Bernard, in terms of technology (recognised in this case as distinctly separate to usability and features) I do indeed see the D750 as being clearly superior to the 6D. It should be: the D750 has at least a two year technology advantage and a higher target market advantage.
The whole point of this thread is to discuss the companies behind the products. To evaluate their ongoing commitment to the usability of their products and of the system as a whole.
If we consider usability we can use the word clarity to best describe our experience of the control and feedback systems designed into the camera. Looking at the specifications of the D750 we would expect it to have a very high level of clarity. That the level of refinement and sophistication found in the control and feedback systems should be equal to the advanced technology packed into camera. This would be apparent from the moment we started using the camera.
Unfortunately, it isn't.
This is the key area where the Nikon falls down quite badly, particularly when compared to the E-M1 and, to a lesser extent, the 6D. The camera is a bit of a dumb box of advanced technologies. Why?
Thom has been evaluating Nikon for quite some time and has said this on his review of the Nikon annual report:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikons-annual-report.htmlHere’s the line that particularly bothers me (also from Gokyu-san): “As technology has matured, our products themselves can no longer be as distinct. Consequently, price wars are becoming fiercer, making it essential to continuously and thoroughly reduce costs to maintain a profit.”
Failure to lead and innovate is the real problem. It’s statements like Gokyu-san’s that are going to give everyone the impression that Nikon Imaging is a cash cow that just needs to be milked. Milking as a strategy rarely works for long in the consumer electronics industry. Indeed, it makes you more vulnerable to ending up with dead cows. Nikon needs to figure out how to make distinct products, period.
Distinct equals:
- highly configurable and sophisticated interfaces (ugh, not at the expense of usability - it is entirely possible to have both);
- improved materials and build quality (the E-M1 shows how this can be done in a consumer product at a very affordable price);
- better EVFs (won't be long now - we are just mostly waiting on AF);
- improved touch experience in the screen and button/dial controls (haptics - mirrorless steaming full-ahead in this area);
- better menu design (in my experience Canon > Nikon);
- more functions and features (again, Canon > Nikon);
- easier connectivity to other devices;
- more granular GPS control (automatic activation when the camera is turned on or focused, etc)..
- and lots more.
It means to be, at least, competitive with the usability and feature sets found in the new mirrorless generation.
Interestingly, this comment by Gokyu-San gives some clue as to why the D750 is a box made from advanced hardware without an equivalent level of sophistication in the usability:
"Until now, Nikon was grounded in the idea of using its own technology to develop, manufacture, and market products, so it employed a hardware-oriented strategy..."
Apple is a hardware oriented company, but they understand the soft aspect of usability and it drives the development of their hardware.
Okay, so leaving the technical marvel that is the D750, alone, what impression have I gained about Nikon's ability (or desire) to release a densely featured mirrorless full-frame camera? It seems that it is going to be very difficult for them to change their thinking towards the softer (and more nuanced) aspect of usability.
I think Canon is better positioned in their thinking to join the other mirrorless companies in meeting the demand for better usability and more sophisticated features - as long as their sensors improve, obviously. If they have hit a wall in their ability to make advanced sensor technology lets hope they respond quickly by partnering up with a manufacturer like Sony.
With this in mind, I would like to purchase a second hand 6D and upgrade to the replacement as soon as it comes out. It won't be a mirrorless, but I want to be invested in a system that will deliver a mirrorless I really want to use.
People are doubting Canon in light of Nikon's use of Sony's fantastic sensor technology. But, they have to remember that competing technologies have always played a game of leap-frog. I think that in this new era of partnering for technology it is the design ethos that will ultimately set competitors apart. I believe Canon has more of the design ethos of others like Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic, than does Nikon. At least, from what I can tell right now.
I remember when Apple was looking to abandon its PowerPC platform in order to change over to the 486 CPU. It was looking for a new partner and I remember thinking at the time that they would probably go with AMD. Because AMD had such a great momentum going with the Opteron CPU and NUMA system design. Intel appeared to be struggling to keep up. When Steve Jobs announced Intel as their new partner I was surprised. When I questioned why I concluded that Intel must have been able to convince Steve that what was in the pipeline was worth committing to. As it turned out Steve made the right call and Apple has never looked back.
The point is, if Apple can do it, Canon can. Now they just need to get customers to, ugh, see the seemingly impossible.
