Nikon D7500 announced

Of course I'm free to choose Fuji or Sony as an alternative to Nikon. Is that really what Nikon wants? With the consequent loss of future lens sales too?

Why then would they sit on the design of a mirrorless camera?

"Oooh, let's just look at that big tidal wave coming towards us and see what happens, shall we?"

Or is it a case of staring Canon in the eye to see whose cameras don't blink first?

I can see Nikon ending their 100 year reign becoming 3rd party lens suppliers. That's if they stay in the photographic business at all.

I don't think they're 'sitting on' anything. To enter the high end mirrorless market, Nikon would have to show several bodies and at least 10-20 native lenses. If they make a full frame mirrorless with 2-3 lenses, they are not likely to capture much market share and there is a possibility that current Nikon DSLR users stop buying DSLR lenses assuming that mirrorless is "the future" thus Nikon could lose 80% of their existing sales, easily. The DSLR market is split between Canon and Nikon with very small market share by other manufacturers. The mirrorless market has a great many manufacturers and so Nikon isn't likely to capture more than 10% no matter what they do, unless they come out with a huge lineup that is significantly better than anyone else's product line. As long as the DSLR market is larger than the mirrorless market, Nikon would be committing suicide to enter it without a complete product line (since their DSLR lens sales would likely take a hit, as people start waiting for more mirrorless lenses so Nikon customers would simply stop buying and wait for what doesn't yet exist). Nikon could easily have to cut down by 80% of their total sales volume if they did that. What they can do is silently develop a mirrorless system and when the time is right, enter the market with a potentially leading line.

It is much easier for companies that failed in the DSLR market to make mirrorless products since they have nothing to lose in terms of existing product sales. Nikon and Canon have everything to lose and little to gain by entering full frame mirrorless while the total mirrorless market is small and splity by numerous manufacturers, each with a small slice.

My interest in Nikon products is centered around the quality of their optical viewfinders. It is also nice that they have a reasonably complete lens line. I don't think anyone is going to have comparable lens lines in mirrorless in at least 20 years. And I decidedly am not interested nor will buy any EVF camera. So for me Nikon is doing what they should be doing, supporting the product line that I can work with. If Nikon went into serious financial difficulty I would likely move to Canon DSLRs though I don't like them as much.

"so Nikon customers would simply stop buying and wait for what doesn't yet exist..."

Isn't that exactly what this thread is about? Waiting for and speculating over a product that doesn't yet exist.

How many threads/posts on Pnet have already posed the question - "Should I buy X now, or wait for Y or X mkii to come out?"

The rate of technological change has made most consumers wary of committing to purchase anything digital on the grounds that it'll be updated or obsolete in 6 months time. Of course there are those that must have the latest gizmo, no matter how slight or useless to them the "improvement" is.

I see mirrorless cameras as an enticement to budding serious photographers to upgrade from their tablets and phone-cameras to something more sophisticated. But without a drastic change in the interface or viewing system. To them, peering through a porthole at a dim and gritty ground glass is totally alien. As is not seeing the image exactly as it'll appear after pressing the button, pixels and all. You can argue the supposed merits of a reflex system to such newbies all you like. Whether they'll listen or care is another matter entirely.

People holding up massive tablets to take a picture may look ridiculous to you or me. However, I'm sure that drivers of the first automobiles were thought equally ridiculous by those that clung to the horse as their mode of transport.

To enter the high end mirrorless market, Nikon would have to show several bodies and at least 10-20 native lenses.

I don't think anyone is going to have comparable lens lines (to Canon or Nikon) in mirrorless in at least 20 years.

Sony released the A7 in October 2013, so that's 3 1/2 years now. At last count, there are now 28 Sony/Zeiss lenses (which includes some focal length duplicates or even triplicates). Still no native FE-mount lens longer than 240mm though. And only a few third party offers (Voigtlander, Sigma (Canon EF-mount or Sigma SA-mount lenses with an adapter), Tokina (1 lens), Handevision, Mayer-Optik Gorlitz, Mitakon Zhongi, Rokinon, Samyang, Venus Optics). I don't know how well Sigma's MC-11 adapted lenses work on the Sony A7 cameras but to those who already have some of the Art lenses, it sure is a "convenient" way to mount them on a Sony mirrorless (rather heavy and large lenses on a rather small body). Maybe Nikon could provide the same route for at least some of their lenses (most easily done for E lenses but should be possible for G lenses as well).

I don't think the superteles need to be re-designed for mirrorless; just provide adapters to make them work properly. But at the very least there need to be three f/2.8 zooms (wide, standard, tele) as well as three f/4 zooms covering essentially the same range (so either something like 16-35/24-70/70-200 or 12/14-24/24-70/70-200). A macro lens around 90-105mm. A decent set of f/1.8 and f/1.4 primes (14/18/20/24/28/35/50/85/105/135 (probably not all in both f/1.4 and f/1.8)). Some 70-300 and some 80-400. And possibly something 150/200-500/600. And right there, we have hit at least 20!

I believe Ilkka is correct in that Nikon needs to come out with a rather complete set of lenses right from the start, no matter if they choose FX and/or DX to enter the mirrorless market. Sony/Zeiss APS-C lens system is not a whole lot more convincing that Nikon's DX lens system (there's the additional complication that one needs to provide lenses for beginners as well as enthusiasts). I don't think Nikon can enter the mirrorless market by just dipping one toe into the water; I believe they need to jump into the deep end of the pool and then it's going to be "sink or swim".

Back to the D7500: if it works as advertised, I think it's going to be a great camera. Most people won't miss the Ai-follower tab and most won't miss the second card slot either. And I am fairly sure that it won't take long for some third party grip to appear on the scene (I do believe that Nikon chose not to offer one because the D7000/D7100/D7200 grip didn't sell to well because of (a) relatively high price, (b) cheaper third party alternatives and © most of the buyers didn't want a vertical grip to begin with.

I mostly shoot full frame, but when I wish to travel very light and with high quality I take a D7200 and I am very very content with the results this camera offers. I can carry this all day with a 16-85mm lens and not notice it, unlike a full frame body with a 24-70 f2.8.

I truly hope Nikon's fortunes turn round, both they and Canon are needed in their head to head battles to force standards higher. It was a little disappointing (for a Nikon user) to see Sony nip into second place, however briefly, just recently. The least this shows is that Sony are very very close behind - hopefully it is the kick in the pants Nikon require (my opinion).

That aside, I really did look forward to the replacement for the D7200. There are pluses and minuses, as always. I like the tilt screen, I like the slightly deeper grip, I like the increase in fps and many will like the 4K video I imagine. I also like shooting stills to one card slot and video to the other - gone; I do use this camera for wildlife with a 300 2.8 + 1.4 tc, the additional grip is essential here - gone (little interest in bif). This is a big negative. Second card slot I can live without, loss of battery grip....no.

For me, the pluses and minuses balance out in many ways, the introductory price therefore doesn't. I hope I am wrong, but it feels as though D7200 users are being 'moved' into upgrading to the D500 - we were the sport and wildlife people for some years. I can see the business sense in that on the one hand, on the other it leaves me very nervous about their future policy with anything but flagship cameras. ie., what is going to happen to the D750? - another legendary camera.

The D7500 could have really taken off (still may) if a second card slot had been given and contacts for a battery grip included, that's all. With the frame rate and AF performance of a D500 I don't think this would have cost it sales.

I don't think they're 'sitting on' anything. To enter the high end mirrorless market, Nikon would have to show several bodies and at least 10-20 native lenses. If they make a full frame mirrorless with 2-3 lenses, they are not likely to capture much market share and there is a possibility that current Nikon DSLR users stop buying DSLR lenses assuming that mirrorless is "the future" thus Nikon could lose 80% of their existing sales, easily. The DSLR market is split between Canon and Nikon with very small market share by other manufacturers. The mirrorless market has a great many manufacturers and so Nikon isn't likely to capture more than 10% no matter what they do, unless they come out with a huge lineup that is significantly better than anyone else's product line. As long as the DSLR market is larger than the mirrorless market, Nikon would be committing suicide to enter it without a complete product line (since their DSLR lens sales would likely take a hit, as people start waiting for more mirrorless lenses so Nikon customers would simply stop buying and wait for what doesn't yet exist). Nikon could easily have to cut down by 80% of their total sales volume if they did that. What they can do is silently develop a mirrorless system and when the time is right, enter the market with a potentially leading line.

 

It is much easier for companies that failed in the DSLR market to make mirrorless products since they have nothing to lose in terms of existing product sales. Nikon and Canon have everything to lose and little to gain by entering full frame mirrorless while the total mirrorless market is small and splity by numerous manufacturers, each with a small slice.

 

My interest in Nikon products is centered around the quality of their optical viewfinders. It is also nice that they have a reasonably complete lens line. I don't think anyone is going to have comparable lens lines in mirrorless in at least 20 years. And I decidedly am not interested nor will buy any EVF camera. So for me Nikon is doing what they should be doing, supporting the product line that I can work with. If Nikon went into serious financial difficulty I would likely move to Canon DSLRs though I don't like them as much.

Seems you're not a regular reader of CIPA stats or of informed critics like Thom Hogan on the issues of DSLR sales. Cameras like the D7500 likely won't do a thing to significantly improve Nikon's annual reports or staunch the gradual collapse of the DSLR market.

"so Nikon customers would simply stop buying and wait for what doesn't yet exist..."

I do not know what folks will do. I stopped buying Nikon products because they do not sell anything I want. However I am not waiting for them to bring out something that appeals to me as they are not going to. Even if Nikon makes a mirrorless camera who is going to buy it. Ordinary people use a cell phone for photos these days.

I spent the day hiking at Pinnacles National Park as I am a volunteer on the Search and Rescue team. Lot's of people hiking and taking pictures with their cell phones. I did see one girl with a little point and shoot camera however. I did not see a DSLR today but I have seen them out there from time to time. I do not carry a camera when working as my pack is heavy already with the gear I need to carry. I carry binoculars so I can see what people are doing easier.

I hope I am wrong, but it feels as though D7200 users are being 'moved' into upgrading to the D500

I would never have become a D7100/D7200 user if Nikon had done the sensible thing and released a true D300/D300S successor back in 2013 or 2014. Heck, they could have shoved that 16MP sensor (and then that 24MP sensor right into the D300S body for all I care; it would still have been better than coming up with that D7x00 series body). And if Nikon hadn't crippled their D7100 "flagship" with a tiny memory buffer, then the upgrade to the D7200 wouldn''t have been necessary either.

At least I didn't make the same mistake on the FX and stayed away from the consumer-grade D6x0/D750. Almost glad Nikon didn't put that 24MP sensor in a D700/D800-style body; saved me money by going directly to 36MP.

Cameras like the D7500 likely won't do a thing to significantly improve Nikon's annual reports or staunch the gradual collapse of the DSLR market.

And should Nikon produce an FF (or DX) mirrorless flop (like their 1 Series mirrorless), then it's going to be "good night, Nikon". The reason the DSLR market is in decline has little if anything to do with not having competent cameras on offer. Sony certainly moved a lot of mirrorless cameras in the last two months - small wonder given the huge discounts and trade-in bonuses they offered. I took advantage of them and upgraded my A7 to an A7II, trading in two D300 bodies in the process. Got a lot more out of this then either the A7 or the D300 was actually worth.

Last time I checked, mirrorless shipping number seems to be fairly stagnant; not exactly a market one wants to produce into unless one can make certain to secure a significant market share

"Cell phone people are not going to buy those camera's." - Then who is?

"Cell phone people" likely describes 99.9% of people with sufficient disposable income to buy a decent camera. Where are future serious or enthusiast photographers going to come from if not from "cell phone people"? Or are we to assume that the desire to capture images beyond the limitations of a distorting wideangle lens will cease to exist in the human psyche?

My first camera was a plastic Ferrania 120 snapshot camera with a meniscus lens and fixed shutter speed. No better, in fact far worse than a phone camera. But it got me hooked on photography and I quickly wanted to get beyond its shortcomings. Everyone has to start somewhere.

Cell phone people" likely describes 99.9% of people with sufficient disposable income to buy a decent camera. Where are future serious or enthusiast photographers going to come from if not from "cell phone people

There will always be a group of people who are interested in photography to the point where they will purchase a camera with features that are not within the scope of a cell phone. However people that own cell phones are photo enthusiasts. I use my cell phone for pictures all the time and I do my best to snag the best snap I can with it. . Most of the time it's the only camera I have with me and I use it. Just yesterday I was showing visitors to Pinnacles National Park a video of a water fall that I have on my phone. . During the storm the water fall was huge and yesterday it was just a trickle. They enjoyed seeing it very much. I am a Pinnacles National Park volunteer and I am out on the trails quite often. My job is Preventative Search and Rescue.. Anyway that's another story but the bottom line is I am out there and I do notice the camera types that people carry. Everyone has a cell phone, a few DSLR camera's of mid level from time to time. And the Pro Line camera folks are around from time to time also but usually stay near their cars where all their stuff is. The good news is a Nikon 7500 with a kit zoom would be awesome for great photos of the Condors if you are willing to hike up to the High Peaks. My volunteer pack is so heavy I just cannot manage a camera also so I just watch the awesome show with my little binoculars (8x32).

Sometimes I hike up for photography when I am not a volunteer but I shoot film and my longest lens is a 50mm. I have taken a few Condor pictures with it but a tele is really the deal for that.

Anyway digital photography is not going away but it is shrinking. Some people using a cell phone would might buy a camera with other features or capabilities. I would not know really what people would want to buy.

Here is a Condor shot with a 50mm lens on film. Just imagine how exciting it would be with a nice Nikon D7500 and a kit zoom.

When I want to boost sales I increase/introduce more advertising. Outside of camera magazines, not a new market, I rarely ever see any advertising. What can a dslr do that a camera phone can't, or can't do very well? If there isn't an answer to this question that can't be pushed hard then I'll be upgrading my dslr to a camera phone.

I would worry that too much reliance (not complete) has been placed on the existing user continually upgrading as opposed to aggressively chasing down new customers. The big problem now is that dslr's are so good (from any company) that there is really no need to upgrade - image quality is now improving little if at all, the reliance is on touchscreen/flipscreen etc that we could all live without. The introduction of wifi was a clever step in the right direction that neutralised a camera phone plus.

Additionally, if I introduce a new product I want people to say 'wow' I like that. The D7500 is getting a lot of criticism (rightly or wrongly) on this and other forums and that is before it's release!

In my opinion, including 'dual card slots' and a 'battery pack' would have made this a 'wow' camera - summarising criticisms from elsewhere. Would this have detracted from D500 sales with a stellar AF system and 10 fps, very well designed, weather sealed and structurally solid body? So why hamstring the D7500? (In my opinion again, as always).

Nikon have designed some legendary camera bodies, I merely want a few more. Can you not have a legendary camera that is not a flagship?

I agree that the camera industry's advertising is poor to non-existent outside of the trade. Very much like preaching to the choir.

Nikon can have the most innovative and superb camera ever made on offer (or just the humdrum D7500), but if nobody knows about it, it's nothing.

Apple's campaign for the iphone 5 & 6, using wonderful eye-catching 6ft B&W pictures - small print: additional software and manipulation applied - did more to promote photography than anything I've seen from Fuji, Sony, Nikon and Canon combined in the last few years.

All those companies seem to have lost sight of the fact that photography should be about the images and not the gear. Except you won't sell the gear without promoting good images in the first place.

Show people how they can take their photography to the next level and camera sales will fall into place.

Show people how they can take their photography to the next level and camera sales will fall into place

It's a matter of priorities and people have already voted. Better-grade cell phone cameras are "good enough." Dropping just shy of a grand on "meh" DSLR kit just isn't that attractive--or likely. Nikon's market share isn't as much a worry as the shrinking market for DSLRs. Indeed, camera sales have fallen into place--and will continue to fall. The brightest marketing idea Nikon ever had dates back to the D40 era when it distributed the cameras at knock-down prices(maybe even free)to schools and community groups with a back-up TV ad campaign.

I have really enjoyed this thread and like many, I am torn slightly. My one and only wish in regards to the D7200 has been that it had group focusing. For street photography, I use that 99% of the time. I had often wished Nikon would have put it in the D7200 with a firmware upgrade, but it never came. So when it came in the D7500, I said to myself. I will be purchasing one as soon as it becomes available. The lighter weight is also a plus. The focus mechanism is the most important thing to me in a camera. This is why I use Nikon. So here is I what decided to do after much reading and pondering. It does bother me that there will be no grip for it as I find the grip to be very useful as I have rather large hands and the balance is better with it.

First off, let me start with this.

I do have all three D7XXX bodies as well as a D5, D500, D750 and D800E

If you look through my Flicker or blog space, it becomes obvious which cameras are my favorite as I leave all the EXIF data.

When shooting full frame, I will reach for my D750 90% of the time. The weight and size is perfect for me. The focus is blazing fast and the low light high ISO performance is killer great. (Though not in a league with the D5 or D500, nothing is).

When shooting with a crop body, I do reach for my D7200 about 60-70% of the time. Auto focus speed is about the same as the D750 and ISO performance is great. About a full stop less than the D750. In fact, the only time I really use the D500 is when I will be going late into the night and need the low light performance of this beast.

But I will say this. The sensor in the D7200 in my opinion is better than the sensor in the D500. The colors are more vibrant, ISO I could swear is also better. (I am a jpeg shooter) The lighter weight is great. So in my view, the only thing I would be gaining in the D7500 would be a little quicker auto focus and group focusing. I would be loosing my grip and jpegs from the sensor. So I decided to pass on it. If I needed the body or my D7200 dies, Then I would rather buy me another D750. I can buy another gray market D750 for a couple of hundred dollars more and have a much better camera.

So I will be passing on the D7500. I will wait for the D750 upgrade if it ever comes, but truth be told. How do you even improve really on what is out there.

Show people how they can take their photography to the next level and camera sales will fall into place.

Maybe the cell phone is the next level for many photographers and the reason camera sales are falling into place as the market dictates. People want USB charging, immediate uploading to social media and they want their photos in their pocket to share as they go about their day. They do not even want prints any longer. Just maybe photography continues to change by popular demand.

"Maybe the cell phone is the next level for many photographers" - Really?

So nobody wants to shoot macro or telephoto anymore? And they're happy with a semi-fisheye low resolution view of their world? If that's the case I find it very sad.

What about online commerce? I'm certainly swayed in my choice of product by how well it's represented and photographed. It really puts me off if I see a crappy cellphone picture in an ad. I think "Well, if they can't be bothered with a decent picture; what else can't they be bothered to do?"

Sad, I agree, as I said above the camera manufacturers need to aggressively advertise what a dslr can do that a cell phone can't - why buy a dslr otherwise? - because you want 2lbs + of extra weight hanging around you neck all day?

I'd push the high ISO limits personally. Cell phone users want family/friend pictures mostly I imagine - happy smiling faces of people.

The telephoto option would attract some over as well, brilliant shots of kids playing sport - those with young families love these kind of shots. Is a cell phone currently limited to about 70mm?

If a manufacturer can't think of what is good about their own own product....game over.

mmm....lost the original thread a little above, haven't I. Despite owning a D750 as well I chose the D7200 to take to Disneyland Paris with my wife and daughter recently. 16-85mm lens and no external flash - travelling as light as possible. 500 photos and 30 video clips by the end of day 2 - well and truly in the dog house, galloping towards silent meals. Didn't take many photos on day 3.

No regrets on the choice of camera though, brilliant and versatile little camera, did all that was asked of it.