Photokina...What the?

[Cage]

I'm hearing you Arthur.

I started my DSLR journey with a Pentax K20D which I rather liked. I then got caught up in the 'newer has to be better' hype and upgraded (?) to a K5 which I was not quite so enamoured with. My main passion was birding and I think that I did OK with my SMC Pentax-DA* 300mm F4 ED [IF] SDM (Thank you Lance) but I was hankering for more reach and that just wasn't available in the Pentax mount.

I also decided that I must have the extra megapixies and FOV of a full frame so I went to the Nikon D600, had the sensor changed, and was rather happy with it but it didn't have all those extra megapixies that the D800 had so another switch. I didn't mind the D800 except for it's dismal handling of anything over ISO800, which bugged me enough to move it on.
I've acquired a D7200 as a stop gap till I decide on where to jump to next.

My new interest is nightscapes and the D810 with it's lack of an OLPF seems like a logical move. The D810a is not really tempting as I think it's pricing is a rip-off.

In the midst of all my kerfuffling Pentax have done what I couldn't wait for and released a well specced 36MP full frame, with some tempting features for astrophotography, and at a substantially lower price than the D810, which is overdue for and upgrade anyway. Nikon aren't saying when, or even if.

There is still no reasonably priced FF long lens available, the only option being the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 EX DG APO, although Sigma and Tamron may decide to add Pentax to their list of compatible mounts if the K1 gets a following.

When comparing the specs of the Pentax K1 and the Nikon D810 one can't but help get the feeling that Nikon (and Canon) have been ripping us off, and have been for ever. Who is supplying the grey market sellers who can offer pricing of 20% and more below the cheapest authorised dealers prices.? OK, you get a 'factory warranty' for the extra, but if they got their QC right that wouldn't be a factor.

I'm pretty much over Nikon, and Canon lost me when they decided to change their lens mount.

And if I did decide to go back to Pentax I still have the incredible M 50mm f1.7 and the legendary Tamron SP Adaptall 70-210 f3.5 to start with.


Wonder why I kept them.

[MissionMan]

I really don't understand this business mindset!
Pentax for years promised a full frame camera, it probably helped them hold on to many customers, and now it seems many are extremely happy with the result, irrespective of the fact that it took so long, they turned out a supremely capable camera with much better features(overall), at a vastly affordable price point!

Fuji announced the development of their new MF camera!

With the internet so prevalent and pervasive today, it makes no sense to secretive about up coming developments like this.
Like MM says, it'd help maintain some inertia from die hard Nikon loyalists(which I probably was not too long ago).

I think Thom Hogan calls it 'leakage'.

It appears that many folks are abandoning Nikon's F mount, selling up lenses and the like and switching to whatever mirrorless format/brand.
An announcement from Nikon about any potential future mirrorless even with some scant details(just for the purpose of teasing!!) with the important caveat that it maintain compatibility with Nikon lenses!!! .. would surely slow down this 'leakage' issue for them.

Nikon's main issue is not about the products it makes and releases .. it's only problem is management.

I'm with Andrew.
The way it's currently looking, if I consider any new products over the next few years, there's a higher chance that the brand name will start with P or S ...

- - - Updated - - -

The other thing to be mindful of when it comes to mirrorless, is whether the size is the important differentiator, or the use of a live view EVF is.

To me, neither are. I'm more than happy with the size/weight of the D800 and any/all of my lenses.
I'm not a fan of EVFs(still) so my main issue with mirrorless cameras is the viewfinder.

But! .. what I'm seeing ATM, and haven't yet seen much written about it, is that sometimes too small can be a bad thing.

I've written about this ages ago, when I switched from the D70s to the D300.
D300 was a much larger camera than the D70s, so theoretically, the D70s would seem like it's the perfect all day companion.
But even tho it(D70s) was still a largish camera compared to any current mirrorless camera, the larger body of the D300 made for a more comfortable carrying ergonomics.
That is, I could easily carry the D300(and D800) all day .. in the hand, whereas the smaller D70s was a PITA(actually PITH!) to hold.
My hand would cramp up quickly.
I've never had any issues walking about all day, or most of the day with the D300/D800.
I don't believe that a camera should be locked away in a back/backpack/suitcase/whatever, or even carried around on a shoulder strap.(you did know that they are much more comfy when used a a shoulder strap, and not a neck strap! )
I prefer to get around holding the camera in my hand .. after all it's where it should be .. when it's needed!

So what I've noticed over the past few years, is that the smaller are becoming bigger(and usually a bit heavier).

it's not much now, just a few grams here and a few extra mm's there, but that seems to be what happened to the film camera world way back in the 90's too.
They got just a smidge larger, and then another smidge larger .. and so on, until we got to their current digital counterpart sizes.

It wont be too long before 'the smaller' or more compact mirrorless cameras will be as large and heavy again as current smaller DSLR cameras are!

Compare current faves Olympus EM1's (first version compared to MkII); Fuji's XT-1 and 2, and X Pro1 and 2; Sony's A7 series too.
They're all falling victim to the dreaded onset of size creep(same with cars!).

So on the one hand we have mirrorless manufacturers that don't specifically care if their next model adds some size/weight.
And on the other hand we have DSLR makers that pull out all the stops to reduce their cameras relative size/weight!
It won't be long before we see that DSLRs are actually smaller and lighter than (equivalent type/format)mirrorless cameras!

I have to say too I laughed when I read about Olympus's new 25/1.2 lens.
It's about twice the size and weight of any half decent 50/1.8 lens for most DSLRs.
A 25/1.2 lens is akin to a 50/1.8 for a full frame camera.
What's humorous is that the philosophy is supposed to be smaller/compact!

I don't have an issue with size creep on mirrorless if it extends battery life. The current 300 photo battery life is dismal so I think if extending the camera slightly (without a grip) would extend battery life, it's a worthwhile trade off. I've had events where I have shot in excess of 3000 photos. That's 10 batteries in mirrorless land and I've heard of mirrorless wedding photographers going through 15 batteries in a weekend.

On the EVF front, I tested the XT-2 with 120fps viewfinder and it is really reaching a point where its seamless enough now to offer a real alternative. Previously the lag was problematic. The only issue from what I understand is that if you run at high frame rates, the view through the viewfinder can look a little broken and you end up moving ahead or behind the action. This is one of the reasons why I would like the combination of both a DSLR and mirrorless if possible. To me, the ultimate would be a mirror of sorts that reflects onto a EVF allowing you a optical and digital option, and I'm not talking about the X-Pro 2 version, I'm talking about a real combination which I think will be feasible. The thing I like about the EVF is the what you see is what you get approach instead of adjusting after each photo. I also like the option of shooting black and white through a black and white EVF.

Interestingly enough, my move may be to F at some point if Nikon don't release options soon. I'm in no particular rush, but if the opportunity arises, the switch will happen.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm hearing you Arthur.

I started my DSLR journey with a Pentax K20D which I rather liked. I then got caught up in the 'newer has to be better' hype and upgraded (?) to a K5 which I was not quite so enamoured with. My main passion was birding and I think that I did OK with my SMC Pentax-DA* 300mm F4 ED [IF] SDM (Thank you Lance) but I was hankering for more reach and that just wasn't available in the Pentax mount.

I also decided that I must have the extra megapixies and FOV of a full frame so I went to the Nikon D600, had the sensor changed, and was rather happy with it but it didn't have all those extra megapixies that the D800 had so another switch. I didn't mind the D800 except for it's dismal handling of anything over ISO800, which bugged me enough to move it on.
I've acquired a D7200 as a stop gap till I decide on where to jump to next.

My new interest is nightscapes and the D810 with it's lack of an OLPF seems like a logical move. The D810a is not really tempting as I think it's pricing is a rip-off.

In the midst of all my kerfuffling Pentax have done what I couldn't wait for and released a well specced 36MP full frame, with some tempting features for astrophotography, and at a substantially lower price than the D810, which is overdue for and upgrade anyway. Nikon aren't saying when, or even if.

There is still no reasonably priced FF long lens available, the only option being the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 EX DG APO, although Sigma and Tamron may decide to add Pentax to their list of compatible mounts if the K1 gets a following.

When comparing the specs of the Pentax K1 and the Nikon D810 one can't but help get the feeling that Nikon (and Canon) have been ripping us off, and have been for ever. Who is supplying the grey market sellers who can offer pricing of 20% and more below the cheapest authorised dealers prices.? OK, you get a 'factory warranty' for the extra, but if they got their QC right that wouldn't be a factor.

I'm pretty much over Nikon, and Canon lost me when they decided to change their lens mount.

And if I did decide to go back to Pentax I still have the incredible M 50mm f1.7 and the legendary Tamron SP Adaptall 70-210 f3.5 to start with.


Wonder why I kept them.

When you say reasonably priced, do you mean long zooms or fixed focal length? Didn't Sigma just release a 500mm f/4 sports that should be reasonable priced?

[Cage]

When you say reasonably priced, do you mean long zooms or fixed focal length? Didn't Sigma just release a 500mm f/4 sports that should be reasonable priced?

The new f4 Sigma doesn't come in the Pentax mount and the f4.5 is around $6K. The only zooms available are older Sigma 50/150/170-500mm variants.

[John King]

I don't have an issue with size creep on mirrorless if it extends battery life. The current 300 photo battery life is dismal so I think if extending the camera slightly (without a grip) would extend battery life, it's a worthwhile trade off. I've had events where I have shot in excess of 3000 photos. That's 10 batteries in mirrorless land and I've heard of mirrorless wedding photographers going through 15 batteries in a weekend.

With mirrorless, the CIPA shot count statistic is all but totally useless!

The on time of the camera is the major factor. With my E-M1, the battery will run the camera continuously for about 3 hours, whether I take 3 shots, 300 or 3,000.

Having all the various 'sleep' mode features set to the shortest possible times will dramatically extend battery life. The EVF is the main user of battery power, more than the rear display - about double the drain. I generally switch the camera off between shots, but this is probably only about 50% of the time. I have shot all day using a battery that started the day showing that it was borderline discharged. With the E-M1 MkII, it uses a different battery with much higher capacity.

The optional grip extends shooting life considerably, and changing the battery in my grip takes a matter of seconds. I have the camera set up to use the grip battery first, then it automatically switches to the camera battery when exhausted. Change the grip battery, cycle the power switch and it reverts to using the freshly charged grip battery.

The MkII (FINALLY) comes with a decent power indicator - percentage of shooting time left. This has been overdue in Olympus cameras for about 10 years ... .

On the EVF front, I tested the XT-2 with 120fps viewfinder and it is really reaching a point where its seamless enough now to offer a real alternative. Previously the lag was problematic. The only issue from what I understand is that if you run at high frame rates, the view through the viewfinder can look a little broken and you end up moving ahead or behind the action. This is one of the reasons why I would like the combination of both a DSLR and mirrorless if possible. To me, the ultimate would be a mirror of sorts that reflects onto a EVF allowing you a optical and digital option, and I'm not talking about the X-Pro 2 version, I'm talking about a real combination which I think will be feasible.

Just did a side by side test with my E-30 (OVF) and my E-M1. Even with the EVF frame rate set to the low speed, there was only an almost imperceptible difference between them, and no shearing or tearing.

The E-M1 MkII has quite a deep buffer - around 140+ RAW shots at full resolution (20 MPx). Buffer clearance rates are also very fast compared with the E-M1 MkI.

The thing I like about the EVF is the what you see is what you get approach instead of adjusting after each photo. I also like the option of shooting black and white through a black and white EVF.

Yeah, It is certainly an interesting way of viewing the subject ... even my M2 and M3 Leicas shooting KB17 showed the scene in colour in the VF ... .

[I @ M]

Phase One and Fuji GFX?
Did somebody win the lottery?? ;P

Ooops, should have included the second letter. Try again ---- Pe or Fu.

- - - Updated - - -

So on the one hand we have mirrorless manufacturers that don't specifically care if their next model adds some size/weight.
And on the other hand we have DSLR makers that pull out all the stops to reduce their cameras relative size/weight!
It won't be long before we see that DSLRs are actually smaller and lighter than (equivalent type/format)mirrorless cameras!

I have to say too I laughed when I read about Olympus's new 25/1.2 lens.
It's about twice the size and weight of any half decent 50/1.8 lens for most DSLRs.
A 25/1.2 lens is akin to a 50/1.8 for a full frame camera.
What's humorous is that the philosophy is supposed to be smaller/compact!

Amen.

I'm not looking for "small" in a camera ( apart from the price tag ) and more infrequently than not these days it ends up sitting on a tripod so hand holding any weight is not an issue.
Give me an ergonomic body, mirror or no mirror so long as the view finder is good. Speaking of which, the little Fuji I have with plain glass non ttl finder works well for me. Any amount of info can be displayed in it and it can be used as an evf at the flick of a switch. It is really quite a quick process working around the parralax issue when framing a shot and to me is a logical inclusion in a mirrorless body.
Yep, the new Fuji may well turn out to be a desirable bit of gear and I already consider the Pentax to be a good thing so with Nikon treading water whilst weighed down by a divers belt the opposition looks like a lifesaver clad in lycra.

Come on Nikon, you can build such a unit, with or without a mirror, decent sized body, good battery life, ergonomics, reasonably priced ( I aint confident of that one ) , utilising F mount lenses and a nice large sensor ( not some emasculated thing like Olypops have ) .

You never know you could actually retain some existing customers and entice a few new ones ------

[John King]

. . .

Compare current faves Olympus EM1's (first version compared to MkII); Fuji's XT-1 and 2, and X Pro1 and 2; Sony's A7 series too.
They're all falling victim to the dreaded onset of size creep(same with cars!).

So on the one hand we have mirrorless manufacturers that don't specifically care if their next model adds some size/weight.
And on the other hand we have DSLR makers that pull out all the stops to reduce their cameras relative size/weight!
It won't be long before we see that DSLRs are actually smaller and lighter than (equivalent type/format)mirrorless cameras!

For those who are not well informed, the smaller µFTs cameras are tiny, and bodies often weigh less than 350 grams. The tiny Panasonic GM1 weighs a mere 204 grams, with battery.
There are sizes and types for every conceivable taste.

If you insist on comparing horses with apples you get GIGO, Arthur ...

I have to say too I laughed when I read about Olympus's new 25/1.2 lens.
It's about twice the size and weight of any half decent 50/1.8 lens for most DSLRs.
A 25/1.2 lens is akin to a 50/1.8 for a full frame camera.
What's humorous is that the philosophy is supposed to be smaller/compact!

Have you bothered to look at the IQ wide open?
Sample shots?
I thought not ...

At least I don't have to carry 12 kgs of gear with me, or maybe hire a porter, plus carry a mandatory, massive tripod ...

Sorry, but these kinds of ill-informed and inflammatory statements make me think that I am back at DPR.

[RANT (almost) OVER]

[MissionMan]

For those who are not well informed, the smaller µFTs cameras are tiny, and bodies often weigh less than 350 grams. The tiny Panasonic GM1 weighs a mere 204 grams, with battery.
There are sizes and types for every conceivable taste.

If you insist on comparing horses with apples you get GIGO, Arthur ...



Have you bothered to look at the IQ wide open?
Sample shots?
I thought not ...

At least I don't have to carry 12 kgs of gear with me, or maybe hire a porter, plus carry a mandatory, massive tripod ...

Sorry, but these kinds of ill-informed and inflammatory statements make me think that I am back at DPR.

[RANT (almost) OVER]

I don't think he was being inflammatory. I think he was just stating that the big selling point of mirrorless has always been size and in this case, size isn't the winner.

Interestingly enough Thom Hogan also seems to think Nikon has lost the plot and thats a big thing for him to say:

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/...ng-direct.html

[I @ M]

For those who are not well informed, the smaller µFTs cameras are tiny, and bodies often weigh less than 350 grams. The tiny Panasonic GM1 weighs a mere 204 grams, with battery.
There are sizes and types for every conceivable taste.

If you insist on comparing horses with apples you get GIGO, Arthur ...



Have you bothered to look at the IQ wide open?
Sample shots?
I thought not ...

At least I don't have to carry 12 kgs of gear with me, or maybe hire a porter, plus carry a mandatory, massive tripod ...

Sorry, but these kinds of ill-informed and inflammatory statements make me think that I am back at DPR.

[RANT (almost) OVER]

Thanks for letting us know that we are ill informed.

Thought I would have a go at comparing fruit in an effort to show all the ill informed members of this forum how much a huge DSLR dwarfs a mirrorless body ----- yep the Olympus ( which you seem to be totally patriotic to ) is so much smaller than a DSLR and weighs a lot less, oops, rewind that, it aint much smaller and weighs more than a very competent DSLR.

Visual evidence can be seen here.

Now --- back to the subject of Canon and Nikon and their respective offerings at Photokina.

[John King]

Thanks for letting us know that we are ill informed.

Your interpretation, or misinterpretation, of what I actually wrote, Andrew.

Thought I would have a go at comparing fruit in an effort to show all the ill informed members of this forum how much a huge DSLR dwarfs a mirrorless body ----- yep the Olympus ( which you seem to be totally patriotic to ) is so much smaller than a DSLR and weighs a lot less, oops, rewind that, it aint much smaller and weighs more than a very competent DSLR.

Visual evidence can be seen here.

A comparison of an entry level dSLR with one of the largest (and most capable) µFTs bodies is hardly sensible, Andrew.
I would have thought that my use of Olympus gear was pretty obvious, without any further comment ...
The evident sarcasm is not becoming to you, IMO.

Now --- back to the subject of Canon and Nikon and their respective offerings at Photokina.

Is this site solely for Canon and Nikon users?
I thought that it was for all photographers, no matter what gear they choose to use.

My entry into this thread was to commiserate with fellow photographers about the lack of anything major being delivered to them at Photokina for their brand of choice. However, I also reminded them that the D5 and D500 released earlier this year were hardly miserable offerings. They are both stunning cameras.

Mutual respect as regards what people choose to use would go a long way, Andrew.

[I @ M]

Your interpretation, or misinterpretation, of what I actually wrote, Andrew.

I thought from the quoted post of yours below that there maybe members here who are ill informed -----

For those who are not well informed,

A comparison of an entry level dSLR with one of the largest (and most capable) µFTs bodies is hardly sensible, Andrew.

Actually, if I was trying to compare an entry level DSLR I would have used a D3200 as seen here but if in your well informed opinion the D5500 is an entry level DSLR, all us so ill informed people would like to know what the supposedly most capable Olympus does so much better than the Nikon. Especially when it comes to the parts about weight and size.

Is this site solely for Canon and Nikon users?

Absolutely not!!! This discussion just happens to be a thread in the Forum / general / gear talk / Nikon: and yes, your first post in the topic did mention Photokina, and Nikon but from there on in it rapidly evolved into much discussion on your part about the relative merits of Oly gear.

I was just trying to keep the thread in order ------

[swifty]

I'd just like to add some thoughts in regards to mirrorless considerations that some of you may or may not have thought about.

In regards to the EVFs, one has to make a distinction between when the EVF is performing optimally and conditions where it may not be able to.
In good light, which usually means outdoors in daylight I think very few people will have any issues shooting using the current better EVFs. As many have noted, lag is largely unperceivable.

In dim lighting or artificial lighting, it has been my experience that all the EVFs I've tried perform sub-optimally. These may include refresh rates slowing down, flickering, noise etc. However do keep in mind that in very dim lighting where it may be too dark for the naked eye to see well, the EVF does have the ability to amplify the signal enough such that framing can be easier even if the EVF image is quite poor.

In reference to my comments on EVFs, the best I have personally tried is the Leica Q and the best I've owned is the EM1 mk 1.

EVF signals also must be interrupted at time of capture. This may be an issue for fast continuous shooting but since I don't really do any kinds of burst shooting this does not affect me. Steps have been taken by manufacturers to reduce the drawback of this and if you haven't already seen it, have a look at the this dpreview video:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a6300/8
This could be a non-issue or big issue depending on your usage.

We all know EVFs are a large power draw so we usually take steps to minimize usage to conserve battery. This can have an effect on your shooting behaviour, but relatively minor for me.
You either make use of the camera's power saving features such as eye-sensing auto EVF switch on from sleep or rear LCD, time out features etc. but I've personally found them somewhat annoying and one of my unresolved quibbles with mirrorless so far. I think there are better ways to implement these features.

So for the way I shoot, I have my EVF set to always-on and turn the camera on and off as required to save battery. But there is a start-up lag. For me, sometimes enough to be a nuisance waiting momentarily as it turns from black to image vs an OVF where you can already get a sense of the composition as the OVF approaches the eye. If I had to use an analogy, the feeling I get when using EVF from camera start up is like having the lens cap on all the time and the cap comes off shortly after the camera has reached the eye.
Obviously this only has ramifications on certain genres of photography such as street and I will admit it is largely something to get used to and not really a deal breaker of any sorts.


I think mirroless initially started with the marketing message of size reduction. As I've said earlier, the demand has broadened into a few main groups where mirrorless technology has allowed improvements and yes, one large group remains the compacts/size consideration group. The other groups want mirrorless for a host of different reasons and size may no longer be a primary or even an important consideration. They want mirrorless for other reasons.

So I see the rise of larger, more sophisticated lenses such as the new Oly 25/1.2 as a maturation of the ecosystem where they are catering to a wider range of users and not just the ones that want compact, which has already been served well.

As for body size creep, it appears to be happening mostly in the top models of each manufacturer's series.
Again I feel this is a maturation of an ecosystem where camera series become more specialised and cater to more specific roles.
It might be a bit unfair to criticize single models without consideration of the entire lineup.
Many of the mirrorless manufacturers have also downsized some models too eg. Panasonic's GM series but it seems that line is coming to an end, its demise possibly due to the rise of the advanced P&S 1"sensor market.

[arthurking83]

.....

If you insist on comparing horses with apples you get GIGO, Arthur ...

.....

Sorry, but these kinds of ill-informed and inflammatory statements make me think that I am back at DPR.

LOL!
funny thing is, it's those type of replies that remind me of the DPR forums!


I made no mention of horses or apples

Where did I actually compare anything other than the technical similarities of how lens A works on Format A compared to lens B on Format B?

If you read my post properly(as opposed to how you wanted it to read!) .. I said that size creep is happening in the mirrorless camera market.
Never compared any particular model or brand, other than the mark I version of a specific camera compared to the mk II model it!

[Cage]

Ho hum, this thread has gone so far off topic that it's a joke.

[swifty]

Just stirring the proverbial pot
http://nikonrumors.com/2016/10/03/tw...fl-ed-vr.aspx/

Lets say these two lenses were announced for Photokina and Nikon delayed the launch of the 105mm f1.4E two months for a launch + ship at the same time for Photokina.

That would be three pro lenses but no mirrorless for the event.
What would the perception of Nikon's performance be?

[MissionMan]

Perception would have been better I would say. To delay the announcement of the 105 f/1.4 would have at least pushed more publicity their way. I think they probably did it to double the publicity (event and separate announcement) but I think as a result, their Photokina was actually negative.

i still think they needed to get mirrorless moving even if it was an announcement with an empty body and specs.

[swifty]

The 105/1.4 definitely would have been a headliner and would have injected some much needed positivity Nikon's way.
But that lens, along with the rumoured 70-200/2.8 and 19mm PC if they appear, would seem like a pretty strong vote towards DSLRs for FF.

So again, I think a CX relaunch with a larger sensor seems more likely as Nikon's mirrorless strategy.
If they wanna save costs, just stick a APS-C sensor that they share with DX anyways in there and call it a multi-aspect sensor allowing better crop ratio options. I'm sure the extra volume of APS-C sensor orders and without a need to develop a specific 1.7X sensor would offset the extra cost of putting a larger than necessary sensor within that CX mount.

But yea, we probably should give up on Nikon doing road map announcements. Each punter for himself to guess what they're up to from their cryptic clues.

[Hamster]

Hmmmm https://petapixel.com/2017/02/13/nik...restructuring/

[MissionMan]

I'm not surprised. I think they need a restructuring, starting with their top management.

My suggestion to Nikon right now would be:

1. Release a FF mirrorless to stop the bleeding of users to Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, Sony. The DF would be a good candidate. This might even generate new markets for them for people who want a second body.
2. Release a DX mirrorless to stop the bleeding of users to Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, Sony in the lower end of the market and compete with new entrants to the market
3. Release a set of DX pro lenses. The market has moved beyond the idea that APSC/DX=Amateur and FF=Pro. There are plenty of pros using APSC who don't need ultra shallow DOF or sensors that go to ISO100K so at least this will open the door to the markets that Nikon cannot play in currently because when you want a decent lens, you have to buy something in FF which is either overpriced for APSC or oversized for APSC.

This is not about replacing DSLR, but complementing it for those who need it, just like Apple was forced to backtrack and release larger phones. You can try dictate what the market wants and why your product is better, but eventually you have to accept that the market isn't buying what you are trying to sell them. It's really not that hard a problem to solve if the Nikon management pull their heads out their asses long enough to understand.

Nikon's current strategy is:

1. Add more pixels to sensor
2. Create higher ISO and dynamic range
3. Produce wider pro full frame glass

The challenge with this strategy is it assumes that everyone wants a full frame DSLR and has an exorbitant budget to spend on glass. Apparently Nikon management forgot that not everyone drives home in a Ferrari like they do.

[ameerat42]

In other words, the same as always: How to keep afloat by maximising products to suit greatest demand/do whatever
you need to generate demand...

Now they should perhaps change their strategy to "How To Keep A Float".

Here is a wide range of starting ideas.

[MissionMan]

In other words, the same as always: How to keep afloat by maximising products to suit greatest demand/do whatever
you need to generate demand...

Now they should perhaps change their strategy to "How To Keep A Float".

Here is a wide range of starting ideas.

I think you need to adapt to the market.

I think whilst the pro market remains DSLR focus, the entry level to the market has shifted a bit more to mirrorless so if you tie in the entrants to the market, their investment in glass keeps them with the company long term because glass is normally what prevents people switching systems. If someone buys into Fuji to get into the market, they are more likely to stay there or work within the constraints they are confined by.

So if Nikon produce APSC mirrorless to attract new entrants to the market, you keep them on Nikon APSC glass and they have an upgrade path to pro glass because it's the logical progression. It's about investing at grass roots level, in much the same way that Microsoft and Apple market into students, universities, schools.

You could always compare it to where Nokia, Blackberry and some of the other vendors have gone wrong. If you focus on espouting the value of what you sell instead of understand what the market wants, you have a risk of losing the market completely. This is the approach that Apple has taken more recently and I think they are destined for failure as a result. I.e. the market wants hybrids but Apple says that hybrids don't work well, the market doesn't listen to Apple so they will go out and buy hybrids from someone else who is listening to them.