Photokina...What the?

[arthurking83]

....

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. .....

For sure!

Nikon used to make APS-C pro glass back in the day, but have let it slide(basically since about 2008).
Up to '08 they did have the 17-55, 12-24 and 10.5 fish .. all pro level lenses

Note that in Nikon terms; gold rim on lenses = pro level glass. The lenses may or may not be of a pro level, but that's their system. (as Canon use red rim on their pro glass)
Anyhow, Nikon have committed to Fx then as the future for themselves and it makes sense for them to stick with that plan now(having taken that course).

So to begin a new line of lens for the Pro level APS-C shooter kind'a make no sense.
Their expected 'Pro' market is that they push the buyer to the Fx line anyhow.
So to Nikon, they expect the pro to buy Fx, and so use Fx lenses. This Pro can obviously shoot Dx too, and of course they'd expect that if they shoot Dx, then their Fx lenses do the job superbly!
But to create a selection of Dx only pro level lenses with the added burden of cost to the engineering dept and only have the (very) limited sales potential restricted to APS-C only .. what Fx shooter is going to buy a Dx only lens when they can get the Fx version!


Maybe Nikon do(or don't need a 16mm f/2.8 rectilinear lens(for both Fx and Dx) or an 18mm version .. or whatever. Sales of such a lens would be limited taking into account if Dx users really needed it.
In that sense, you'd be much better off going for a D610(or Df) and a 24mm f/1.8 or 28mm f/1.8 lens to achieve the same end goal(plus about 20% more lens heft).

ie. it makes no commercial sense(for them) to do such a lent type because a couple of ex Nikon users went to Fuji for that lens only!



Remember: we already commented on the fact that DSLR sales are dropping, but that drop in sales is coming off a seriously crazy spike in numbers.

Have a look at the recent post on Nikon rumours re DSLR vs mirrorless sales production figures.
in 2012 DLSR sales were in the 16million units range, and mirrorless were in the low 3's(millions).
4 years later, DSLR sales are in the high 8's and mirrorless numbers are still in the low 3's.

To me, that doesn't so much look like DSLR sales are leeching into mirror sales 'en masse' .. Yeah, there's going to be an amount of mirrorless sales that are created by folks updating to a newer camera, but going down the mirrorless route instead.

But there weren't 8 million new mirrorless sales in the previous 4 years over the 2012 low 3m units figure. In fact there was an ever so slight drop in unit numbers in 2016 compared to 2012 .. but by and large steady numbers.
Considering the elevated pace of new mirrorless models in the past 4 years since 2012(which usually leads to sales spikes and then lulls) you'd have expected mirrorless to have grown their sales figures.

Again, it appears that consumers are simply not buying new cameras with the regularity they once used too.
+ the point that average Joe and Jane/Mum and Dad have their barely used DSLR sitting in the cupboard since 2012 and they just don't need another one ever!

The question that manufacturers will be asking is, where is this new normal (ie. sales figures) going to settle at.
I can't imagine those that have switched to mirrorless now continually updating just to keep those sales numbers up.
So in all likelyhood, mirrorless sales will slowly start to dwindle(ie. market saturation point), and what will keep them buoyant will be new models).

So, if you were head honcho at Nikon, and the market was looking the way it currently is, would you commit vital resources to a new product line that is now way too late to the market(ie. a 'la keymission! )
Wise heads will stay settled, plan things out more meticulously and build on what they already have.

Some new lenses are still needed from Nikon(to replace old AF-D models).
a could of Micros, a couple more portrait types(eg. an AFS 135mm .. maybe at f/1.8, but f/2 would be fine). An update to the old 14mm f/2.8 could be something for them to ponder too?
Basically replace or cease production of the old AF-D lenses still on their list.

Any new lens catering to a market that has dwindled, or could still have yet to fully bottom doesn't make commercial sense.

[MissionMan]

For sure!

Nikon used to make APS-C pro glass back in the day, but have let it slide(basically since about 2008).
Up to '08 they did have the 17-55, 12-24 and 10.5 fish .. all pro level lenses

Note that in Nikon terms; gold rim on lenses = pro level glass. The lenses may or may not be of a pro level, but that's their system. (as Canon use red rim on their pro glass)
Anyhow, Nikon have committed to Fx then as the future for themselves and it makes sense for them to stick with that plan now(having taken that course).

So to begin a new line of lens for the Pro level APS-C shooter kind'a make no sense.
Their expected 'Pro' market is that they push the buyer to the Fx line anyhow.
So to Nikon, they expect the pro to buy Fx, and so use Fx lenses. This Pro can obviously shoot Dx too, and of course they'd expect that if they shoot Dx, then their Fx lenses do the job superbly!
But to create a selection of Dx only pro level lenses with the added burden of cost to the engineering dept and only have the (very) limited sales potential restricted to APS-C only .. what Fx shooter is going to buy a Dx only lens when they can get the Fx version!


Maybe Nikon do(or don't need a 16mm f/2.8 rectilinear lens(for both Fx and Dx) or an 18mm version .. or whatever. Sales of such a lens would be limited taking into account if Dx users really needed it.
In that sense, you'd be much better off going for a D610(or Df) and a 24mm f/1.8 or 28mm f/1.8 lens to achieve the same end goal(plus about 20% more lens heft).

ie. it makes no commercial sense(for them) to do such a lent type because a couple of ex Nikon users went to Fuji for that lens only!



Remember: we already commented on the fact that DSLR sales are dropping, but that drop in sales is coming off a seriously crazy spike in numbers.

Have a look at the recent post on Nikon rumours re DSLR vs mirrorless sales production figures.
in 2012 DLSR sales were in the 16million units range, and mirrorless were in the low 3's(millions).
4 years later, DSLR sales are in the high 8's and mirrorless numbers are still in the low 3's.

To me, that doesn't so much look like DSLR sales are leeching into mirror sales 'en masse' .. Yeah, there's going to be an amount of mirrorless sales that are created by folks updating to a newer camera, but going down the mirrorless route instead.

But there weren't 8 million new mirrorless sales in the previous 4 years over the 2012 low 3m units figure. In fact there was an ever so slight drop in unit numbers in 2016 compared to 2012 .. but by and large steady numbers.
Considering the elevated pace of new mirrorless models in the past 4 years since 2012(which usually leads to sales spikes and then lulls) you'd have expected mirrorless to have grown their sales figures.

Again, it appears that consumers are simply not buying new cameras with the regularity they once used too.
+ the point that average Joe and Jane/Mum and Dad have their barely used DSLR sitting in the cupboard since 2012 and they just don't need another one ever!

The question that manufacturers will be asking is, where is this new normal (ie. sales figures) going to settle at.
I can't imagine those that have switched to mirrorless now continually updating just to keep those sales numbers up.
So in all likelyhood, mirrorless sales will slowly start to dwindle(ie. market saturation point), and what will keep them buoyant will be new models).

So, if you were head honcho at Nikon, and the market was looking the way it currently is, would you commit vital resources to a new product line that is now way too late to the market(ie. a 'la keymission! )
Wise heads will stay settled, plan things out more meticulously and build on what they already have.

Some new lenses are still needed from Nikon(to replace old AF-D models).
a could of Micros, a couple more portrait types(eg. an AFS 135mm .. maybe at f/1.8, but f/2 would be fine). An update to the old 14mm f/2.8 could be something for them to ponder too?
Basically replace or cease production of the old AF-D lenses still on their list.

Any new lens catering to a market that has dwindled, or could still have yet to fully bottom doesn't make commercial sense.

True, but that has to be hammering their D500 sales. If you were a D500 buyer, what would you do? You want a conventional 14-24/24-70/70-200 and there is nothing. You can work with the primes but the zooms are a problem. You are okay on the 17-55, but on the 14-24 front there is nothing close to the quality and what are your alternatives on the long end? The 50-100 sigma where you lose 40mm? If you ar going to release a capable camera like the D500, you have to be able to back it up.

[arthurking83]

True, but that has to be hammering their D500 sales ....

I don't think it would be.

A D500 bought just for the purpose of having the 14-24/24-70/70-200 equivalent doesn't make any sense.

I see most D500 buyers as more fast paced action oriented, and I'm guessing many/most would couple that camera to (say) 300/4, or 200-500, and lenses like that.

14-24 lens (generally) implies two average uses for this lens. 1. Landscapes, 2. low light restricted space environments(eg. night club shooting/concerts/other similar events)

For that, higher pixels are usually wanted, and or better dynamic range. For that they have the D810 and or D750/610 .. possibly even the Df as better options.

24-70 lens implies events/portraits/etc.
Again with that type of shooting you're better off(I'm guessing this is Nikon's undocumented stance) again with an Fx camera of decent capability. D750 comes to mind, but not restricted to such.

70-200 lens. A perfect fit for a D500 as a sports lens. Nothing wrong with 70-200 on APS-C for shooting sports. For use as a portrait lens, Fx opens this focal length up to much better possibilities.


Obviously there's nothing wrong with using the D500 as an all round general shooting body, but that's not how Nikon are marketing it.
Have a look at their site and of the 5 or so images in the marketing gobbeldygook, 4 are action or wildlife and the one landscapey image but what looks to appealing to the adventurer type(mountain climber).
mountain bikes in mid air, motorbikes doing mid air cartwheels, more pushbikes speeding along, and an owl at night.

If you look at the sample images library, the ratio of sports/action/nature images to non sports/action/nature images is even more heavily weighed towards sports/action/nature!
Of the portrait images, they're all by the way type portraits of an action scenario(bike riders or mountain climbers/cavers). No beauty queens or drama princesses there!
The vast majority of images in the samples are action or wildlife. The solitary non action, non wildlife non portrait image is of a human eye at close range(most likely Micro lens) .. or a very close focusing zoom lens at the long end.

This marketing push seems to be appealing more to the zoom lens user, less so to the prime lens user(maybe except for the owl image where a long prime is probably used).

Also noteworthy is the way Nikon are marketing (eg) the D750 and Df.
many more portrait-ey imagery on the D750 sample images page. Lots of images with shallow DOF, street type shooting and so on. far fewer action images in terms of ratio to non action images too.
Basically their marketing push for the D750 is general all rounder, does good portraits, does good landscapes, can do action too. What's screamingly obvious in the difference between the D750 and D500 sample images pages(hence the marketing push!) is the total lack of any wildlife images. The nature images all appear to be Micro lens types(flowers close up and suchlike).
Df is the same. 1 opportunistic wildlife image, no action at all! predominantly landscape and portraiture.

I think the key point is not to confuse what the personal wants and desires of an individual with what makes commercial sense from the manufacturer.

Nikon would know better than anyone what lens focal length ranges are selling well for the two different sensor formats. I'd be pretty sure that if the 10-24 and or 12-24 Dx lenses sold in vast numbers, then Nikon would pounce on the opportunity for alternatives for those buyers.

They've had a long list of AF-D lenses that really needed updating to AF-S, which they've almost done. Probably haven't had the resources to spare on new specialised lenses recently.
Stupidly brought out far too many 18-xxx consumer zooms, as many have commented .. but! .. maybe they've had the demand in the form of camera+lens kits to fulfil?

The next two years could be interesting in terms of new lenses for the impending new bodies that are should be expected. D810, Df and D6xx/7xx updates are all overdue, if you consider the Nikon update cycle to be 'a given thing'.


What Nikon should look at doing is to amalgamate the D3xxx and D5xxx lines into a single cheap line with (predominantly)D5xxx features. It's sensor is good enough to use for a couple of generations yet to come.
D7xxx needs to be closer to the D5xxx(ie smaller/slimmer) but as close to the D500 as possible without stepping on it's turf.
D7xxx could be the general all round street shooters camera in APS-C .. but D500 used in that manner only is wasted money on the part of the consumer.
That sort of money spent on such a body is better spent on more appropriate gear!

[MissionMan]

I don't think it would be.

A D500 bought just for the purpose of having the 14-24/24-70/70-200 equivalent doesn't make any sense.

I see most D500 buyers as more fast paced action oriented, and I'm guessing many/most would couple that camera to (say) 300/4, or 200-500, and lenses like that.

The only reason it makes no sense is because Nikon haven't given you the lens selection to make it anything more than a highly niche camera. The D500 could be so much more with nothing more than lens selection.

14-24 lens (generally) implies two average uses for this lens. 1. Landscapes, 2. low light restricted space environments(eg. night club shooting/concerts/other similar events)

For that, higher pixels are usually wanted, and or better dynamic range. For that they have the D810 and or D750/610 .. possibly even the Df as better options.

Interesting perspective. The D500 is less than a stop of noise from the D750 and offers only 1EV difference in dynamic range, both outgun most of the competitors in this space so the D500 is actually better than a lot of the full frame alternatives. It beats the 5d mk4 in dynamic range and low light. Look at the dpreview comparisons, there is virtually nothing in it. In short, with the right lens, the D500 would be so close to a D750 that it would be hard to distinguish in anything less than extreme conditions and DOF.

24-70 lens implies events/portraits/etc.
Again with that type of shooting you're better off(I'm guessing this is Nikon's undocumented stance) again with an Fx camera of decent capability. D750 comes to mind, but not restricted to such.

Do you mean better for us or better for Nikon because I have to spend $2800 on a lens that could cost $1200 on APSC?

70-200 lens. A perfect fit for a D500 as a sports lens. Nothing wrong with 70-200 on APS-C for shooting sports. For use as a portrait lens, Fx opens this focal length up to much better possibilities.

Assuming you are only shooting sports and except when you are shooting indoors and 105-300 is too long a focal length.

The D500 is probably the best APSC body on the market and it beats the vast majority of full frame bodies that are 2 years or older, along with some of the new ones as well.

The only issue is Nikon's marketing and the fact that their market results in people having to spend $10000 to achieve the same thing that could have been achieved for less than half of that. Now you could argue that's smart marketing but when the competition is offering exactly that, and you have nothing to offer in return, you have a problem.

[richardb]

Woow, from Melbourne to Cologne ?
My home is 90km from Köln, even I didn't visit the exhibition : A waste of time , coze Nikon has no real news in 2017.
Let's wait another 2yrs

[Lance B]

Err, 2107 is only 2 months old and Nikon's 100th birthday is actually in July, 5 months away.

[ricktas]

Maybe the manufacturers need to go back to Canon's old nomenclature and add things to the camera models. Remember when Canon brought out two models of the same camera, one had an S on the end of its model number.. meaning Studio?

Maybe Nikon need to make their model numbers like D500S (sports) D750L (Landscapers) D5xxxG (General)..would mean people would stop arguing the merits or downfalls of each model when used for the 'wrong' genre and accept that different brands and models target different buyers and users and that one brand or model cannot be everything to everyone