame or APS-C, full-sized mirrorless camera, with a ready-to-use lens lineup and a functional AF system. Not as advanced as Sony's (eye focus makes a huge difference, and more than a few wedding photographers who shoot Sony tell me it's made all the difference in usability for that role), but functional, and the dual-pixel based system gets better with each iteration.

No, they don't have a miniature camera lineup, but mirrorless doesn't necessarily mean small, especially when you need performance. Going by the size of recent lens releases, Sony has also realised this.

So as far as I can tell, there are little facts to back up the trendy belief that Canon is significantly less screwed that Nikon in the grand scheme of things... Where will Sony be by the time the 36 mp 5D mkV is announced after the Tokyo Olympics?

Cheers,
Bernard

No doubt Sony will be aiming for an action mirrorless camera for Tokyo 2020, as well as an 8k camera. They may even be the same body (although they will also have dedicated 8k cameras there).

[BernardLanguillier]

They could do many things and so could Nikon.

Cheers,
Bernard

[chez]

FX shooters are a minority in terms of numbers. But FX shooters buying multiple bodies, multiple high-end lenses and regularly updating their equipment probably account for more revenue than DX shooters buying low-end bodies and kit lenses. It's like business class vs economy class on planes - there are more economy seats, but business class accounts for more revenue.

Oh boy...that's a tough call. I've always heard that the low end cameras with kit lenses pay for the R&D of the big Pro level cameras. Now that this low end has been eroded by the cellphone cameras...the likes of Nikon revenues are hurting big time. I don't believe Nikon can survive as a company if it wasn't for the consumer level sales.

[BernardLanguillier]

One thing we shouldn't forget is our irrelevance.

What we think in the US and Europe is of secondary importance in the consumer segment. Canon and Nikon shoot for the BRIC countries where showing is being.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Yashika]

I don't believe Nikon can survive as a company if it wasn't for the consumer level sales.

Can not agree. If what you say is true, how does Leica survive as a company?

Again, there seems to be confusion of biggest most diverse company and best class dslr product.

[BernardLanguillier]

Can not agree. If what you say is true, how does Leica survive as a company?

Again, there seems to be confusion of biggest most diverse company and best class dslr product.

I would suggest to give up like I will. The downfall of Nikon is a dogma. That it doesn't make sense or that there are plenty of evidence to doubt the dogma isn't relevant because it is a dogma as in "prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group".

Cheers,
Bernard

[shadowblade]

Oh boy...that's a tough call. I've always heard that the low end cameras with kit lenses pay for the R&D of the big Pro level cameras. Now that this low end has been eroded by the cellphone cameras...the likes of Nikon revenues are hurting big time. I don't believe Nikon can survive as a company if it wasn't for the consumer level sales.

Nikon sells around four crop cameras for every FF camera. The vast majority of them are consumer bodies with low-cost kit lenses. In contrast, many, if not most, full-frame shooters own multiple, non-kit lenses, and full-frame lenses also cost more. A single D810 or D5 with 14-24/24-70/70-200 plus a flash unit sells for about as much as 20 entry-level kits.

[shadowblade]

Can not agree. If what you say is true, how does Leica survive as a company?

Again, there seems to be confusion of biggest most diverse company and best class dslr product.

Betamax was the better system. VHS survived.

Besides, Nikon has the better camera body, not the better system. Their lens lineup is somewhat weaker than Canon's. They have good superteles, but the 200-400 is badly outdated. Their 'standard' zoom trio is weaker than Canon's or Sony's. Their lineup of non-supertele primes is less extensive, with many outdated models. They also lose out on video.

[BernardLanguillier]

Besides, Nikon has the better camera body, not the better system. Their lens lineup is somewhat weaker than Canon's. They have good superteles, but the 200-400 is badly outdated. Their 'standard' zoom trio is weaker than Canon's or Sony's. Their lineup of non-supertele primes is less extensive, with many outdated models. They also lose out on video.

The 24-70mm is excellent and offers VR which puts it in a different category than the Canon. This is far more important for the targeted market that some very minor differences in image quality. Besides, having shot a lot with the 24-70, its most remarquable quality is its AF suitable for fast action imaging on the D5. I don't remember the AF of the Canon being as good, but I didn't have the chance to do a 1:1 comparison.

The 14-24 and 70-200 and still excellent in absolute terms but are both due for an update in the coming months. It would be logical to expect their successors to be best in class. Rumors point to a 70-200 in Nov together with the 19mm T/S.

So is the 200-400 f4 for which Canon didn't have any answer for 7-8 years. The successor will be part of the E FL series and considering what Nikon has achieved with the 200-500 f5.6 I do personnally expect a 200-500 f4 E FL, but this is pure speculation.

Those are simply regular oscillations and the brand releasing the latest lens is typically slightly on top. Any of these lenses is good enough for 100% of the professional applications thrown at them, only pixel seekers see differences.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Colorado David]

Betamax was the better system. VHS survived.

Betamax was the forerunner of BetaCam and BetaCam SP which was THE standard of the industry for video acquisition up until the advent of HD.  VHS was the forerunner of the professional video format, M2, which as far as I could tell, no one wanted. No one ever called asking to book an M2 crew for a shoot, but everyone called asking for BetaCam SP.

Nikon has a pretty robust sport optics business.  They make binoculars, spotting scopes, laser range finders, and rifle scopes. Leica also makes sport optics.

[Yashika]

Besides, Nikon has the better camera body, not the better system.

Depends on what you like shoot. Every Canon body weaker in most area to comparable Nikon body.

Their lens lineup is somewhat weaker than Canon's.

I believe you invent this general statement.

Their lens lineup is somewhat weaker than Canon's. They have good superteles, but the 200-400 is badly outdated.

You understate Nikon superiority, and overstate Canon/Sony.

Nikon 85, 105, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 800 primes all superior to Canon. Vast superior to Sony, except new 85 only exception for Sony, and by little bit.

Canon D5, D500, D810 all superior to Canon. Sony a7r2 does a little bit better than D810, only after iso 800. Still not so good all round.

As for zoom, Nikon 200-400 VR II is good as Canon, just no extendor. 1/2 the price. Sony nothing compare. Old Nikon 14-24 still edge Canon. Canon has a few good zooms, most else behind. Most Sony lenses old Minolta, way behind. No sense argue further, have to agree.

[Rhossydd]

Most of the viewers of this forum could afford to maintain 5 systems in parallel without making a dent in their bank account.

I very much doubt it.

[Rob C]

I very much doubt it.

I'm trying my best to imagine myself in that position. Earlier this morning, with dirty soapy water running down my hands and into my sleeves as I scrubbed some high shutters preparatory to varnishing, I had a very tough time entertaining that particular scenario of fiscal comfort in my mind. I'm absolutely certain that the local painter would be delighted if I could, whereupon he'd trade my wet-arm discomfort in return for a major contribution to his professional team of craftsmen.

But hey, who needs reality? Were I to consider that, should I survive, exactly the same task awaits me next year...

;-)

Rob C

[BernardLanguillier]

I very much doubt it.

The 5 system comment was of course not needed, irrelevant and plain wrong... but it may in fact be true for a majority of people in these forums if they prioritized spending on cameras instead of spending money otherwise. Now I have spent a fair amount of brain power all these years to avoid doing that and so far I only use one main system. So I am far from encouraging parallelization, but I think that, worse comes the worse, many Nikon users would be able to continue to use their current equipment successfully while investing in a Sony a7r4 if they really need to.

Back on the money part. Just think about how much people spend on cars vs what they would really need to spend to cover their strict mobility needs. I bought my first car second hand when I turned 43, think about the tens of thousands of Euros I have saved doing that instead of buying the cars I wanted to buy during the earlier 20 years of my life. Just think about the amount of money I would have litterally given to banks in interest rates to pay the loans of these cars. And yes, I am of course painfully aware about the fact that there are many people who do not buy cars either, I just don't have the feeling this represents an important population at LL. I could be wrong of course.

Anyway, this is far out of scope and this comment was really not key in the message I was trying to convey, so consider it withdrawn.

Cheers,
Bernard