Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 14   Go Down

Author Topic: Nikon in difficulty?  (Read 82525 times)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Nikon in difficulty?
« Reply #160 on: November 30, 2016, 04:27:12 am »

Amazing how much wishful thinking plays a rôle in Internet life.

Rob

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Nikon in difficulty?
« Reply #161 on: November 30, 2016, 04:59:47 am »

Finally, sensible post.

Want the best sports camera? Nikon makes it.
Want the best APSc camera? Nikon makes it.
Want the best landscape camera, at base iso? Nikon makes it.

Want best high end prime telephoto lenses, from 200mm, 300mm, on up to 800mm? Nikon makes them.

How bout best 105mm, as good as Otus, but with AF? Nikon makes it.

BUT!

If you want a substandard camera, from a "bigger company"--buy Canon or Sony.

While you miss shots and take lesser photos, can brag that your camera company "bigger"

At least with Sony, can buy Nikon glass. But still have to deal with limited camera.

Buy Canon, own limited camera, with limited sensor, and settle for substandard prime lenses. But the company is "bigger" :D

I think John Koerner and you will get along fine  ;D
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13867
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Nikon in difficulty?
« Reply #162 on: November 30, 2016, 05:04:30 am »

All of this is as true as it is meaningless.

Look at the situation from a corporate strategy point of view rather than as a photography enthusiast. Nikon has no control over its supply chain for critical components, needs to buy from a company which has a monopoly over the best sensor,  is far too reliant on sales within a single, shrinking market (dedicated stills cameras) and lacks the capacity to develop the in-house capability to overcome these problems.

The problem Nikon has with sensor sourcing is vastly exagerated for the following reasons:
- Sensors have mostly become a commodity and the lead Sony used to have 3-4 years ago has reduced a lot. Even a tiny Belgian company called CMOSIS is designing sensors very close to Sony's, Leica fans would say superior,
- Nikon clearly has expertize in sensor design. They have focused so far on the niche applications such as the D5 sensor for which nobody else was willing/able to do as well as them for the niche target application (best in class DR at high ISO), but I would not read into this that they are unable to design sensors with higher resolution/higher low ISO DR. They have just not had to do it until now,
- Canon has managed to maintain its marketshare with vastly inferior sensors for years, mostly on the strength of its lens line up and existing user base... and Nikon is current catching up fast and IMHO probably ahead as we speak. They have the only pro spec 24-70 f2.8 that is stabilized, newly the best 70-200 f2.8 on the market, the best portait lens with the 105mm f1.4, IMHO the best T/S wide lens, the best super teles short of the 200-400,... every single lens release they made recently has been ground breaking,
- It is really unlikely that a recovering Sony would close the door on Nikon considering how important a customer they have been for the past 10 years, but even if that happened this wouldn't be that big an issue for Nikon.

Overall, good products meeting their target customer needs remains the strongest asset of a company. Warren Buffet made a ton of money betting on such companies, and he has been right on the long term.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: November 30, 2016, 05:21:30 am by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

BrianVS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
Re: Nikon in difficulty?
« Reply #163 on: November 30, 2016, 05:13:10 am »

Anyone that believes that Nikon does not understand the electronics that go into the making of a digital camera has absolutely no understanding of how a digital camera works. The sensor is an important part of the camera, getting an image to record to the memory card without being corrupted by noise is non-trivial. Try designing the data acquisition system for a 16MPixel imaging sensor that can be used at ISO 12800 and not have the image swamped by noise.

Luray Caverns by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

I've had several Canon DSLR users, two in the last week, come up and ask about the Df. Explained the F-Mount allows use of lenses going back to 1959 without using an adapter. That means something to some people. Nikon embraces their past, Canon never looks behind.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2016, 05:18:45 am by BrianVS »
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2794
Re: Nikon in difficulty?
« Reply #164 on: November 30, 2016, 07:25:25 am »

Anyone that believes that Nikon does not understand the electronics that go into the making of a digital camera has absolutely no understanding of how a digital camera works. The sensor is an important part of the camera, getting an image to record to the memory card without being corrupted by noise is non-trivial. Try designing the data acquisition system for a 16MPixel imaging sensor that can be used at ISO 12800 and not have the image swamped by noise.

Luray Caverns by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

I've had several Canon DSLR users, two in the last week, come up and ask about the Df. Explained the F-Mount allows use of lenses going back to 1959 without using an adapter. That means something to some people. Nikon embraces their past, Canon never looks behind.

All of which is nice to know, but none of which is actually relevant to Nikon's future (or lack thereof) as a profitable business.

Again, you're thinking with the 'ooh, nice gear' photographer's mentality, rather than the 'does it make a profit' and 'can I get a better return on investment elsewhere' business mentality.

Knowhow is cheap to buy. Every part of the camera other than the lens and sensor is relatively cheap to make and doesn't require a multi-billion dollar fab plant. Profiency in the non-sensor side of things isn't unique to Nikon, and won't get them over the line. At best, they'll end up a niche player like Leica, making great products with principal components designed and made by someone else, but unable to expand beyond their existing markets.
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2794
Re: Nikon in difficulty?
« Reply #165 on: November 30, 2016, 08:00:52 am »

The problem Nikon has with sensor sourcing is vastly exagerated for the following reasons:
- Sensors have mostly become a commodity and the lead Sony used to have 3-4 years ago has reduced a lot. Even a tiny Belgian company called CMOSIS is designing sensors very close to Sony's, Leica fans would say superior,
- Nikon clearly has expertize in sensor design. They have focused so far on the niche applications such as the D5 sensor for which nobody else was willing/able to do as well as them for the niche target application (best in class DR at high ISO), but I would not read into this that they are unable to design sensors with higher resolution/higher low ISO DR. They have just not had to do it until now,

I'll believe it when I see it.

So far, the only company which has managed to produce a sensor approaching the Exmor's performance in both resolution and DR, at both low and high ISO at the same time, is Toshiba with its D7200 sensor - and Sony now also owns them. Cmosis holds up at low ISO, but they have yet to produce a high-resolution sensor with the same performance.

Besides, Sony is hardly sitting still with its own design. The A7r2's Exmor is vastly different to the Exmor of the D3x or A900.

Quote
- Canon has managed to maintain its marketshare with vastly inferior sensors for years, mostly on the strength of its lens line up and existing user base... and Nikon is current catching up fast and IMHO probably ahead as we speak. They have the only pro spec 24-70 f2.8 that is stabilized, newly the best 70-200 f2.8 on the market, the best portait lens with the 105mm f1.4, IMHO the best T/S wide lens, the best super teles short of the 200-400,... every single lens release they made recently has been ground breaking,

So has almost every recent high-end lens release from Canon, Sigma and the Sony GM range. The current crop of high-end lenses from all manufacturers - zooms especially - are so much better than those of 8 years ago that the lens gap has never been smaller, except if you need a certain special-purpose lens and that need trumps all other requirements.

Quote
- It is really unlikely that a recovering Sony would close the door on Nikon considering how important a customer they have been for the past 10 years, but even if that happened this wouldn't be that big an issue for Nikon.

It makes sense for them to keep supplying Nikon only as long as their own mirrorless line cannot keep up with rhe D810 in non-sensor performance. While that remains the case, keeping up the supply doesn't keep Nikon users from switching over to Sony, as, even if Nikon had to use a different, inferior sensor, many users would stay with Nikon for non-sensor aspects of performance anyway.

The dynamics change as soon as Sony can produce a mirrorless body which matches the non-sensor performance of the D810 or its successor. At that stage, every sale to Nikon becomes a potential lost Sony convert, since, if Sony could release a body with a better sensor and equal performance in other areas, switching brands becomes much more viable. The barrier to switching is high, due to lens collections, but not insurmountable, and the wheels can be greased with Metabones-type adapters containing electronics aimed at creating a Nikon-to-Sony interface with no loss of performance. The smart thing for Sony to do then would be to stop selling to Nikon, collaberate on an adapter and release a camera that matches Nikon's performance in every other area, but beats it significantly in sensor performance.

Given the leaps and bounds Sony has made in mirrorless performance, that day isn't far off.

Quote
Overall, good products meeting their target customer needs remains the strongest asset of a company. Warren Buffet made a ton of money betting on such companies, and he has been right on the long term.

Cheers,
Bernard

Only if their target customer is a growing market. If the markey isn't growing, the best you can achieve is a steady cashflow with little growth. If it's shrinking, your profits shrink with it and you start to lose the economy of scale.

Dedicated stills cameras are a fast-shrinking market, yet one which Nikon is largely reliant on. Sensors are a fast-growing market, yet Nikon can't make them. Optics are also a growing market, yet Nikon only makes them for its own products, rather than supplying optics to other equipment manufacturers. The former they can't help - setting up a state-of-the-art fab plant costs billions, which Nikon lacks. But the latter is certainly something they can work on and excel in, given what they've managed to bring out lately. Whether they have the will to do so, or cling blindly to their self-image as a 'camera company' rather than a profit-generating engine, is another matter entirely.
Logged

scooby70

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 489
Re: Nikon in difficulty?
« Reply #166 on: November 30, 2016, 08:22:39 am »


If you want a substandard camera, from a "bigger company"--buy Canon or Sony.

While you miss shots and take lesser photos, can brag that your camera company "bigger"


oh dear.

Can I just say that I'm very happy with my Sony A7 and the fact that it's made by Sony just doesn't matter to me. In no way do I see it as a substandard camera. Indeed it's the best camera I've ever owned and with a 35mm f2.8 fitted it's extremely compact, in fact it's 35mm SLR sized and this simple fact means I'm much more likely to have it with me than a big fat bloated and attention grabbing DSLR which on many occasions I'd just leave at home.

But that's just me.

Generally though I do wish that people would drop the whole fan boy thing. So, Nikon rules and everything else is dross bought by fan boys bragging that they've bought a product from a big company is it? My My... Does it really matter who makes the kit? To me it doesn't and if Nikon had made an A7 like camera I'd have bought it but Sony made it so that's what I bought and it really does irritate me that apparently intelligent people can post like you.

That's 5 minutes of my life I wont get back  >:(
Logged

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Nikon in difficulty?
« Reply #167 on: November 30, 2016, 10:13:04 am »

Drop the fanboy schtick? What would people do on these fora?  ::)
We are deluged by all sorts of fine cameras. Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus, various high-end MF cameras, surprisingly functional phone cameras (scoff, but I have a 6 year old iPhone 4 with a 1.2 MP camera, and I am flabbergasted by the improved images from the iPhone 7 12 MP camera - I am phone shopping in preparation for the old one reaching end-of-life).
Lenses? The modern batch of lenses are extremely sharp but pretty clinical in rendition. Some are incredible values, eg. the Canon 40mm f/2.8, at $150.00 list.  Sometimes it is fun to haul out the better old film era lenses - AIS Nikkors 50 f/1.2 and 105 f/2.5 in my bag (with adapter) - for a different look.
Logged

BrianVS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
Re: Nikon in difficulty?
« Reply #168 on: November 30, 2016, 04:02:26 pm »



Knowhow is cheap to buy.

Knowhow is quite expensive.

When's the last time that you hired an engineer able to design an imaging system? Or designed one yourself?

Many companies buy components. Integrating them into a working camera should not be underestimated.


« Last Edit: November 30, 2016, 06:54:47 pm by BrianVS »
Logged

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Nikon in difficulty?
« Reply #169 on: November 30, 2016, 05:07:45 pm »

Sigma is the perfect example of a company trying to do it all and coming short in the user experience. Foveon is a nice if specialized sensor. The lenses on the DP2M 30mm and 50mm cameras are spectacular. Ergonomics - nope.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13867
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Nikon in difficulty?
« Reply #170 on: November 30, 2016, 07:21:10 pm »

The dynamics change as soon as Sony can produce a mirrorless body which matches the non-sensor performance of the D810 or its successor. At that stage, every sale to Nikon becomes a potential lost Sony convert, since, if Sony could release a body with a better sensor and equal performance in other areas, switching brands becomes much more viable. The barrier to switching is high, due to lens collections, but not insurmountable, and the wheels can be greased with Metabones-type adapters containing electronics aimed at creating a Nikon-to-Sony interface with no loss of performance. The smart thing for Sony to do then would be to stop selling to Nikon, collaberate on an adapter and release a camera that matches Nikon's performance in every other area, but beats it significantly in sensor performance.

Given the leaps and bounds Sony has made in mirrorless performance, that day isn't far off.

Sony has been progressing a lot and I like many of their products and own more than a few.

But today I feel very limited appeal in their FF offering for the various types of shooting I do. I will believe in a possible demise of Nikon when I'll be convinced that Sony helps my photography more than what I currently own. Today it's not even close.

Cheers,
Bernard

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2794
Re: Nikon in difficulty?
« Reply #171 on: November 30, 2016, 09:04:18 pm »

Knowhow is quite expensive.

When's the last time that you hired an engineer able to design an imaging system? Or designed one yourself?

Knowhow costs millions to tens of millions. Many companies can afford that.

The ability to actually build high-end sensors on a commercial scale costs multiple billions. Few companies can afford that, and Nikon isn't one of them.

Quote
Many companies buy components. Integrating them into a working camera should not be underestimated.

Dedicated stills cameras are a shrinking market. The bottom end is collapsing due to phones and GoPros. High-end action bodies are soon to be under attack by 8k-capable video cameras, and will likely be gone within 10-15 years. Aside from optics, Nikon is good at doing something which is becoming less and less required. That's not a winning strategy.

Furthermore, Nikon's biggest saving grace is that they're using the best sensor on the market. Imagine the D800/D810 with the 5D3 sensor (which came out at the same time). It wouldn't have been competitive at all. But basing yourself on using the best-available sensor, which you can't build yourself, leaves you beholden to the manufacturer of that sensor. Who just happens to also make cameras and other imaging products and is expanding aggressively in your direction.

Canon's and Sony's R&D and manufacturing capabilities all tie into expanding markets. Both design and make sensors - although the camera market is shrinking, the sensor market is expanding rapidly. Their work in mirrorless technology is also applicable to video, security systems, AI and many areas other than stills cameras. In contrast, Nikon's capabilities (other than optics, which is restricted because it only makes components for Nikon products) are all tied to SLR cameras. Outside of an SLR, their developments in AF and other supporting components in a camera (i.e. everything but the lens and sensor) are essentially useless, with little commercial application. Aside from optics, they can't produce or sell anything that is of use outside an SLR camera - a market that's slowly dying.

Sigma is the perfect example of a company trying to do it all and coming short in the user experience. Foveon is a nice if specialized sensor. The lenses on the DP2M 30mm and 50mm cameras are spectacular. Ergonomics - nope.

Sigma is in a much stronger position than Nikon. Although it doesn't have to be that way, if Nikon would just unleash their optics division to make lenses and other optical components for everyone and everything, rather than just Nikon-branded equipment.

They hardly pretend that Foveon and their camera business is anything other than an interesting side-activity. Their main business is optics, and they know it.

They design and make lenses for everything and everyone - cameras, medical equipment, anything that requires a lens. They don't seem to care if it carries the Sigma name or not. Sigma (and Zeiss, and Tamron) are to lenses what Sony are to sensors - a supplier in a market that, overall (including all uses of lenses, not just dedicated stills cameras) is expanding.

The poor ergonomics and lack of support in their cameras matters little to their bottom line. The only people it bothers is the photographers who use them, which is a tiny market that Sigma doesn't seem to bother trying to expand, or even keep, because it's not their core business and is a shrinking segment.

Sony has been progressing a lot and I like many of their products and own more than a few.

But today I feel very limited appeal in their FF offering for the various types of shooting I do. I will believe in a possible demise of Nikon when I'll be convinced that Sony helps my photography more than what I currently own. Today it's not even close.

Sony - and Canon, and others - doesn't care what type of shooting you do. Sony, Canon and others are there to make money. It just so happens that the technology they're developing helps with photography. That's all well and good for photographers, but advancing photography is not the fundamental reason they're developing it, and the technology has many applications far outside photography. Sony, especially, appears to be trying to dominate the sensor market and make inroads into the non-photographic camera market (everything from security, to video, to medical, to telecommunications applications), and its photography developments are a useful marketing tool to showcase all their developments. It's the same reason Ferrari or MacLaren participate in Formula 1 racing - not because making race cars is profitable, but because it lifts the status of their brand.

Given the advances made between the A7r and the A7r2, the A9 (or whatever their likely 2017 high-end release is called) is likely to have a much more sophisticated AF system and other non-sensor components, and may well match the capabilities of non-action-specialised SLRs, either in this generation or the next. But Sony isn't developing this technology to displace SLRs. It's developing this technology because it's applicable in many different, expanding fields that rely heavily on imaging sensors (think driverless cars and other 'intelligent' robotic systems), of which still photography is just a small, but highly-visible one. Just look at 'eye focus' AF. It's a small tool for a photographer, and hardly makes or breaks a camera. Yet it costs millions of dollars to develop. The return on investment, if it were just for stills cameras, would be abysmal. But look at it another way - it's a rudimentary form of subject recognition and AI. Something that will be invaluable for smart security systems, automation and future, non-photographic applications, whose capabilities will improve as processing power and battery power/efficiency improve. Today, it's press a button to focus on the human's eye. Tomorrow, it's 'track that leopard's head'. In five years' time, you might tell it (verbally) 'Take the drone, fly it six metres into the air and take an aerial group shot. And focus on the dog'. In ten years' time, it might be a driverless car that can read and follow street signs (in twenty different languages). And in fifteen years time, you might tell a network of cameras (both static and drone-mounted), all hooked up to a computer, to 'find this guy somewhere in the city, track him with a drone, keep me updated on his location and send off an alert if he pulls out a weapon, starts speaking in French or mentions the word 'bomb''. It's all the same, expanding technology, with applications far beyond photography, all of which tie into having high-resolution, high-dynamic-range sensors and an intelligent AI system which can interpret the data generated by the sensor - sensors which Sony can make, and an AI system which Sony is developing. Mirrorless cameras for still photography are just a small part of it - a valuable showcase, and, unlike driverless cars or crimefighting drones, something which can be demonstrated now, even at this rudimentary stage of AI development.

Canon has also demonstrated capability in mirrorless cameras, although, thus far, they haven't made them in anything but consumer-level, budget models. But the technology and manufacturing capability are there, and it doesn't take much to apply them to a higher-end model, or to non-photographic applications (which Canon has already done).
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13867
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Nikon in difficulty?
« Reply #172 on: November 30, 2016, 09:35:22 pm »

Sony - and Canon, and others - doesn't care what type of shooting you do. Sony, Canon and others are there to make money. It just so happens that the technology they're developing helps with photography. That's all well and good for photographers, but advancing photography is not the fundamental reason they're developing it, and the technology has many applications far outside photography.

Again, I am sorry, but you have a very theoretical knowledge of how companies work which is simply not aligned at all with reality.

Cheers,
Bernard

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2794
Re: Nikon in difficulty?
« Reply #173 on: November 30, 2016, 10:17:16 pm »

Again, I am sorry, but you have a very theoretical knowledge of how companies work which is simply not aligned at all with reality.

Cheers,
Bernard

Care to elaborate?

Yours is a very middle-to-upper-management, operational-strategy-level, 'this is what the company does, and this is how we can do it best' way of looking at things. Not the top-down, grand strategy level thinking of owners and major stakeholders, whose questions, 'Why are we even doing this at all?', 'How does what we are currently doing help us achieve our actual goals?' and 'Is there a better way to use our existing resources?'

Military example - taking a hill.
The mid-level officer thinks, 'I need to take that hill. How can I do it as quickly as possible, with as few casualties as possible?'
The higher-level officer thinks, 'Do I need to take that hill? What's the overall objective here? It will take a lot of resources to take the hill, and there may be better ways to achieve our objective without taking it.' 
The high-level strategist (whether military or civilian) thinks, 'Why are we even fighting in this theatre? Are there any crucial goals there? How does winning here actually help us win the war? Could the personnel and resources we're spending there be more usefully deployed elsewhere?'

In the case of corporate strategy:
Mid-level - 'Our company makes cameras. That's how we make money. What do our clients need? How do we make the best cameras possible for them?'
High-level - 'We're here to make money for our shareholders. We currently do so by making cameras. It's not making very much money. Why are we even doing it? Is there a way we can deliver more value to our shareholders? And, if there is, how do we get there? Do we have the resources to do it?'
« Last Edit: November 30, 2016, 10:27:52 pm by shadowblade »
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2393
Re: Nikon in difficulty?
« Reply #174 on: November 30, 2016, 10:43:11 pm »

Again, I am sorry, but you have a very theoretical knowledge of how companies work which is simply not aligned at all with reality.

Cheers,
Bernard

I'd love to hear your view of how large corporations function. It's easy to say that's not how it works...but unless you back it up with your insightful view of today's corporate cultures and their functions...it's just hot steam.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13867
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Nikon in difficulty?
« Reply #175 on: November 30, 2016, 11:34:27 pm »

I'd love to hear your view of how large corporations function. It's easy to say that's not how it works...but unless you back it up with your insightful view of today's corporate cultures and their functions...it's just hot steam.

Yes, I sure could... especially in a Japanese context, but I am afraid I won't have time in the coming days.

Sorry about that.

Cheers,
Bernard

davidgp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 758
    • davidgp fotografia
Re: Nikon in difficulty?
« Reply #176 on: December 01, 2016, 02:44:00 am »


So far, the only company which has managed to produce a sensor approaching the Exmor's performance in both resolution and DR, at both low and high ISO at the same time, is Toshiba with its D7200 sensor - and Sony now also owns them. Cmosis holds up at low ISO, but they have yet to produce a high-resolution sensor with the same performance.

Not exactly... Sony bought several sensor/chip factories from Toshiba and they are using them to produce sensors. But Toshiba still keeps their intellectual property about sensors as independent company from Sony. They just patented several designs of curved sensors...

CMOSIS just announced a 48 megapixels sensor with global shutter - http://www.cmosis.com/news/press_releases/industrys_first_global_shutter_48mpixel_cmos_image_sensor_from_cmosis_supports_8k_image_resolution , if what they say it it truth... And we see it in a camera soon, it will be one of the most interesting sensors for video, 8k video with global shutter...



http://dgpfotografia.com

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2794
Re: Nikon in difficulty?
« Reply #177 on: December 01, 2016, 03:45:54 am »

Not exactly... Sony bought several sensor/chip factories from Toshiba and they are using them to produce sensors. But Toshiba still keeps their intellectual property about sensors as independent company from Sony. They just patented several designs of curved sensors...

CMOSIS just announced a 48 megapixels sensor with global shutter - http://www.cmosis.com/news/press_releases/industrys_first_global_shutter_48mpixel_cmos_image_sensor_from_cmosis_supports_8k_image_resolution , if what they say it it truth... And we see it in a camera soon, it will be one of the most interesting sensors for video, 8k video with global shutter...



http://dgpfotografia.com

The D7200 sensors come from Sony-owned elements, though.  Naturally, Toshiba continues to develop their own things.

The global shutter is much more interesting than the 48MP. Sony's supposed to have something in the 70-80MP range for the next generation anyway, and there's no word on what CMOSIS have managed to do with regards with regards to DR or ISO. There's also the economy of scale - Sony or Canon would almost certainly be able to produce a similar sensor for less than CMOSIS. Which is where the problem for small makers lies - if a large company can make a comparable product, they can easily undercut them. A small company needs a decisive technological or other performance advantage for at least one major application to compete.

Not that this new development really helps Nikon - it's more likely to benefit a company such as RED.
Logged

Yashika

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16
Re: Nikon in difficulty?
« Reply #178 on: December 02, 2016, 10:31:34 pm »

All of this is as true as it is meaningless.

Meaningless to what, whom? Your attack on Nikon won't make your Sony perform at the good level. Only under ideal condition. Even then, have to buy Nikon or Zeiss glass to have good result. Buy adapter too, waste of money.

If best photo mean something to you, and best system of capture quickly, then you need Nikon camera + Nikon glass.



Look at the situation from a corporate strategy point of view rather than as a photography enthusiast. Nikon has no control over its supply chain for critical components, needs to buy from a company which has a monopoly over the best sensor,  is far too reliant on sales within a single, shrinking market (dedicated stills cameras) and lacks the capacity to develop the in-house capability to overcome these problems.

No, I disagree. You have exactly backward. Corporate strategy will not make your camera/lens better.

Nikon does not have to be biggest company to have best products.


Plenty of companies have gone broke, or lost a lot of money, while making the best product in their market. In most of those cases, the market was either shrinking or being undercut by low-cost producers. Having the best product is no insurance against financial difficulties - quality of the product is only relevant at the bottom end, as you need a competent product to be in the game at all.

Everything you say, hypothetical, speculation.

Nikon not in game? How can you say when they are biggest camera company of all, behind only Canon in size. Far ahead of Canon in quality.

Like compare size of Toyota company to quality of Porsche product.



It's quite telling that the only place where people think Nikon are doing OK is on photography forums. People there are all about the gear - if the gear's good, the company must be OK, or so goes the thinking. It's a completely different story on investment and shareholder forums (online or otherwise). Nikon is pretty much on the nose, for all the reasons I mentioned.

You on nose, nose of speculation.

If I invest in stock, okay maybe invest in Sony.

If I want to buy the best camera/lens combo for wildlife, sport, landscape I purchase Nikon products.

Enjoy good debate, but to me you have funny logic!
Logged

Yashika

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16
Re: Nikon in difficulty?
« Reply #179 on: December 02, 2016, 10:38:24 pm »

Again, you're thinking with the 'ooh, nice gear' photographer's mentality, rather than the 'does it make a profit' and 'can I get a better return on investment elsewhere' business mentality.

Yes, exactly. Which is requisite to take best image possible.

You confuse Warren Buffett for Ansel Adam :)
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 14   Go Up