Photokina...What the?

[arthurking83]

One thing I can never make sense of is this alarmist attitude to the SLR camera market sales figures.
One thing that is very rarely pointed out and noted is that the past 10 years for SLR was in effect a massive boom market place.
The manufacturers existed for 50 + years prior to this boom with sales figures barely 1/100th of what they were/are now!
People read some idiotic, click bait seeking headline and it's like the end of the world as we know it.

mirrorless camera aren't(won't be) immune to the boom bust cycle either.
They're not booming quite as fast as folks make them out to be.
Yeah, their market share is growing, but not becasue they're booming in sales, but because the SLR market has matured, the masses have now altered their preference and moved on.
Mirrorless sales have increased slightly only because there's a new model coming out every other month.
And a new model is is apparently something to have.

it's a ridiculous notion to expect a manufacturer to produce a camera model/type based on your personal preference.

Cost is the biggest underlying point for the mass market, and Nikon and Canon currently dominate this market.
It still appears that mirrorless designs, which appear to be cheaper to manufacture due to some theoretical engineering forces still cost more to manufacture for a similarly specced camera!

if this were not the case, then Canon being in the situation they currently are should be able to offer the mirrorless M5 cheaper than the new model 77D, which appears to have very similar specs all round.
It's only when they remove the EVF(and make it optional) does that camera price come in under the more complex(yet still cheaper to make!) 77D.

So for Nikon (or Canon) to move into a mirrorless system makes no sense .. and Canon seem to be showing this with the EOS M lineup.


All the talk is of smart phone photography, which is great for the selfie craze, but does nothing for any real quality imagery.
I'm still yet to see any camera from any smart phone come close to what an old DSLR can produce!
if you have no issue with ugly over sharpened hyper processes images lacking in detail .. good luck to 'ya.

I'm not expecting to see any smart phone images of fungi from Steve being used in Planet Earth tho!

And on the topic of market boom cycles .. the smart phone market is approaching it's peak too now. it's tapered off massively recently and only the push into yet to fully mature markets is keeping it growing.
Most sensible folks have a decent phone with a usable camera, and don't really need more now.
Those folks had one years ago, as well as a good P&S but wanted something better than that.
So they started the boom in DSLR sales(say 10 years ago).
They got their good camera(usually a low end D3xxx type + twin kit lens setup) used it for a short while on a trip of some type, and then all but forgot about all the gear.
They got a free phone from their carrier and it made better photos than their early smartphone could.
They got more interested in what the latest gen smartphone cam could do, so they upgraded that .. and upgraded gain .. but now they have an acceptable quality level and have no need to spend close to $1K on something they already have.

In a few years time we'll be reading of all the doom and gloom in the smartphone market as it's boom period comes to a close too.

Is no one expecting the mirrorless camera market to begin to contract at some point in the near future too? if you answered in then negative then you haven't been around long enough to know that tech is as fickle as it is.

When this market type begins to contract is when I'd start worrying about the system having entered into.
if it contracts as quickly and deeply as the SLR market has, how long would the parent companies continue to support them if they start making losses consistently!

IORC Sony, the behemoth that they are got out of making computers and TV screens simply because of the losses they incurred for such a long time in those markets.

Sony would survive it all, doing what they do elsewhere in the corporation but I wouldn't expect that to extend to the camera business.
I reckon if the market was to turn in that way, Sony would have two choices to continue. Either sell it up, or acquire another manufacturer to maintain economies of scale.
There is no guarantee that they will maintain their market share in the sensor business either, as some bright upstart could easily come in and undermine them.

But it has to be re-iterated again .. just because you have a particular and specific want/need, doesn't mean that the manufacturer needs to meet that requirement to survive.
They did so long before many of us were even born.

In the next 10 years, my worry would be the continued existence of non Canon/Nikon manufacturers on a large scale.

..... If I started out now, let's say for argument sake I buy a Fuji XT-20 with a kit lens and I'm happy but I want to upgrade, I want a pro 70-200. So I look around the market and let say for argument sake I look at replacing my platform as part of it. I look at Nikon, and I have to buy a full frame ($2000) and spend $3000 on a 70-200 vs buying a 50-140 ($1500) in my existing system. Hmmmm. No thanks. It's going to more than 3 times the amount to do it. What incentive do I have to do it. If I am on a Nikon mirrorless and I do the same, well, at least I have the option of a DX 50-140 (if they create it) and or I can buy a 70-200 and keep my current body which is still substantially cheaper, but the options are there. In the above scenario, I would have to be a very unhappy user to switch, or I would need glass that mirrorless couldn't offer like a 400 f/2.8.

.....

It's usually best to compare apples with apples, and an APS-C 50-140/2.8 is no full frame 70-200/2.8 on their respective sensor formats!
The much more shallow DOF possibilities of the 70-200/2.8 on full frame compared to 50-140/2.8 on APS-C is massive.
Yeah you don't get the option to produce a deeper DOF with the full frame kit for the same FOV, but this usually isn't what those bits of gear are used for!

The more equalised comparion of lens would be a 70-200/4 on full frame .. and when this is done, the price difference equation works out much more different.

But! .... and more importantly for many folks is the configurability of the full frame gear.

Once you have APS-C only gear(eg. lenses) you can't magically make them full frame capable. Been there done that probably never go there again.
So what the larger format allows one to achieve is both format in an 'on demand' manner.

Years ago, Nikon achieved that with the D800. Today Canon show this off(more so) with the 5Dsr.
With 50Mp you can shoot full framed 70-200/2.8 mounted and do supremely shallow DOF images for whatever reason you choose.
Because you have a great lens and Mp to burn, you crop to your hearts content, and now you have a 70-200/2.8 on APS-C(or 4/3rds if you must).

You just can't achieve the same shallowness of DOF with the described setup on APS-C. You need at least an f/2 capable 50-140mm lens ... and imagine the price of that of their smaller f/2.8 is currently at $1500.

There are horses and there are courses as the saying is explained.
But again, the requirement of a single person shouldn't be used to determine the products produced for the wider market.
Both Canon and Nikon and Tamron and Sigma have had much success in the 70-200/2.8 market for us to know that this is a market that is durable for all those players.

BUT!... what we also know is that the 50-150/2.8 market is not as well supported by the consumer, as Sigma's previous effort had to be abandoned.
By all accounts it was a very capable lens, so it's ability wasn't the question. it was simply that the market didn't think that an APS-C only capable lens in this segment wasn't required or wanted.

it seems that many folks post their thoughts and without really realising it, the underlying cause for making critical comments about products and manufacturers is their justification for their current choices, rather than a well rounded reasoning.

Yeah, Nikon aren't making the product for you right now, and we're sorry to hear that, and the fact that another company is/does/will.
But there is one other point that is even more sure, and that is that there are many more consumers that believe that Fuji aren't making the right product mix for them either, and Nikon is!
Sales figures show us this fact. Canon appear to be producing an even better range of products again, if sales figures are what we use as the baseline explanation for what the market wants in general.

I had plans to get myself a mirrorless camera recently too.
Havent' had much time to get out and use a camera recently due to work, but this doesn't usually deter me from getting things I want to play around with.
Went and had a play with the Sony A7 again in the city, and just couldn't get past the god awful video display(ie. vf).
It basically made me sick(seasick/motion sickness) when panning.
Put it down, didn't even bother to ask to try a nicer lens. It had some cheapie kit type zoom lens(a 24-70 like, variable aperture, whatever it was).
I didn't even ask what lens it was, it was already mounted .. all I wanted was to confirm comfort level of the grip/body.
Another fail for my taste.

So I walked into the shop next door and got the Sigma 150-600 lens instead!

My point is that on one side we read that consumer A(MM here) wants or needs a Nikon full frame mirrorless. And with that I'm assuming that this would also entail a new series of lenses to match, rather than maintain the F mount lens system.
Then on the other side of the market demand we have conumer B(myself), with zero interest in such a system, model or expense!
I'm plenty happy with their DSLRs.

I also have to categorically state that I hate Nikon, and I hate their pathetic quality control and customer service .. but their current cameras work fine for me.(due to my recent D800E experience)

many commentators are expressing the opinion that Nikon need to delete some of the variation in their model lineups(eg. get rid of the largest selling models like the D3xxx lines), yet just the two consumers here(myself and MM) seem at odds with what should happen.

[Lance B]

Arthur, I think you have made a very good argument and I agree with pretty much all of what you have said to a "T". It's almost as if we are both singing from the same song sheet. I think you're spot on with your belief there was a boom and we'll probably not see it again. I also agree that these new markets, like camera phones and mirrorless will also have their booms and plateaus etc. I agree with you that there will also still be a need for top end cameras as they can't be taken with camera phones and P&S style cameras. I also agree that Nikon will survive just fine by retracting to their core business and what they know best once they offload some money losing areas.

However, I do not think Nikon is alone in that there is QC issues with some of their product - not that this is an excuse for shoddy QC. This seems to affect many manufacturers of high precision equipment like DSLR's and the associated high end lenses, I think it's just the nature of the beast so to speak. I have not had any serious issues with Nikon QC, a few minor quibbles, but they were quickly and easily taken care of. Basically, every Nikon camera and lens I own has been spot on. I could not say that for my Pentax gear that I owned years ago and one of the reasons I got out of Pentax gear.

[arthurking83]

....

However, I do not think Nikon is alone in that there is QC issues with some of their product - not that this is an excuse for shoddy QC. This seems to affect many manufacturers of high precision equipment like DSLR's and the associated high end lenses, I think it's just the nature of the beast so to speak. I have not had any serious issues with Nikon QC, a few minor quibbles, but they were quickly and easily taken care of. Basically, every Nikon camera and lens I own has been spot on. I could not say that for my Pentax gear that I owned years ago and one of the reasons I got out of Pentax gear.

Personally I have no issue with QC problems that sometimes affect manufacturers.
What I object too is when their insistence that nothing is wrong and that the user is to blame!

Sound familiar? remember D800 focus issue, Initially they blamed the user(s).
The the ripple turned into a tidal wave of user reports .. obviously Nikon couldn't maintain their BS line that the user was to blame any longer and they were basically forced to admit it was their fault.
The problem wasn't that they had to admit fault(due to QC) .. it was how long they took to rectify the situation(not so much the issue itself).

Imagine had they been a brave and done the right thing, with the view to look into the situation properly and analyse it correctly.
Then come back much sooner (than they eventually did) and explain that there must be an issue with QC at the manufacturing stage.

Had they had this pliant attitude, rather than their usual high and mighty do no wrong attitude, they'd have caught the problem earlier, affecting fewer people, with the result that the issue was smaller than a storm in a teacup!

History shows us that once this came to light, 'everyone' looked for faults in their other products .. and I think that happened due to Nikon's arrogant attitude too, more than the need to discover more faults.
.. and they found them!


A great company wouldn't be afraid to admit an issue if it was determined to be a manufacturing fault.
Fix it quick .. people love that kind of will do attitude.

I think, that more than anything else in this Nikon saga .. is that if there has been a mass migration to mirrorless and away from Nikon .. it has less to do with Nikon's offerings, and more to do with their recent QC/lack of customer care fiascos.

I'm thinking that maybe 10 years ago, prior to the age of the current instant media circus thsi may not have been as bog a problem for them as it turned out to be.
In days gone by, us 'geek types'(and I mean that in a sincere manner) who frequent interest groups such as AP and others would have read about it, or experienced it firsthand .. but joe/jane public wouldn't have.

But with the media circus as it now is, those (previously not exposed to camera manufacturer news due to an indifference to the topic) were alerted in some way.. maybe via FB, or twitter or whereever.

They may even have had a D600 with spots on it's sensor and went and checked.
Prior to the instant mass media, they'd have just accepted those spots never knowing what they were .. they're not the types to spend time in fora reading the topic!

So the snowflake issue of 'dust on a sensor' .. I mean seriously who has never had dust on their ILC's sensor??? ... it then became a class action in the US .. Nikon's single biggest market.

Strangely, Nikon's fortunes seem to have taken a turn for the worse since then.
Could be a simple coincidence tho .. but my experience has been that coincidences like these(failing QC followed by arrogant attitude from manufacturer leading to sales decline) aren't so common .. and are usually the norm.

No amount of 'I am' bs is going to make up for a few short years of misplaced arrogant attitude.

[MissionMan]

One thing I can never make sense of is this alarmist attitude to the SLR camera market sales figures.
One thing that is very rarely pointed out and noted is that the past 10 years for SLR was in effect a massive boom market place.
The manufacturers existed for 50 + years prior to this boom with sales figures barely 1/100th of what they were/are now!
People read some idiotic, click bait seeking headline and it's like the end of the world as we know it.

mirrorless camera aren't(won't be) immune to the boom bust cycle either.
They're not booming quite as fast as folks make them out to be.
Yeah, their market share is growing, but not becasue they're booming in sales, but because the SLR market has matured, the masses have now altered their preference and moved on.
Mirrorless sales have increased slightly only because there's a new model coming out every other month.
And a new model is is apparently something to have.

it's a ridiculous notion to expect a manufacturer to produce a camera model/type based on your personal preference.

Cost is the biggest underlying point for the mass market, and Nikon and Canon currently dominate this market.
It still appears that mirrorless designs, which appear to be cheaper to manufacture due to some theoretical engineering forces still cost more to manufacture for a similarly specced camera!

if this were not the case, then Canon being in the situation they currently are should be able to offer the mirrorless M5 cheaper than the new model 77D, which appears to have very similar specs all round.
It's only when they remove the EVF(and make it optional) does that camera price come in under the more complex(yet still cheaper to make!) 77D.

So for Nikon (or Canon) to move into a mirrorless system makes no sense .. and Canon seem to be showing this with the EOS M lineup.


All the talk is of smart phone photography, which is great for the selfie craze, but does nothing for any real quality imagery.
I'm still yet to see any camera from any smart phone come close to what an old DSLR can produce!
if you have no issue with ugly over sharpened hyper processes images lacking in detail .. good luck to 'ya.

I'm not expecting to see any smart phone images of fungi from Steve being used in Planet Earth tho!

And on the topic of market boom cycles .. the smart phone market is approaching it's peak too now. it's tapered off massively recently and only the push into yet to fully mature markets is keeping it growing.
Most sensible folks have a decent phone with a usable camera, and don't really need more now.
Those folks had one years ago, as well as a good P&S but wanted something better than that.
So they started the boom in DSLR sales(say 10 years ago).
They got their good camera(usually a low end D3xxx type + twin kit lens setup) used it for a short while on a trip of some type, and then all but forgot about all the gear.
They got a free phone from their carrier and it made better photos than their early smartphone could.
They got more interested in what the latest gen smartphone cam could do, so they upgraded that .. and upgraded gain .. but now they have an acceptable quality level and have no need to spend close to $1K on something they already have.

In a few years time we'll be reading of all the doom and gloom in the smartphone market as it's boom period comes to a close too.

Is no one expecting the mirrorless camera market to begin to contract at some point in the near future too? if you answered in then negative then you haven't been around long enough to know that tech is as fickle as it is.

When this market type begins to contract is when I'd start worrying about the system having entered into.
if it contracts as quickly and deeply as the SLR market has, how long would the parent companies continue to support them if they start making losses consistently!

IORC Sony, the behemoth that they are got out of making computers and TV screens simply because of the losses they incurred for such a long time in those markets.

Sony would survive it all, doing what they do elsewhere in the corporation but I wouldn't expect that to extend to the camera business.
I reckon if the market was to turn in that way, Sony would have two choices to continue. Either sell it up, or acquire another manufacturer to maintain economies of scale.
There is no guarantee that they will maintain their market share in the sensor business either, as some bright upstart could easily come in and undermine them.

But it has to be re-iterated again .. just because you have a particular and specific want/need, doesn't mean that the manufacturer needs to meet that requirement to survive.
They did so long before many of us were even born.

In the next 10 years, my worry would be the continued existence of non Canon/Nikon manufacturers on a large scale.




It's usually best to compare apples with apples, and an APS-C 50-140/2.8 is no full frame 70-200/2.8 on their respective sensor formats!
The much more shallow DOF possibilities of the 70-200/2.8 on full frame compared to 50-140/2.8 on APS-C is massive.
Yeah you don't get the option to produce a deeper DOF with the full frame kit for the same FOV, but this usually isn't what those bits of gear are used for!

The more equalised comparion of lens would be a 70-200/4 on full frame .. and when this is done, the price difference equation works out much more different.

But! .... and more importantly for many folks is the configurability of the full frame gear.

Once you have APS-C only gear(eg. lenses) you can't magically make them full frame capable. Been there done that probably never go there again.
So what the larger format allows one to achieve is both format in an 'on demand' manner.

Years ago, Nikon achieved that with the D800. Today Canon show this off(more so) with the 5Dsr.
With 50Mp you can shoot full framed 70-200/2.8 mounted and do supremely shallow DOF images for whatever reason you choose.
Because you have a great lens and Mp to burn, you crop to your hearts content, and now you have a 70-200/2.8 on APS-C(or 4/3rds if you must).

You just can't achieve the same shallowness of DOF with the described setup on APS-C. You need at least an f/2 capable 50-140mm lens ... and imagine the price of that of their smaller f/2.8 is currently at $1500.

There are horses and there are courses as the saying is explained.
But again, the requirement of a single person shouldn't be used to determine the products produced for the wider market.
Both Canon and Nikon and Tamron and Sigma have had much success in the 70-200/2.8 market for us to know that this is a market that is durable for all those players.

BUT!... what we also know is that the 50-150/2.8 market is not as well supported by the consumer, as Sigma's previous effort had to be abandoned.
By all accounts it was a very capable lens, so it's ability wasn't the question. it was simply that the market didn't think that an APS-C only capable lens in this segment wasn't required or wanted.

it seems that many folks post their thoughts and without really realising it, the underlying cause for making critical comments about products and manufacturers is their justification for their current choices, rather than a well rounded reasoning.

Yeah, Nikon aren't making the product for you right now, and we're sorry to hear that, and the fact that another company is/does/will.
But there is one other point that is even more sure, and that is that there are many more consumers that believe that Fuji aren't making the right product mix for them either, and Nikon is!
Sales figures show us this fact. Canon appear to be producing an even better range of products again, if sales figures are what we use as the baseline explanation for what the market wants in general.

I had plans to get myself a mirrorless camera recently too.
Havent' had much time to get out and use a camera recently due to work, but this doesn't usually deter me from getting things I want to play around with.
Went and had a play with the Sony A7 again in the city, and just couldn't get past the god awful video display(ie. vf).
It basically made me sick(seasick/motion sickness) when panning.
Put it down, didn't even bother to ask to try a nicer lens. It had some cheapie kit type zoom lens(a 24-70 like, variable aperture, whatever it was).
I didn't even ask what lens it was, it was already mounted .. all I wanted was to confirm comfort level of the grip/body.
Another fail for my taste.

So I walked into the shop next door and got the Sigma 150-600 lens instead!

My point is that on one side we read that consumer A(MM here) wants or needs a Nikon full frame mirrorless. And with that I'm assuming that this would also entail a new series of lenses to match, rather than maintain the F mount lens system.
Then on the other side of the market demand we have conumer B(myself), with zero interest in such a system, model or expense!
I'm plenty happy with their DSLRs.

I also have to categorically state that I hate Nikon, and I hate their pathetic quality control and customer service .. but their current cameras work fine for me.(due to my recent D800E experience)

many commentators are expressing the opinion that Nikon need to delete some of the variation in their model lineups(eg. get rid of the largest selling models like the D3xxx lines), yet just the two consumers here(myself and MM) seem at odds with what should happen.

I have happily switched and if Nikon doesn't make the product, they have lost out, not me. But I think it's sad that they will continue to decline because I'm not an unusual consumer. DSLR has lost 10% of the market to mirrorless in the last 5 years, and my guess is that loss will increase at a higher rate as time goes on. Not because mirrorless is better, not because it has to be better, because it is all most people need, much the same as a iPhone camera is more than most people need. More than 5 people I know who are enthusiasts with a fair investment in glass have left Nikon recently. I'm not trying to say Nikon shouldn't continue making full frame glass, as I said before, they are doing a good job of it, so continue what they are doing, but they can't survive on that long term. The market for amateur DSLR is drying up. I honestly doubt much of the market they are losing is in their market of high end full frames and 105 f/1.4's. But there is a substantial market like me, and that market is big and it has disposal income.

Now on to your comments about the camera. No one is arguing that the full frame doesn't have better dof. I have heard people argue this time and time again recently. "I can't leave full frame because the DOF is too shallow and because the ISO isn't as clean, etc etc". But when you ask them to show examples of 10 good photos they took in the last year that couldn't have been achieved with f4 instead of f2.8, you normally hear crickets. It's all fine and well to say that, but what does it mean? Are you really saying is every decent photographer needs paper thin DOF that can only be achieved by a full frame DSLR? I would challenge that by saying:

1. You could comfortably buy a APSC camera with a trifecta of lenses along with a 56 f/1.2 or 90 f/2 for a lot less less than a full frame and 24-70/70-200. I.e. In other words, you could achieve the same DOF and you could do it cheaper and step by step without leaving APSC.

2. I still believe there are very few photographers who know how to use paper thing DOF well anyway. I would say that less than 10% of photographers (if that) on this site actually "need" the DOF offered by the 70-200. I believe that if you had the same functionality in two cameras, and one was APSC (i.e. same controls), the majority of people here could quite easily live with the APSC camera and never need more. What this essentially means is that if you put good APSC glass into the hands of an amateur, they probably won't ever have the requirement to upgrade to full frame.

The reason why this doesn't happen with Nikon is because Nikon has told us that. I.e. Nikon tells you if you want to be a good photographer, you need a full frame camera and you need full frame glass. You need paper thin DOF. You need to upgrade your APSC. Where do we "need" it? Half the time you have to stop it down to f/2.8 just to make it sharp instead of buying a 2.8 that has faster AF and is sharp at f/2.8. So instead of selling up APSC and Full frame as both pro, Nikon and Canon have spent a long time telling the market what they are for without realising that sensors now have essentially reached the point where that logic doesn't make much difference anymore.

In contrast, other manufacturers are selling the idea that their APSC cameras are good enough for pro work and it is. There are plenty of pros shooting with APSC, plenty of wedding photographers on APSC.

[ricktas]

This thread has become a bit of 'kick me while I am down'

[MissionMan]

Well their management need a kick in the pants, not the 1000 staff members forced into early retirement

[arthurking83]

..... DSLR has lost 10% of the market to mirrorless in the last 5 years, and my guess is that loss will increase at a higher rate as time goes on. Not because mirrorless is better, not because it has to be better, because it is all most people need .....

I still don't think it's that simple.
Nothing I've seen directly relates those 'lost DSLR' sales to the same increase in mirrorless sales.

Yeah, some folks have sold up their Nikon gear and moved over to Olympus .. or Sony .. or Panasonic or whatever .. but the loss in DSLR sales hasn't directly transferred into mirrorless sales.

The loss in DSLR sales is predominantly at the bottom end, D3xxx/5xxx models. Nikon are still selling the D5300 as a current model(first introduced in 2013/14!!) alongside the D5500 and new D5600!
That's three generations of updates of the same model line all competing against each other.

Average consumer stopped buying these camera about 5 years ago now, as they already got one.
Those average consumers aren't like us .. they don't need to update every model cycle, or second cycle .. or with every new release of format or tech feature.

They just wanted a good camera to take photos of their kids growing up and of their holidays, and that's it. Camera is in the cupboard 99.99% of the year, and comes out for an hour or so at the kids birthday parties.
It's most likely forgotten about now as their happy with the low res artificial looking images that their smartphone can create!
D5300 still sits in the cupboard!

It's this market that has collapsed that is giving us those 20% drops in sales figures .. not the $2K plus segment.

If you read the articles re the lack of supply of the D500 a few months back due in part to the lack of preparation in demand by Nikon .. not making enough of them in the initial batch lot, and higher than expected demand.
Demand has now tapered off as everyone that HAD to have one, now has .. now it's the trickle of sales to those that waited to see how their QC issues panned out.

I'm sure I read an article that they've already sold upwards of 100K D500's in the short period it's been available .. and that article was a while back too.

I remember an article(maybe from Thom) where he estimated that Fuji sold(or made) a total of about 800K ILC camera for a particular year! That's 800K cameras spread across about 5 or 6 different(and mainly similar) models.

I'm not seeing numbers like that as 'bleeding'.
Yeah, there's always going to be bleeding between manufacturers. Always has, always will be! Those numbers will be small.

For every consumer like MM(who is likely to switch), there's also an AK83 type consumer(who can't decide what they want! ) .. and also a nutcase Nikon fanboi type too.


And I think you misunderstood my comments re thin DOF (and if I made any re high iso .. etc).

It's not that anyone really needs this ability. There are many ways to get that kind of look if you really try.
My point re the thin DOF comment was the easy nature to have that option if needed, AND the ability to have the APS-C option for the next shot if needed.

You can easily crop a large format image to mimic the smaller format(which in effect is all the small format is anyhow)
But you can't uncrop a smaller format to create a larger one on a shot by shot basis.

And I'm not specifically targeting the size of the sense with those comments. I'm referring back to your comments that Nikon need to make solid pro level APS-C lenses!
If you limit the lens to APS-C then it's worse than sticking with an APS-C sized camera only. With the camera you can and do have a few options for a cheap full frame way out.

But with the lens, it's much harder to option your way out!
You really have to rebuy a full frame capable lens again of the same specs, and that's more likely to be a more expensive option.

Cameras are cheap. They don't hold their value like lenses do, so to buy a S/H whatever fullframe D800/D750/etc maybe just under $1K(for arguments sake, not real figures!!)
Whereas you've just spent $1.5K on the APS-C lens, which really can't be used effectively on the full frame camera .. and now your options to get a full frame capable 70-200 lens are to seek a probable dodgy S/H lens at still elevated prices or go back to the new $3K price!

And you need to remember that DOF is a subjective thing. Some want thin, other's usually want deeper. Many are happy to be oblivious to it all and just shoot without any concern other than what they just shot, and can they share it 'yesterday'

If there was no need or demand for the thin DOF that full frame can provide, do you think Nikon would have wasted their time and effort on the 105/1.4? Or in earlier days, the 105/1.8 or 300/2 lenses?

The demand is there, and it has to be met. Fuji aren't doing so, and in effect only Canon are. And Nikon doesn't want Canon to rule that world.
Do you reckon they should give up on that market too?

[Steve Axford]

I, for one love really good fast lenses. It is not just the depth of field, but also the quality of the oof areas, lack of chromatic aberration, quality of blur, etc. To tell a manufacturer, like Nikon, that they should dump their best lenses in favour of some did-range stuff is lunacy. As far as I can tell, the top end of the market has no slump at all. There are plenty of good lenses coming out and most makers seem to be ramping up, not getting out. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Zeiss, Sigma (I've probably forgotten a few) are all making top quality lenses. Look at the Sigma Art series as an example, or the Zeiss lenses.

[MissionMan]

Where did I say dump the best lenses??????? No one is suggesting they get rid of full frames or full frame glass. That is one of the things they are doing well. Why do people keep assuming that it's one or the other?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Steve Axford]

You may not think it's one or the other, but I bet Nikon do. Falling sales/profit have to be addressed or you go broke. Top end stuff continues to thrive. Bottom end stuff is gone and mid range stuff has some serious challenges, at least for Nikon it has.

[Hamster]

According to the latest Petapixel article Nikon have said:
"the company is taking an “aggressive approach” to their camera business that will focus their resources on medium and high-end DSLRs, mirrorless cameras, and lenses. There are no plans to close any manufacturing plants, and they still want to release a high-end compact ala the Nikon DL line at some point, but the company says they will pare down the number of models they release."




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Lance B]

From Yahoo Japan:
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20...-newswitch-ind

Translated:
Miller-free expansion and reconsideration at an early stage
　For the camera business undergoing structural reforms, Nikon showed a policy of "bringing in multiple mirrorless cameras at an early stage". Senior Managing Executive Officer, Chairman and CEO of Camera Business, responded to the interview. We respond to the needs of shooting scenes and functions, and devise measures to take an aggressive approach to rebuild the camera. Meanwhile, the production system said "There is no idea of ​​closing domestic and overseas major plants at the present time" (Managing Executive Officer).

　The company decided to discontinue release of the high-end compact camera "DL series", and product development was drawing attention. Although we have not disclosed the completion time of the mirrorless lineup, it seems that a couple of years after the mirrorless market exceeds the SLR market will be a guide.

　In the future, we plan to concentrate management resources on medium- and high-end SLR cameras and lenses and mirrorless cameras that can make the most of their strengths. However, Miller less struggled with fewer models and said, "We will set aside for other companies, we will get Nikonelike things" (same). Also review the commercialization process such as condition setting from the user's point of view, eliminating the deviation from user needs. Meanwhile, "I want to do the royal road of the high-class compact in the future, but because I just decided to cancel the DL series, I will judge the next development carefully" (same).

　The production system enhances cost competitiveness through in-house production of outsourcing processes and efficiency of production.

[Cage]

Well I've had a bit of a wander down the Nikon road.

Started with a D600, rather liked it, and only had one oil spot which I cleaned myself.

My main interest was birding and in the quest for more fine detail I was wooed by the D800. Great camera in good light but produced noisy results at ISO800 and higher. It disappointed me so much that I went back to APS-C with a Nikon D7200, no OLPF and much cleaner images. I would have liked to have replaced the D800 with a D810 but finances didn't allow it

What do I miss most with the APS-C format? Well it's not the DOF, it's the FOV. With my current passion for nightscapes the 1.5 crop factor just doesn't work for me. I'm currently saving for a used D600/D610 which I'll have modified for astro photography by removing the OLPF and having it replaced with a H-Alpha filter to enhance the reds.

And a new D810 is on top of my wish list, will probably happen when the new D810S/D820/D850/D900 (?) with 46/54MP sensor (I don't need that) is released and the D810 is being heavily discounted.

Nikon do need to rationalise their model line up with the D5xxx series being a classic example, with each new iteration basically offering the same camera with an added tweak that they should have included in the first place.

Oh and I shoot stills exclusively. I'm on my fifth DSLR and have never shot video once. I wonder how many semi-pro/pro shooters would be the same?

[MissionMan]

That's one of the limitations I mentioned with Nikon's current lineup. The APSC bodies are good enough, there just isn't the APSC bodies with the right FOV to go with them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[arthurking83]

That's one of the limitations I mentioned with Nikon's current lineup. The APSC bodies are good enough, there just isn't the APSC bodies with the right FOV to go with them.

....

right FOV?

In Canon and Nikon - land, you have far more possibilities for breadth of FOV than with any other system at present.
And that even includes full frame cameras(of any brand).

If it's the widest possible FOV you want .. or more accurately focal length, then (AFAIK) Nikon beats Canon by the slimmest or margins, and the other manufacturers could loosely be described as following along(but by a long way back).

Of course we are referring to native mounts here, not using adapters and suchlike, which can(and do) create issues of their own.

Considering that almost all mirrorless systems can take advantage of using adapters to match to Canon/Nikon lens mount systems, the range of focal lengths available to the APS-C Canon and Nikon cameras are therefore also available to the mirrorless formats as well.

[MissionMan]

right FOV?

In Canon and Nikon - land, you have far more possibilities for breadth of FOV than with any other system at present.
And that even includes full frame cameras(of any brand).

If it's the widest possible FOV you want .. or more accurately focal length, then (AFAIK) Nikon beats Canon by the slimmest or margins, and the other manufacturers could loosely be described as following along(but by a long way back).

Of course we are referring to native mounts here, not using adapters and suchlike, which can(and do) create issues of their own.

Considering that almost all mirrorless systems can take advantage of using adapters to match to Canon/Nikon lens mount systems, the range of focal lengths available to the APS-C Canon and Nikon cameras are therefore also available to the mirrorless formats as well.

Sorry, typed it oh my phone. I meant APSC with the right lenses. I.e. The FOV limitation is more to do with their lens selection than any issues with APSC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ricktas]

Sorry, typed it oh my phone. I meant APSC with the right lenses. I.e. The FOV limitation is more to do with their lens selection than any issues with APSC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

huh? Each lens we choose to use, no matter if mirrorless, apsc, full frame, or medium format, each has its own field of view, and even that changes with the zoom lenses depending on which focal length you choose to use? How is that an issue specific to 'their lens selection'? - it's an inherent quality of every lens ever made. I don't get your argument here.

[MissionMan]

huh? Each lens we choose to use, no matter if mirrorless, apsc, full frame, or medium format, each has its own field of view, and even that changes with the zoom lenses depending on which focal length you choose to use? How is that an issue specific to 'their lens selection'? - it's an inherent quality of every lens ever made. I don't get your argument here.

Cage mentioned he was happy with his APSC camera but had to go full frame due to the FOV. The FOV issue he had with APSC has more to do with lack of suitable APSC lenses.

[arthurking83]

.... I meant APSC with the right lenses. I.e. The FOV limitation is more to do with their lens selection than any issues with APSC .....

Yep!

same here.

With Nikon and Canon APS-C you can get about as wide a FOV as you're ever going to get(natively).

Canon(themselves) now have their 11-24mm lens which the widest reclinear lens you can get for any camera system.

New lens manufacturer IRIX have a new 11mm f/4 lens for Canon/Nikon/Pentax fitment

Up to that point, Sigma have their 12-24, and for APS-C they have the 8-16mm.


So with a Nikon, Sony(A-mount) or Pentax APS-C camera, you have the widest (reclinear) FOV available.
**Note that Canon's APS-C sensor is a little narrower than the std 1.5x crop factor.

In Fuji land the widest FOV lens you can achieve is the 10mm(15mm equiv.) so you're going backwards in terms of possibilities.

m4/3rds have many options via some exotic and obscure options, due to the old C-mount lenses giving good coverage on the 2x crop format.
limited functionality* with such lenses but not unworkable!


I think what Cage was alluding too with respect to widest FOV and having to get the D800, was the fast aperture 14mm f/2.8 lens he ended up with coupled to a new-ish camera(at the time) high resolution and such like.
Not that there wasn't the depth and breadth of options on Nikon APS-C.
Nikon's (very old now) 10.5mm fish at f/2.8 would have been almost as good on APS-C and using defish software.
Otherwise Tokina's 11-xx mm f/2.8 would give good results.(or as above the 11mm Irix mentioned earlier)


Note that as yet, no lens maker has yet to surpass Nikon (last century) 6mm f/2.8 fisheye, which allows the widest FOV available in a single frame/single exposure capture.

If you want something pretty close(but not as extreme) Sigma also make their old 4.5mm f/2.8 fish too.

So overall, Nikon, Sony(A-mount) and Pentax's APS-C format systems actually allow as good a range selection as you can get for any camera system that remains fully functional and reasonably affordable.
(caveat to that is Canons' 11-24mm on fullframe .. but we're listing APS-C formats here for now).

I'm sure Nikon will have to ante up, against the Canon 11-24mm lens .... one day in the immediate future.
The cat and mouse game between them both has always resulted in one manufacturer trying to outdo the other for the past 70-ish years.
In that sense alone it's wise to maintain either system if you want lens variety.

Considering all(or at least part of) the comments above, re available lenses for Nikon(and Pentax/Sony/Canon) .. I think if it's lens variety you want/need they're as good as you can get.
And for Nikon to create a mirrorless camera now from scratch .. they HAVE to take into account all their legacy lenses from their past.
It's what makes Nikon attractive as a manufacturer(if you're the type that need manufacturer lenses fitted to your camera).

[MissionMan]

Samyang do an 8mm for Fuji mount as well. It's manual focus but with 8mm your DOF is so deep it's not a big problem.

There are also a variety of cheap converters for most brands so ultimately all the brands have a pretty broad selection for APSC.

I think the only complaint to date with Nikon (not sure about Canon) is that APSC isn't subject to the same offerings as full frame from an image quality perspective, so it's almost treated like the second class citizen. I.e. The Nikon APSC wide angle isn't close to the quality of the 14-24 which goes back to my original point. Nikon don't make pro glass for APSC. They expect people to "upgrade" to full frame and are still stuck in the whole APSC = amateur and Full frame = pro mindset when APSC is more than enough for most people. They are competing with brands like Fuji, Olympus etc who are saying that smaller sensors are good enough for pro work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk