Nikon’s new mirrorless system, coming in ... late September 2018

[Martin Kristiansen]

Would also like to see Canon pull one out the hat. I remember taking delivery of my 1Ds. It was a jaw dropping moment. For me the most important camera I have owned. Prior to that I had owned 3 Kodak digital cameras and a Kodak back so digital was hardly new to me.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Canon nailed it again with the mirrorless release.

[shadowblade]

How do you explain the fact that the D850 is clearly superior to the 5DMKIV/5DR, like the D810 was clearly superior to the 5DMKIII?

Bad examples - D850 was released two years after the 5Ds and a year after the 5D4, while the D810 was released two years after the 5D3. D800 vs 5D3 is a better comparison.

Regardless, the point stands. After the 5D2 and 7D were released, Canon's pretty much been focusing exclusively on video technologies and dual-use technologies. Even the 1Dx2's AF system is materially similar to the 7D's - there's just a lot more of it. They had the lion's share of the market, and were happy to coast along while developing the technologies required to dominate the next era. At that stage - even before Sony had made a full-frame camera - they had identified Sony, not Nikon, as their real rival, and worked towards that end.

The thing is, a mirrorless camera is pretty much a video camera with a higher-resolution sensor and a slower frame rate. With future action cameras, even that distinction becomes blurred - action stills cameras are getting faster and faster, while video cameras are getting higher and higher resolution. At some point, they meet - probably at 8k's 39MP/25fps. And guess what Canon's spent the past ten years developing?

I can't say whether Canon or Sony will come out on top in the mirrorless era - at present, it looks like Sony is in a better position, but only because they have a rapidly-maturing product line while Canon has yet to show its cards, and the current state of its developments. That could change with Canon's first release. But, no matter how good the Z6/Z7 turn out to be, it's unlikely that Nikon will come out on top, unless you define 'top' in a Leica-like, niche, prestige product sense rather than a commercially successful/technologically superior sense. In the long run, they may do better by designing and making glass for the two big players (and for other optical systems - cars, security systems, robots, etc.), in a similar vein to Sigma or Zeiss, than by making cameras themselves. There's big money in optics - Sony knows this, through its sensor business (photographic, non-phone cameras being a tiny, and shrinking, proportion of their imaging business) - but a sensor needs a lens to go with it, and Nikon makes lenses better than most.

[D Fuller]

Frankly, I would love to see Nikon’s approach to mirrorless be a bit more niche than mass market. Products with very clear point of view in design and usability can be excellent, market-leading products. Apple’s entire history bears this out.

Why does this discussion always seem to sound like everybody’s SLRs are going to expire in 30 days, and the choices available at that moment will be the whole future?

The D850, the D5, the 5Dx et al will serve pros for some time to come. Meanwhile I hope mirrorless doesn’t come a just a one-for-one replacement for what we have now. I hope there are more innovations in how we think about and are able to use cameras. For example:

The most interesting lenses for the A7 series (to me) are the Zeiss Loxias. The combination of manual focus with electronic activation of camera features is new and a lovely way of working.

The Leica SLs 24-90mm zoom is a much more interesting range than the much-copied 24-70. That extra reach is just so useful in so many situations. It’s well worth giving up constant aperture for that.

The company that makes a full-frame camera with very good video autofocus and high-bit 10-bit 4:2:2 recording in a camera this size will make a huge splash in the video world. If that camera does low light well, the ripples will be even bigger. I own Sony cameras because of their video capabilities, and the recording specs are only barely good enough. I’d switch in a heartbeat to a camera with similar specs, but a better codec. So would many others.

For myself, I don’t see replacing DSLR with mirrorless just yet. I see having an using both for the immediate future. Plenty of time for a system to get its feet on the ground if it’s done well.

[mecrox]

Bad examples - D850 was released two years after the 5Ds and a year after the 5D4, while the D810 was released two years after the 5D3. D800 vs 5D3 is a better comparison.

Regardless, the point stands. After the 5D2 and 7D were released, Canon's pretty much been focusing exclusively on video technologies and dual-use technologies. Even the 1Dx2's AF system is materially similar to the 7D's - there's just a lot more of it. They had the lion's share of the market, and were happy to coast along while developing the technologies required to dominate the next era. At that stage - even before Sony had made a full-frame camera - they had identified Sony, not Nikon, as their real rival, and worked towards that end.

The thing is, a mirrorless camera is pretty much a video camera with a higher-resolution sensor and a slower frame rate. With future action cameras, even that distinction becomes blurred - action stills cameras are getting faster and faster, while video cameras are getting higher and higher resolution. At some point, they meet - probably at 8k's 39MP/25fps. And guess what Canon's spent the past ten years developing?

I can't say whether Canon or Sony will come out on top in the mirrorless era - at present, it looks like Sony is in a better position, but only because they have a rapidly-maturing product line while Canon has yet to show its cards, and the current state of its developments. That could change with Canon's first release. But, no matter how good the Z6/Z7 turn out to be, it's unlikely that Nikon will come out on top, unless you define 'top' in a Leica-like, niche, prestige product sense rather than a commercially successful/technologically superior sense. In the long run, they may do better by designing and making glass for the two big players (and for other optical systems - cars, security systems, robots, etc.), in a similar vein to Sigma or Zeiss, than by making cameras themselves. There's big money in optics - Sony knows this, through its sensor business (photographic, non-phone cameras being a tiny, and shrinking, proportion of their imaging business) - but a sensor needs a lens to go with it, and Nikon makes lenses better than most.

Why does everything have to be a race with winners and losers? It’s not most people’s experience at all. They buy a camera they like, they use it. Eventually it falls to bits and they buy another camera. That is all. There are going to be three main mirrorless companies. Each will offer their own unique blend of feature and IQ. None is going to be worse than any other. Take your pick. If someone can’t take a really first-rate image with a camera from any of them then the problem is not going to be with the equipment.

[Martin Kristiansen]

Why does everything have to be a race with winners and losers? It’s not most people’s experience at all. They buy a camera they like, they use it. Eventually it falls to bits and they buy another camera. That is all. There are going to be three main mirrorless companies. Each will offer their own unique blend of feature and IQ. None is going to be worse than any other. Take your pick. If someone can’t take a really first-rate image with a camera from any of them then the problem is not going to be with the equipment.

Yep

[BJL]

Thank you D. Fuller for a wise, positive and “non-partisan” perspective. Though big, fast lenses are needed sometimes by some photographers, far greater usable ISO speeds have greatly expanded the “use cases” for somewhat more compact kit like good quality f/4 or f/2.8-4 zoom lenses, and they can offer wider zoom ranges to 4x or even 5x. That seems one good market to target with the slightly more compact mirrorless systems.

And the more I look at Nikon’s teasers, the more it looks like a relatively compact body, just high enough to fit the rear screen and lens mount.

[Rob C]

Why does everything have to be a race with winners and losers? It’s not most people’s experience at all. They buy a camera they like, they use it. Eventually it falls to bits and they buy another camera. That is all. There are going to be three main mirrorless companies. Each will offer their own unique blend of feature and IQ. None is going to be worse than any other. Take your pick. If someone can’t take a really first-rate image with a camera from any of them then the problem is not going to be with the equipment.

But hey, these discussions are seldom about images but almost invariably about "the next best thing in my life." Not the same consideration at all, and I agree with you entirely about making good images with what exists and has already existed for ages. If you can't make what we already have do it, then baby, nothing ever will!

Rob

[shadowblade]

Why does everything have to be a race with winners and losers? It’s not most people’s experience at all. They buy a camera they like, they use it. Eventually it falls to bits and they buy another camera. That is all. There are going to be three main mirrorless companies. Each will offer their own unique blend of feature and IQ. None is going to be worse than any other. Take your pick. If someone can’t take a really first-rate image with a camera from any of them then the problem is not going to be with the equipment.

Because business is a race with winners and losers. Selling cameras is a business. And all three companies are competing for the same market.

It's the same in any sector. Ford doesn't want you to buy Toyota - it wants you to buy Ford. And vice versa. Given that they operate in the same space, they have to compete for the same customers, by producing a better product and through better marketing. Each company funds innovations using money generated through sales (complemented by capital raisings and amplified through investments). If they have more money, they can fund more developments and produce a better product. This, in turn, can sell better, which funds more R&D, and so on, in a self-reinforcing cycle. This is one of the key reasons the majority of new companies fail, or are bought out by their larger rivals, and why almost all mature industries are dominated by a few large companies, generally in the same ballpark size, rather than by a large number of small companies. Smaller companies that survive usually do so by finding a niche that's inconvenient or impractical for a larger company to fill (e.g. being too small or too geographically remote to be worthwhile for the larger company) rather than by competing directly - see Leica in the luxury camera space.

Nikon could do well as a niche manufacturer, putting Sony sensors and other electronics into packages to cover markets too small and unique to be worthwhile for Canon and Sony, or as an optics manufacturer. They will have a hard time competing against the other two directly. The only reason they could compete in the DSLR era was because they had a long history as a film camera maker, from a time when camera bodies were much simpler, largely mechanical devices requiring far less R&D than now, that (prior to AF) could mostly be produced in a well-equipped machine shop, and had come out on top. The large reservoir of existing F-mount lenses and users served them well in the move to digital. Canon had greater resources and could fight back, and losing the full frame DSLR race was costly to Nikon in terms of market share. Now, Nikon is in the reverse position, with a smaller customer base than Canon, but is also smaller than Canon and Sony and less well-equipped to compete in contested territory on a level footing. They can compete if they manage to greatly expand their optics division, doing for optics what Sony did for sensors, with a huge customer base outside the camera world; they will struggle as a mostly camera-only, in-house-only (making optics only for Nikon products) company, except as a niche manufacturer.

[shadowblade]

But hey, these discussions are seldom about images but almost invariably about "the next best thing in my life." Not the same consideration at all, and I agree with you entirely about making good images with what exists and has already existed for ages. If you can't make what we already have do it, then baby, nothing ever will!

Rob

Because business and technical discussions are a lot more interesting. Anyone can take a photo, just like any car can drive at 100kph. It's a lot more interesting to talk about vehicle performance and compare characteristics between vehicles than about how all of them can go at the same 40kph on the congested freeway anyway.

[BernardLanguillier]

Nikon could do well as a niche manufacturer, putting Sony sensors and other electronics into packages to cover markets too small and unique to be worthwhile for Canon and Sony, or as an optics manufacturer. They will have a hard time competing against the other two directly. The only reason they could compete in the DSLR era was because they had a long history as a film camera maker, from a time when camera bodies were much simpler, largely mechanical devices requiring far less R&D than now, that (prior to AF) could mostly be produced in a well-equipped machine shop, and had come out on top. The large reservoir of existing F-mount lenses and users served them well in the move to digital. Canon had greater resources and could fight back, and losing the full frame DSLR race was costly to Nikon in terms of market share. Now, Nikon is in the reverse position, with a smaller customer base than Canon, but is also smaller than Canon and Sony and less well-equipped to compete in contested territory on a level footing. They can compete if they manage to greatly expand their optics division, doing for optics what Sony did for sensors, with a huge customer base outside the camera world; they will struggle as a mostly camera-only, in-house-only (making optics only for Nikon products) company, except as a niche manufacturer.

I now remember your numerous posts prior to the D850 release about how it was going to be a second tier device with an old sensor chip... the actual result... the best DSLR ever by a wide margin...

The only time in DSLR history where Canon was ahead technologically was the 1Ds till D3 period. Nikon was consistently in the lead before and after that for still photographers. On the body fromt, starting with the D30 and then 5Dmk II, Canon’s success always was in their ability to market well good quality cheaper cameras with low margins, a segment that we know is going to die soon from smart phone competition.

I am fully aware that Canon makes excellent glass, but so does Nikon. There is very little to tell them apart from a lens line-up/quality standpoint. It doesn’t look like Nikon didn’t have the R&D muscle, does it?

Overall, your theory that nikon doesn’t have the means to stay on top is absolutely not backed up by facts.

With all due respect, I am having serious doubts about your understanding of the current stakes and ability to forecast. 

Cheers,
Bernard

[chez]

I now remember your numerous posts prior to the D850 release about how it was going to be a second tier device with an old sensor chip... the actual result... the best DSLR ever by a wide margin...

The only time in DSLR history where Canon was ahead technologically was the 1Ds till D3 period. Nikon was consistently in the lead before and after that for still photographers. On the body fromt, starting with the D30 and then 5Dmk II, Canon’s success always was in their ability to market well good quality cheaper cameras with low margins, a segment that we know is going to die soon from smart phone competition.

I am fully aware that Canon makes excellent glass, but so does Nikon. There is very little to tell them apart from a lens line-up/quality standpoint. It doesn’t look like Nikon didn’t have the R&D muscle, does it?

Overall, your theory that nikon doesn’t have the means to stay on top is absolutely not backed up by facts.

With all due respect, I am having serious doubts about your understanding of the current stakes and ability to forecast. 

Cheers,
Bernard

Can you point me to a photo you took with your Nikon system that could not be taken by a Sony or Canon system? Your whole view as "being on top" is getting comical as all these 3 manufactures make absolutely top notch gear, greatly exceeding the photographer's abilities.

What is obvious is Canon is much more "on top" when it comes to revenue and market share and Sony is greatly closing in on number 2 spot. Those are figures that have meaning...your view of "on top" is basically meaningless as the manufactures have all passed the "good enough" gate with their equipment.

[BernardLanguillier]

Either Nikon isn't able to catch up with technology any longer... or technology is a commodity.

You guys can't have both... 

Cheers,
Bernard

[shadowblade]

I now remember your numerous posts prior to the D850 release about how it was going to be a second tier device with an old sensor chip... the actual result... the best DSLR ever by a wide margin...

Please link to the relevant quote. And note the difference between when I mentioned possibilities or options and when I said Nikon would do something. Could and would are two different words - mentioning a possibility, with varying probability, is different from making a prediction.

I'm starting to think you're just putting words in my mouth and having me say whatever happens to be convenient for you at the time.

The only time in DSLR history where Canon was ahead technologically was the 1Ds till D3 period. Nikon was consistently in the lead before and after that for still photographers. On the body fromt, starting with the D30 and then 5Dmk II, Canon’s success always was in their ability to market well good quality cheaper cameras with low margins, a segment that we know is going to die soon from smart phone competition.

Nikon had no answer for the 5D2 until the D800. That was a four year gap. Canon pretty much held the technological lead from the beginning of DSLRs until Nikon got hold of Exmor (and not the first-generation A900/D3x sensor). That was around the time Canon pretty much moved their focus to video and stopped/slowed any significant development of SLR-specific technologies.

I am fully aware that Canon makes excellent glass, but so does Nikon. There is very little to tell them apart from a lens line-up/quality standpoint. It doesn’t look like Nikon didn’t have the R&D muscle, does it?

Nikon is an optics company. Lenses are their forte. I'm talking about electronics here, not lenses.

[BernardLanguillier]

Apologies, time's up my friends. I am not going to waste any second trying to dig old post of yours, I have a very vivid recollection of the negative campaign you performed about a year ago.

The D3x was announced a few months after the 5DII and was the first Exmor Nikon. 4 months, not 4 years. We speak about technology, right?

How about refocusing this thread on what it is about, which is the new Nikon mirrorless cameras?

Please feel free to talk about Sony and Canon elsewhere.

Cheers,
Bernard

[shadowblade]

Apologies, time's up my friends. I am not going to waste any second trying to dig old post of yours, I have a very vivid recollection of the negative campaign you performed about a year ago.

The unreliability of memory and recollection as evidence are well-documented.

The D3x was announced a few months after the 5DII and was the first Exmor Nikon. 4 months, not 4 years. We speak about technology, right?

Did you miss the part where i said not the first-generation A900/D3x sensor, or did you just choose to ignore it and quote selectively? The first-generation Exmor had serious weaknesses at anything above base ISO, couldn't be considered a general-purpose sensor and wasn't a competitor for the 5D2 (which was used as much as a video camera as anything else).

[BernardLanguillier]

The first-generation Exmor had serious weaknesses at anything above base ISO, couldn't be considered a general-purpose sensor and wasn't a competitor for the 5D2 (which was used as much as a video camera as anything else).

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D3X-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-versus-Canon-EOS-1Ds-Mark-III___485_483_436

If find the gap between your statements above and the facts presented by DxO Mark to be a good summary of the level of credibility your claims have. Final answer from me.

How about refocusing this thread on what it is about, which is the new Nikon mirrorless cameras?

Cheers,
Bernard

[shadowblade]

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D3X-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-versus-Canon-EOS-1Ds-Mark-III___485_483_436

If find the gap between your statements above and the facts presented by DxO Mark to be a good summary of the level of credibility your claims have. Final answer from me.

How about refocusing this thread on what it is about, which is the new Nikon mirrorless cameras?

Cheers,
Bernard

Your point being?

You've brought up a graph of DR measurements. No-one ever disputed Exmor's base ISO performance. But DR isn't everything. The point is, it had no DR advantage above ISO 400, produced noisy images at higher ISO, couldn't shoot video, had a barely-functional live view and came in a package costing three times as much as the 5D2 meant that it was not a competitor, but, rather, a specialised camera useful for a few applications, but with little utility as a general-purpose camera. Compare and contrast the number of wedding photographers using the D3x as opposed to the 5D2/D3/1Ds3/D700, for example.

Nikon did not come up with a high-resolution, high-DR camera which could also compete as a general-use camera until the D800, or even, arguably, the D810 (the D800 having a noticeable non-sensor performance deficit compared to the 5D3, which was made up for by Canon's sensor weakness).

[Guillermo Luijk]

If find the gap between your statements above and the facts presented by DxO Mark to be a good summary of the level of credibility your claims have. Final answer from me.

I had no idea of your previous discussions but I think this is ad-hominem, and anyway you both are becoming too personal. Let's enjoy what the Big Three have to offer us all.

My conviction is that both Canon and Nikon from their duopoly position have been deliberately lagging the development of the entire mirrorless market during the last decade. This quite disappointed me since mirrorless is the only kind of camera I've been interested in since the first Olympus PEN and Panasonics appeared on the market, nevertheless their numerous flaws, because those were the cameras that made sense to me (I always wondered why my 350D couldn't preview the scene just like my cheap Pentax Optio 50 did, and how DSLR users could be happy with that). But I don't blame Canon or Nikon, will be happy if they finally come with good ML FF systems.

Regards

[Telecaster]

My contention still stands that the less meaningful the differences between brands become in real-world use, the more heated the exchanges between "competing" brand acolytes tend to be. The need for tribe-based conflict is a weird, and often self-defeating, aspect of human nature.

-Dave-

[BJL]

Let me throw some (Japanese) market share stats in.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bcnaward.jp%2Faward%2Fgallery%2Fdetail%2Fcontents_type%3D251%26date%3D2018&edit-text=
discussed in English at
https://www.dpreview.com/news/0966656912/2018-japan-bcn-camera-rankings-canon-dominates-dslrs-tops-sony-in-mirrorless

Note though that, contrary to the DPReview headline, [UPDATE: thank to Mike Broomfield for correcting my misundestanding—so the weirdness is the lede mentioning Canon and Sony—#2 and #3 in this category—while not mentioning Olympus being #1, again] the market share leader in mirrorless system cameras is Olympus at 27.7%, ahead of Canon at 21.3% which edges Sony into third place at 20.2%  How Sony's third became "tops" in the DPReview headline is a mystery. Maybe by the unstated restriction to 36x24mm format! That comes to mind because there are several assertions in this thread that are false as stated, but become true if you ignore the far greater part of the ILC market that involves smaller formats.

BTW, it is not clear to me one way or the other whether Sony's "first mover" advantage in 36x24mm format mirrorless systems will be enough to guarantee that Nikon will forever trail Sony in that sector, let alone whether Sony will stay ahead of Canon if/when it enters that segment: consider how Canon's EOS-M mirrorless system with only a handful of dedicated EF-M lenses available has taken the lead over the Sony and Fujifilm in "APS-C" format mirrorless systems that were on the market earlier and (to me at least) are clearly more impressive. Factors like overall brand strength and the attraction of using same-brand SLR lenses with same-brand adaptors can favor the overall ILC leaders, Canon and Nikon.