Retired - need recs. for good retirement camera - D7200 (?)

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by lahuasteca, Nov 30, 2016.

  1. Occasionally I look at the now archived Nikon Coolpix A and wonder why it shouldn't have been possible to have made a decent DX mirrorless on the same chassis.

    It seemed to have been designed by a photographer.....what went wrong?
     
  2. A question only Nikon can answer - but maybe even they can't?
    What went wrong with Series 1 and CX?
    Why did Nikon give up on building a DX lens system? All they appear to have come up with quite regularly was yet-another-eighteen-to-something. Did they ever realize that 18mm isn't all that wide?
     
  3. Yes, I would love the lens to start at 16mm, similar to my 24mm on my film camera.
    But as I recall, in the film days, many people could not deal with a lens wider than 28mm, because of the wide angle distortion/effect of the wider lens.
     
  4. I very much coveted the Nikon 25-50/4 that Nikon released back in 1979 but could not afford it. Probably one of the first, if not the first, zoom lens that went substantially wider than what was available in zooms at the time. Later I got the AF 24-50, which in turn got replaced by the 24-120 streetsweeper. But generally speaking, 28mm was indeed the low-end limit of zooms back then.
     
  5. What went wrong with the CoolPix A was a combination of the Ricoh GR (which was roughly the same thing but substantially cheaper), the Fuji X100 (which is the same thing but with a more innovative interface, a faster lens and better ergonomics), and the RX100 series (which are much more portable and still have good image quality). Nikon priced it over $1000, in the same class as a prosumer DX body (possibly to protect their DSLR sales). I strongly suspect those wanting one as their primary body would take a long hard look at what cheaper DSLR kits could do before buying into a less flexible and only somewhat more portable system. Those wanting a portable back-up to their DSLRs had the same problem - I got an RX100 because it actually fits in my pocket, but even if I wanted something I could leave in a bag, the CoolPix A was twice the price I'd pay for what it did. Now they're on eBay for £250 I'm actually a lot more tempted, but how much one would give me over my RX100 is questionable.

    Series 1, in my opinion, had similar problems. I have a V1, but only once the prices had tanked, and only for the 1200fps video mode. They were always very expensive for what they were, and much less portable than the Sony and Canon compacts with the same sensor size. AF only gets you so far (although Sony are trying again with the RX100 V). If you're going to make something smaller than a DSLR, make it fit in a pocket, otherwise there's no much point. My understanding is that the 1 series sold well in Japan, so I assume Nikon were a bit blind to how it was received elsewhere. They also made the classic mistake of offering lots of colour variations, which (as manufacturers of MP3 players found out) just annoys vendors who have to try to keep all the SKUs in stock, and don't have shelf space. But I hope Japanese ladies liked their hot pink J1s as much as Nikon management thought they would. Uniquely for the ILC bodies I own, I only have the kit lens for the V1, and I have no interest in anything else. I believe Thom Hogan considers the range to be more useful than most, but I'm not sold on it.

    In DX, I've always believed that Nikon expect you to upgrade to FX if you want lens choice (at least, to FX lenses). Especially once the D3 came out and Nikon stopped considering DX to be "professional". This is one reason I keep arguing that Nikon should push an FX body as low in price as they can (presumably cutting features to do it) - then at least they don't have to worry about having a less-complete lens selection than either micro 4/3 or Fuji.

    When and if Nikon have another go at mirrorless, I hope they realise they can't price themselves out of the market to protect DSLR sales. As Thom Hogan pointed out, the J1 had very few moving components and should have been very cheap to produce, but that wasn't how it was sold. The market is full of decent mirrorless options, DSLRs with a lot of lenses available, very capable compacts, and people who already have pretty good cameras on their phones. If they stick a minimal coolpix interface on the thing and charge D7500 money for it (or D610 money if it's FX), they'll have an up-hill struggle, especially if they don't give it the features to compete. (That means, at least, phase detect on sensor and 4K video.) I'd not put it beyond them to produce another Pentax K-01 and get derided for it. It's too easy for companies to be blinded by their popularity in their country of origin, especially where they're fairly dominant - I suspect Nikon has a lot of people who are really excited to be part of the legacy of the company, and who can forget that in other markets the brand name won't make up for an uncompetitive product. Or maybe I'm old and cynical.

    I've always found 24mm to be useful (and I have a number of landscapes taken with a 28mm held diagonally so I could fit more horizon in). But then I'm not that much of a fan of the middle ground - my 24-70 is more often at one extreme or the other than in the middle. Cartier-Bresson is welcome to 50mm.
     

Share This Page