Nikon actually listening to us ?!? -- Survey

<p>

 

<p>Imagine my shock when I woke up this morning to find a very detailed multiple-choice survey from Nikon in my inbox. The initial questions were heavily weighted around the whole pixel thing, they asked a lot of questions about my attitude towards pixel-counts, how many pixels I would find "adequate" in an FX sized sensor, and other camera features, which were important to me and the like. Plus an odd question about why I did NOT buy a D700, then the usual "what other suggestions can you give us?" type of thing. It struck me that they were looking for some guidance in where to go next, which then led me to believe that they have nothing on the horizon now as far as new bodies go. Did anyone else get this?</p>

 

</p>

<p>That survey regarding the D700 has already been reported by the European press, but I'm getting the impression it's being sent only to NPS members.</p>

<p>It'll be interesting to see the data if they release it later. I'd favor a lower megapickle count in favor of better high ISO performance, but the web CW seems to indicate other folks would squawk if they didn't get 20+ megapickles.</p>

<p>In this digital era, some new DSLR bodies are always on the horizon. This type of survey is more for setting the direction 2, 3, 4 or more years down the road. Currently most of Nikon's DSLRs are staying at 12MP from the D5000, D90, D300S, D700 to the D3S, with only the D3X at 24MP. However, Canon is pushing for more pixels (at least more than 12M) across the board from the 50D, 7D, 5D Mark 2 to 1D Mark 4. Those are fairly different approaches.</p>

<p>I for one am quite happy with 12MP, but if photographers in general still prefer more pixels, it can potentially put Nikon in a bad position for years to come if they don't catch up quickly.</p>

<p>If Nikon is listening, I couldn't give a rat's ass about more pixels.</p>

<p>Whatever Nikon or Canon does, one thing is for sure..Their decisions are driven by profits; not necessarily what (we) want or need. If they were, the DSLR's would look and behave differently (ergonomics).</p>

<p>These surveys while nice in concept, are designed to show (us) that they care (marketing concept); not so much to build a better camera. They could build a better camera based solely on input from pro's and advanced amateurs, but no one could afford it.<br>

I'd venture a guess in saying Nikon & Canon do not derive their greatest bottom line profits from their pro line of DSLR's. How many P&S's were sold at $200-$300 vs how many D3's?<br>

I doubt the Nikon or Canon marketing people would release this data to anyone.</p>

<p>I'm with Shun on this one, 12MP is plenty for me as well, FX or DX, as the mega-pixel marketing game is not aimed at pro's or advanced amateurs.<br>

I have a hunch 24MP may be the roof for Nikon & Canon DSLR's..Ya' need more pixels?..Talk to Leaf, Hasselblad or Mamiya.</p>

<p>I wish we could get something in the middle, I like my 21mp a lot, but wish for better high iso, being able to do fine art prints at 24 x 36 is great. The roof at 24mp ? I think not and the 7D shows that, at full frame the 7D would be 32mp, I do wish Canon would slow down the MP race however, but I also see a lot of Nikon people wanting what the 5D2 offers.</p>

<p>I got it and told them I care about quality affordable lenses more than what pixel count a camera has.</p>

<p>I don't think this is proof they are listening. Producing cameras that feel like a photog has used/designed them rather than an engineer would be proof.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Whatever Nikon or Canon does, one thing is for sure..Their decisions are driven by profits; not necessarily what (we) want or need. If they were, the DSLR's would look and behave differently (ergonomics).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really? In what ways would it "look and behave differently"? Please, try to keep it simple, I've only been working in ergonomics for a quarter of a century.</p>

<p>The average camera user wouldn't know an ergonomic camera if it trorred up to them and bit them on the rump.</p>

<ul>

<li> Olympus eliminated the left hand "vestigal" area where the film spool used to go on the E-1. People whined so much that they put it back on the E-3, as well as their midline E-400, E-500, E-600, and E-30 series.</li>

<li>The aperture ring on the lens is the biggest crime against ergonomics in the history of photography. But 25 years after Canon and Minolta got rid of theirs, and 10 years after Nikon stopped making new lenses with it, people are still whining. </li>

<li>Only two companies have ever introduced rotating sensor medium format backs: Fuji and Leaf. Each of them exited the MF back market about 6 months after their respective introductions.</li>

</ul>

<p>"Whatever Nikon or Canon does, one thing is for sure..Their decisions are driven by profits; not necessarily what (we) want or need. If they were, the DSLR's would look and behave differently (ergonomics)."<br>

Giving clients what they want, and doing it profitably, are not mutually exclusive. IMHO, modern DSLRs are already very good. The real art is in compromise. Clients often have conflicting wants that designers must sort out. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Producing cameras that feel like a photog has used/designed them rather than an engineer would be proof.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OK, Mark, same challenge as I made Kevin. Tell me what a camera designed by a "photog" would "feel like".</p>

<p>>>Whatever Nikon or Canon does, one thing is for sure..Their decisions are driven by profits; not necessarily what (we) want or need.</p>

<p>This statement doesn't make sense. Profits come from selling cameras. Selling cameras comes from meeting the customers wants and needs. </p>

<p>Not sure about the NPS-only theory. I am an NPS member, but haven't received a survey invitation.</p>

<p>I use Nikon because they are a nicer camera and it feels good when I hold and use it. Nikon seems to care a lot about the quality of their product. They only make imaging products, so their full concentration would be on its quality and perfomance and it shows. Much of what I see people complaining about is stuff they don't understand, and they don't understand how it functions. And rather complaining about it. Why don't these people take the time to study how their purchased camera works, what are the strengths and weaknesses. Do you know how the sensor works? Or it colour sensors? Why do slr cams generally get better iso performance than compact p/s? If you don't know, take advantage of the internet and learn. Then you will understand what the manufacturers are up against and why they spend millions developing and refining their technology maybe. Some like Canon, some like Nikon, some like Olympic and Pentax. I like Nikon, so I do not worry what the others offer. When we buy anything, that is our own personal choice, no one forced a Nikon or Canon into your hands and said you have to buy it, you made your own mind up.</p>

<p>I don't care about megapixels, but then again I just bought a Contax G1 and I also have 17 rolls of film I've been meaning to get developed..</p>

<p>I did not get a copy of the survey but it seems that they are focusing their questions on camera bodies. I'm surprised that they didn't ask about lenses since they seem to be lagging significantly in this area. (See Thom Hogans site) I've been waiting for a new 80-400 AFS VR for several years. I have the original 80-400 and while the optics are good, the auto focus just can't keep up with fast college football action. I recently bought a Sigma 120-300 F2.8 HSM and use it to shoot night football games. Outstanding lens, especially at F2.8.</p>

<p>I don't see a negative on this. It is nice that Nikon ask your opinion. There is no real way of knowing why they ask these questions but, in this case, I assume it is a mainly a marketing reason to help them to shape their marketing and get their messages to align with the way photogs are thinking. I, too, doubt that it will have much real effect on future models and development, but one cannot know for sure.</p>

<p>Comments like "I wish Canon would stop the megapixel race" speak of uneasyness to me and an irritation that you know they won't stop this race. Sooner than you would like, you (or we) will be pining for a new high MP low-noise wonder.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The aperture ring on the lens is the biggest crime against ergonomics in the history of photography</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I actually like the aperture ring on the lens. In fact, some experts (you can search in this forum) suggest that if you want precise and repeatable exposures (i.e. time lapse) it is better to set the aperture using the aperture ring on the lens (unless you have a G lens, of course)</p>

<p><em><strong>"I'm getting the impression it's being sent only to NPS members."</strong></em></p>

<p>Not me.</p>

<p>I don't give a hoot about more pixels. What I want is a compact wide prime. Are ya listening, Nikon execs? Every time I see that Pentax 15mm f4 I wonder why we can't get something like that from Nikon.</p>

<p>"Not sure about the NPS-only theory. I am an NPS member, but haven't received a survey invitation."<br>

According to the survey, only some people were asked: "Names were randomly selected through our customer list.". To me it looked like an attempt to do market analysis, and find out what customers wanted. A range of questions were asked, about a range of issues, and it was not D700 biased. Questions such as "Tick the items that are important to you" with options such as price, image quality, tonal quality, dynamic range and so on. <br /> </p>

<p>If the pixel count goes up, then these will go down:</p>

<ol>

<li>frame rate</li>

<li>buffered image capacity for continuous firing</li>

<li>noiselessness</li>

</ol>

<p>unless some other new technologies are found to handle [1] and [3]. Obviously [2] can be handled with larger memory buffers but the cost will rise.</p>

<p>I am in agreement with Shun about the 12Mpix range. I think it is fine as it is; especially, for the FX platform. It is currently noise-free and performs reasonably well in terms of frame rate.</p>

<p>For improvements, ... when the light is low, I would like to see</p>

<ol>

<li>higher clarity: yes, the noise is low at high ISO but I noticed that the clarity is good as mud. Color delineation is low. </li>

<li>better AF subsystem that can actually work in low contrast and low light situation without focusing-aid from flash units </li>

</ol>

<p>If one needs higher pixel count for non-moving subjects, stitching will give you all the pixels you need.</p>

<p>If you really need higher pixel count with moving subjects, then get the D3X.</p>

 

<p>Ergonomics isn't the only reason to design an element, such as an apeture ring on something. There is thing called usability. By giving as many options as possible, you can make the user interface better for many people. It is kind of like why there is almost 3 ways to do anything in Adobe programs.</p>

<p>Oh, and if Nikon was truly listening to us, we would have pro level f4 zooms. It is the only thing from Canon I envy.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>at full frame the 7D would be 32mp</p>

</blockquote>

<p>18 MP x 2.25 = 40.5 MP</p>

<p>I have no idea whether squeezing that many dots onto a 24x36 mm sensor would be efficient, but it's fun to imagine near P45+ resolution in a 35mm body.</p>

<p>The D3, D700, and (reportedly) D3s do amazing things with 12 MP, but more resolution is always welcome in my book (as long as it's clean). I'd love to have a 20-24 MP High ISO Nikon body for general purposes and a 32-36 MP Low ISO monster for tripod-based work.</p>

<p>Think of the crops! Think of the enlargements!<br>

<br />:~D</p>

 

<p>Arthur, on the buffered frame rates, there are three factors. Factor one, which you control, is how fast the card you write to is. Factor two, as you said, is the built in memory. and factor three is the bus speeds between everything. You can increase bus speeds through better designed circuits and materials. We haven't reached the limit of that capability, so there is still advancements to be made. Now, I don't know if the current bus speeds are faster than the cards in use. That could be more of a limiting factor.</p>