Nikon imaging division in trouble

[KLaban]

If you don't care...why are you reading and in fact posting to a thread to do with camera sales?

I like having a giggle.

[Two23]

I have no idea about and little interest in Nikon, Canon, Sony...camera sales.

Regarding my cameras, I'm happy to report increased keepers and 99% satisfaction since switching from my previous cameras. These are my meaningful figures.

I still use a Nikon D850 for shooting in color or fast action.  It's a great all around camera.  However I don't use it much since I switched to using Gundlach Korona.  Mine is the 5x7 and made with beautiful mahogany wood in 1925.  I have state of the art lenses for it too:  1844 Horne Thornwait Petzval 1845 Ross Petzval, 1845 Secretans landscape lens, 1847 Voightlander.  Mostly shoot wet plate with it but when I want something more up to date I shoot dry plates.  The system is very flexible.


Kent in

[KLaban]

I still use a Nikon D850 for shooting in color or fast action.  It's a great all around camera.  However I don't use it much since I switched to using Gundlach Korona.  Mine is the 5x7 and made with beautiful mahogany wood in 1925.  I have state of the art lenses for it too:  1844 Horne Thornwait Petzval 1845 Ross Petzval, 1845 Secretans landscape lens, 1847 Voightlander.  Mostly shoot wet plate with it but when I want something more up to date I shoot dry plates.  The system is very flexible.


Kent in

There are those here who would suggest that you'd be better off with a Sony.

;-)

[Two23]

There are those here who would suggest that you'd be better off with a Sony.

;-)

Well probably.  I'll point out my Gundlach Korona is an MILC and has about a 100 year head start on Sony.


Kent in SD

[BJL]

... in a very real sense Sony virtually created the sector....

That’s a strange perspective. Sony has lately lead the sector, but clearly Panasonic created it, bringing its partner Olympus along with it. What Panasonic and Sony have in common is coming from the video and electronics world, where the know-how and resources are a natural fit for the more purely electronic world of mirrorless digital cameras.

Also: it seems natural that Canon and Nikon take a dip in sales as they make their late shift to EVF cameras, but they have a lot of momentum in things like lenses owned and available (SLR lenses now adapt well thanks to improving PDAF, despite the occasional adaptor-phobia), support services and “mind share”, so I see a good chance for rebounding.

Of course Nikon has hurt itself for unit sales and revenues in the short term by starting in a higher priced, far lower volume niche, but it seems to be moving (slowly) beyond that now, into the price range that continues to dominate ILC revenues.

[kers]

I still use a Nikon D850 for shooting in color or fast action.  It's a great all around camera.  However I don't use it much since I switched to using Gundlach Korona.  Mine is the 5x7 and made with beautiful mahogany wood in 1925.  I have state of the art lenses for it too:  1844 Horne Thornwait Petzval 1845 Ross Petzval, 1845 Secretans landscape lens, 1847 Voightlander.  Mostly shoot wet plate with it but when I want something more up to date I shoot dry plates.  The system is very flexible.


Kent in

I prefer shooting with a dry sensor
But i envy of your head start!

[John R]

I think this guy sums up in one video all the things we have been discussing on why camera sales have declined.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu1UagrnW4g

I found it interesting that he has two friends who are top notch professionals in Malaysia and are still using older DSLR's. The Nikon D700 and the Canon 5D Mark11. Why? Because, he says, they are good enough to produce outstanding results. Of course he outlines many other reasons including the rise of social media and the smartphone. Well worth a look. He also makes interesting statements about photography as art, even we don't agree with his views.

JR

[Paulo Bizarro]

I like having a giggle.

So you do one thing, and then preach its opposite. That is indeed giggle worthy:)

[Rob C]

Yes, John, pretty much as several of us have pointed out, and been mildly chastised for so doing.

And exactly why I still have not "progressed" beyond my D700, and still use its older sister, the D200, far more.

However, as much as I agree with him, he, too, fails to suggest what the something new might be that we should rush out and photograph. Regarding posed or unposed street: the moral victory is catching shots on the fly, whereas the posed shots are always recognized for being the fake street that they inevitably have to be. Fake, because as we have always known - if around long enough - the myth has always been that good street depended on the fast, prescient eye, not on the ability to direct. Frankly, I think that most of all it depends on luck and the ability to track somebody, and recognize when they are about to step into an interesting location.

It precludes that Magnum guy who chases old ladies in the street and pokes a flash in their face; that's not being a great street photographer, that's being a great asshole.

Rob

[Manoli]

It precludes that Magnum guy who chases old ladies in the street and pokes a flash in their face; that's not being a great street photographer, that's being a great asshole.

Well, I'm not going to necessarily disagree with you, but to his credit (Bruce Gilden's the name) he's not only limited to old ladies, he's also chased down Yakuza, Russian mafia and shot subjects I'm guessing neither you nor I would have been willing to ...





*Edit:
Shot on Leica ..

Also,
Gilden on Magnum
https://www.magnumphotos.com/?s=Bruce+Gilden
Gilden on Brexit
https://www.magnumphotos.com/newsroom/the-a-to-z-of-brexit/

[KLaban]

So you do one thing, and then preach its opposite. That is indeed giggle worthy:)

Ta!

[John R]

Yes, John, pretty much as several of us have pointed out, and been mildly chastised for so doing.

And exactly why I still have not "progressed" beyond my D700, and still use its older sister, the D200, far more.

However, as much as I agree with him, he, too, fails to suggest what the something new might be that we should rush out and photograph. Regarding posed or unposed street: the moral victory is catching shots on the fly, whereas the posed shots are always recognized for being the fake street that they inevitably have to be. Fake, because as we have always known - if around long enough - the myth has always been that good street depended on the fast, prescient eye, not on the ability to direct. Frankly, I think that most of all it depends on luck and the ability to track somebody, and recognize when they are about to step into an interesting location.

It precludes that Magnum guy who chases old ladies in the street and pokes a flash in their face; that's not being a great street photographer, that's being a great asshole.

Rob

When I was watching his video, I too said what is the alternative suggestion for photography? But at the end he did say, just follow what really matters to you. For pros, that is a somewhat different story. They need to do what is necessary to keep their business viable. As for street photography, I really think that is a dead genre, at least in the way that is depicted on You Tube. We live in a modern sophisticated and interconnected world, where even in remote places people are often wise to people with cameras. The world has changed. There is little reason to continue to try and replicate what past photographers did and were able to do. So called spontaneity, as you have often observed, is anything but. But why fight it. Recognize the world has changed and accept that we have to interact with people to take photos for the purpose of communicating something to an audience. Might as well interact and save yourself a lot of grief.

JR

[BJL]

I think this guy sums up in one video all the things we have been discussing on why camera sales have declined.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu1UagrnW4g

I found it interesting that he has two friends who are top notch professionals in Malaysia and are still using older DSLR's. The Nikon D700 and the Canon 5D Mark11. Why? Because, he says, they are good enough to produce outstanding results. Of course he outlines many other reasons including the rise of social media and the smartphone. Well worth a look. He also makes interesting statements about photography as art, even we don't agree with his views.

JR

I didn't get through all of Robin Wong's video yet, but I agree strongly with his talk of "camera sufficiency", and I would say even more specifically "sensor sufficiency", even for the great majority of professional photographers. (At ease Doug Peterson; I am talking here about "most" or "the great majority", not "all"! I know that some people want to count the pores and tiny flecks of make-up of on the faces of the underwear models on those bus-stop ads!)

On the other side of the equation, it seems to me that the IQ and camera performance needs of even a large proportion of professional photographers have not increased much since the film era. The one viewing situation I see much of where images get viewed "larger" than with film, and thus need to sustain closer scrutiny, is on computer screens and big-screen TVs, now reaching 4K or even 5K — and that is still in the realm of almost every recent ILC, at least from 20MP up.
(Do any actual professional photographers care to comment?!)

Balance that with the fact that sensor IQ from almost any recent ILC easily surpasses 35mm film and is into medium format territory (by my reckoning, the 56mm frame width of color roll film is good for about 5K to 6K across, so in the realm of 20-24MP sensors), and we have reached the point where even modestly priced recent ILCs, when paired with good enough lenses, can handle a large proportion of professional work, including a chunk of what needed medium format film rather than 35mm.

Maybe that means we are headed for the far slower update cadence of film cameras, or even slower: remember the gentle rate at which Nikon's high-end AF SLRs advanced from F4 to F5 to F6? And remember when many amateur SLR owners basically bought one for a lifetime, or replaced it only when it broke down after several decades?

One little bright spot for camera makers: electronic devices like digital cameras are unlikely to have the lifetime durability of a basic film-eating SLR. For one thing, the memory cards for my first few digital cameras are now obsolete!

[chez]

I didn't get through all of Robin Wong's video yet, but I agree strongly with his talk of "camera sufficiency", and I would say even more specifically "sensor sufficiency", even for the great majority of professional photographers. (At ease Doug Peterson; I am talking here about "most" or "the great majority", not "all"! I know that some people want to count the pores and tiny flecks of make-up of on the faces of the underwear models on those bus-stop ads!)

On the other side of the equation, it seems to me that the IQ and camera performance needs of even a large proportion of professional photographers have not increased much since the film era. The one viewing situation I see much of where images get viewed "larger" than with film, and thus need to sustain closer scrutiny, is on computer screens and big-screen TVs, now reaching 4K or even 5K — and that is still in the realm of almost every recent ILC, at least from 20MP up.
(Do any actual professional photographers care to comment?!)

Balance that with the fact that sensor IQ from almost any recent ILC easily surpasses 35mm film and is into medium format territory (by my reckoning, the 56mm frame width of color roll film is good for about 5K to 6K across, so in the realm of 20-24MP sensors), and we have reached the point where even modestly priced recent ILCs, when paired with good enough lenses, can handle a large proportion of professional work, including a chunk of what needed medium format film rather than 35mm.

Maybe that means we are headed for the far slower update cadence of film cameras, or even slower: remember the gentle rate at which Nikon's high-end AF SLRs advanced from F4 to F5 to F6? And remember when many amateur SLR owners basically bought one for a lifetime, or replaced it only when it broke down after several decades?

One little bright spot for camera makers: electronic devices like digital cameras are unlikely to have the lifetime durability of a basic film-eating SLR. For one thing, the memory cards for my first few digital cameras are now obsolete!

The professional photographer market isn't what will make or break the photo industry. They are just a blip when taking in the entire photo industry and the professional market continues to struggle. It's the consumer photographer that will determine how successful the photography market will end up...and consumers love new releases on a very regular basis. Phones come out every year and sell in droves. We'll see AI drive the future of the camera market which has driven the phone camera market.

[Rob C]

The professional photographer market isn't what will make or break the photo industry. They are just a blip when taking in the entire photo industry and the professional market continues to struggle. It's the consumer photographer that will determine how successful the photography market will end up...and consumers love new releases on a very regular basis. Phones come out every year and sell in droves. We'll see AI drive the future of the camera market which has driven the phone camera market.

The pro market never was the driver; what it could do, however, through advertising during the era when some fashion photographers were revered like rock stars, was influence amateur interest towards particular brands. Olympus did a lot of that kind of advertising, using people like Bailey, Lichfield et al. as influencers, proving the point that the internet didn't invent them at all.

As the glamour has been pretty much stripped from such photographers today, I'm not sure whether hitching their name to your brand makes any real difference to your sales. You'd probably do better with a guy who kicks balls for a living.

Rob

[BernardLanguillier]

As the glamour has been pretty much stripped from such photographers today, I'm not sure whether hitching their name to your brand makes any real difference to your sales. You'd probably do better with a guy who kicks balls for a living.

Which tends to confirm the importance of Yakuza pictures？

Cheers,
Bernard

[Rob C]

Which tends to confirm the importance of Yakuza pictures？

Cheers,
Bernard

Forget gangs, think teams.

:-)

[chez]

The pro market never was the driver; what it could do, however, through advertising during the era when some fashion photographers were revered like rock stars, was influence amateur interest towards particular brands. Olympus did a lot of that kind of advertising, using people like Bailey, Lichfield et al. as influencers, proving the point that the internet didn't invent them at all.

As the glamour has been pretty much stripped from such photographers today, I'm not sure whether hitching their name to your brand makes any real difference to your sales. You'd probably do better with a guy who kicks balls for a living.

Rob

Oh yes we've seen actors and sports stars being used as the mannequin dummies in commercials in the recent past.

[BJL]

The professional photographer market isn't what will make or break the photo industry. They are just a blip when taking in the entire photo industry and the professional market continues to struggle. It's the consumer photographer that will determine how successful the photography market will end up...and consumers love new releases on a very regular basis. Phones come out every year and sell in droves. We'll see AI drive the future of the camera market which has driven the phone camera market.

Agreed! My talk about recent sensors being sufficient “ _even_ for  the great majority of professional photographers” is to imply that even more so are they sufficient for the overwhelming majority of interchangeable lens camera users, including that far larger but shrinking “consumer ILC” market.

So substantial shrinkage in sales volume is inevitable even if phone cameras did not exist, and minimising the losses will depend on offering improvements in other aspects. AI as you say is one; easy online sharing and quick basic editing is another; smaller, lighter kit could help too, while still offering lenses with a clear advantage in reach and speed over “phone-sized” lenses ...