The long-awaited Nikon feature request list - part two (voting!)

Hi everyone. Thanks for all your input on part one of this project - attempting to come up with a list of issues and requests, which are recorded in this enormous slide deck. Note that, as I was recommended, this is laid out in terms of a problem a photographer may have using a camera, and a suggested way of fixing it - rather than prioritising an unexplained fix; we might expect Nikon engineering to come up with different solutions to the same problem in many cases.

We're now at stage two: your chance to vote! Please have a look at this spreadsheet, and fill in a column with your priorities, based on the numbers in the second sheet of the spreadsheet (or slide 100 of the deck). The vote is assumed to mean "how much do you want this issue fixed" rather than necessarily how much you like the suggested solution - but feel free to elaborate by adding a note to your vote for an item (shift-F2 or right-click to add a note), particularly if you have the problem but hate the suggested solution. I've filled in my own opinions (column "AG") to get us started, and note that I've absolutely not rated everything incredibly highly. It's a live multi-user Google docs spreadsheet, so please try not to trip over each other. I'll take backups periodically in case of unrecoverable accident or abuse. Don't feel you have to fill in everything if you don't have time to - but I'm treating "no vote" as "no opinion", so if you hate the idea of fixing an issue, please vote against it.

I hope the spreadsheet is self-explanatory - please let me know if not. I have colour-coded the sections, and correspondingly colour-coded the slide headings in the original slide deck (there's a half-hearted attempt to relate to the custom settings menu colours, hence the weird ordering). I've slightly tweaked the headings in the slide deck to make the descriptions clearer. This is public, so please don't fill in any information you're not happy sharing.

I should note that the last row, "list of familiar cameras", means "cameras you've used a lot which influence your idea of a camera interface" - it doesn't mean "what you currently own" or "everything you used to own" (and a thief heading to my house won't find that list present). It's just guidance to Nikon; for example, I've never owned a 1-digit body other than the F5, so if there's a way of doing things that's only present in the D5, I won't know about it. Equally I've never owned a D7x00 body, so if the user modes are really useful, I don't know that either. Don't fill it in if you're not comfortable, and I hope I won't regret doing so.

There's an extra row on the "Df specials" section, because the Df clearly had different design goals from other cameras: how interested would you be in buying a body in the style of the Df. This should catch you if you would like something like a Df, but the actual implementation of the Df itself didn't appeal, as well as people who currently have a Df and would consider an upgrade. If you have a Df but would absolutely never replace it, Nikon probably doesn't care more for you than if you never wanted one to start with. (Note that many of the other ideas which might be possible as firmware updates would also apply to the Df, though.) I believe it's possible to be academically interested in the way a Df is designed without any actual plan to buy one, so I treat this separately; for example, I think having a display on each dial rather than fixed writing (so it looks like a dial but can display different meanings and virtually turn more than 360 degrees) would significantly improve how usable I would find a replacement Df - but I still think it's unlikely that the style of camera would be a good match for how and what I shoot. I'll let Nikon decide how to balance the numbers.

My plan is to give this a week or so for everyone who wants to to reply - please let me know if you need longer. Then I'll point Nikon UK (my local branch) at it with some background to what I've been trying to do, and see whether they can get it passed on to the right people in Nikon. I'll remove the column identifiers before passing this on to Nikon to increase anonymity, but other than that, I intend to give them all the data - it may be useful to them to be able to correlate different requests (particularly, a number that come under "just let me reassign all the controls to everything", which obsolete some of the more specific requests, and the request for programmability), and they can sort them by interest level just as easily as I can.

There is absolutely no guarantee that Nikon will do anything with this information. This project is only an attempt to increase the odds that most of the ideas and complaints that have been raised in discussions on this group at least get as far as Nikon; I have no control over what happens after that. I'm as cynical as anyone else, but there have definitely been cases where Nikon have made improvements over time, and they're more likely to happen if we ask than if we don't. Fingers crossed. If anyone does have a better way of getting this to the right people, please get in touch.

I look forward to seeing what you fill in. Thanks again for your time.

--

Andrew

I see 1/6th stop exposure adjustments are listed as a 'want'. That's already available by setting the ISO adjustment to 1/2 stop increments, and the shutter/aperture steps to 1/3rd stop, or vice-versa.

However, I doubt that the mechanical aperture coupling on many lenses is repeatable enough to make 1/6th stop steps meaningful.

I see 1/6th stop exposure adjustments are listed as a 'want'. That's already available by setting the ISO adjustment to 1/2 stop increments, and the shutter/aperture steps to 1/3rd stop, or vice-versa.

 

However, I doubt that the mechanical aperture coupling on many lenses is repeatable enough to make 1/6th stop steps meaningful.

For me at least, the 1/6-stop increment is tagged "I might use this feature but don't care if it's present" (5). :-)

However, I specifically meant that each exposure parameter could be changed in 1/6 stops, rather than overall exposure - that is, you can get at the settings exposed by 1/2-stop mode and 1/3-stop mode without having to change what size step you're using. I've not experimented, but vaguely thought the camera tended to pick 1/6-stop values in auto-exposure modes - although possibly it's completely continuous.

I agree that the actual difference in exposure should be small, it's more about the inconsistency that the "more precise" 1/3-stop mode can't recreate the "less precise" 1/2-stop mode. Power aperture is supposed to work in 1/8 stop units, which of course doesn't match 1/6 anyway, but you can't see it doing it currently.

I renamed this from the original "1/6-stop mode" to avoid confusion with the SPAM exposure modes. Is there a better (short) name I could give it that would be less misleading?

For me at least, the 1/6-stop increment is tagged "I might use this feature but don't care if it's present" (5). :)

 

However, I specifically meant that each exposure parameter could be changed in 1/6 stops, rather than overall exposure - that is, you can get at the settings exposed by 1/2-stop mode and 1/3-stop mode without having to change what size step you're using. I've not experimented, but vaguely thought the camera tended to pick 1/6-stop values in auto-exposure modes - although possibly it's completely continuous.

 

I agree that the actual difference in exposure should be small, it's more about the inconsistency that the "more precise" 1/3-stop mode can't recreate the "less precise" 1/2-stop mode. Power aperture is supposed to work in 1/8 stop units, which of course doesn't match 1/6 anyway, but you can't see it doing it currently.

 

I renamed this from the original "1/6-stop mode" to avoid confusion with the SPAM exposure modes. Is there a better (short) name I could give it that would be less misleading?

I actually don't want the 1/6 stop mode but like to have the settings to be within 1/10 of a stop. That is you can't set them in 1/10 stop increment but only 1/3 stop increment but the settings are within 1/10 stop of the set values.

I actually don't want the 1/6 stop mode but like to have the settings to be within 1/10 of a stop. That is you can't set them in 1/10 stop increment but only 1/3 stop increment but the settings are within 1/10 stop of the set values.

That request triggered side 83: "Hardware changes - more precise aperture lever" (since I think we concluded you were most worried about the repeatability of lenses with the aperture set via the aperture lever). Did that get captured incorrectly? I assume the accuracy of the shutter, at least at lower speeds, isn't an issue.

(If you can give me more background on why you need this, since I'm trying to show problems in case Nikon wants to find a different solution, please do and I'll add that to the slide. Exposure fluctuations during time lapse is the normal argument.)

BeBu: you surprise me, given that at least one of the suggestions came from you. :-) Thank you for looking, at least. I think we have to assume Nikon will continue making new cameras (unless run really badly), and they'll have changes. It's certainly true that there's a trade-off to any change, I just hope this list might guide them beforehand, rather than us only being able to complain afterwards. I'm also doubtful that Nikon will (or should) make another Df, even if companies like Fuji and Olympus get sales from "dedicated dials" designs, but if they were going to, there are things I'd prefer changed if I were to consider it. I was hoping that any requests I'd like which would disadvantage anyone else would be countered by low-scoring votes - but if everything is really "I don't mind", I guess silence is the right response. It does unfortunately make it look like I've not sought input from many people, though!

I wonder whether I should suggest adding a name and putting in a "4" on everything by default? That would imply "I care about future Nikon bodies, but none of these issues affect me" - and could be read as "Nikon should concentrate on other problems" (such as the high ISO behaviour, dynamic range, pixel count and autofocus performance that I assume they're always working on and didn't bother to list).

Matthew shows the other side - "I won't care what Nikon does because I'm never going to buy a body that gets it". A very honest response. I don't know how aware Nikon is of "last body syndrome" - it's certainly something commentators have mentioned, and I myself would be in no hurry to update my D850 if all Nikon did was swap in the A7R4 sensor (reserving judgement on the D6's autofocus module).

I hoped the large number of things on this list which could be done in firmware would help counter that problem: put the items I want in a D880 and I might eventually upgrade, but if much more willingly pay less for a firmware upgrade to an existing body. Whether Nikon would consider rolling that back as far as the D7100 (which really is a good body) I don't know - it needs research on the effort vs the number who'd pay for it. Balancing the market segments, on the other hand, is probably a delicate process - a D3500 with a MultiCAM 20k would absolutely be "a better D3500", but I assume Nikon choose not to do that for good reasons. In the case of a D850, I can't pay Nikon more for the body with the features I want (a reason I always assumed reluctance to expose programmability), because they don't make one yet...

C_watson: it's hard to know. They've certainly publicly asked for feedback, occasionally. Things I've sent them have definitely turned up on cameras - though "correlation is not causation". Nikon should really be made aware how little trust the community seems to have in being listened to. I don't know how often people send Nikon requests - certainly a lot of mine have not been implemented, too. I'm sure there's some culture in the way (I've been in big companies, it can easily happen, especially when ideas are mangled in transit), and I've certainly seen "we're a small office, there's no point in asking for a fix even if it affects everyone because nobody will listen to us" - or ideas get stopped by a manager who doesn't dislike it, but is himself too cynical about fixes happening even to ask.

They certainly won't get passed on if they never even get to Nikon, though. I'm well into a mid-life crisis; indulge me in a little unjustified optimism? I'm normally a hopeless cynic.

The more feedback I have (even if it's all "I didn't fill this in because...") the more information I can give to Nikon, and the greater the chance - however small - it has an effect. Since I would like to see some of this for selfish reasons, I'm grateful to anyone who spends time looking at it.

Matthew shows the other side - "I won't care what Nikon does because I'm never going to buy a body that gets it". A very honest response. I don't know how aware Nikon is of "last body syndrome"

I wouldn't call Matthew's response an example of "last body syndrome" - more like a manifestation of "current body good enough". I feel I am a bit in the same boat - I didn't rush out to replace the D810 with the D850 nor did I do so with any camera purchase in the past (D300, D500 as well as the "forced on me" D7100 and D7200). Even a likely never to materialize D500-successor would have to have some very serious improvements (and none of the usual Nikon "backstepping") to sufficiently tempt me to rush into a purchase. Sony strung me along with altogether three upgrade purchases (two of which were generation changes and one an upgrade to a higher resolution sensor) - at least each new generation body improved significantly over its predecessor. But the A7RIV currently does not tempt me at all; the A7RIII is definitely good enough for me. A A9II would certainly be tempting if I would use FX bodies for the type of photography that requires its AF and speed prowess - I am doing just fine with the D500 here.

Looking back, I think one of the major mistakes Nikon (and others) have made was to not lengthen upgrade cycles when it became clear that improvements didn't keep up with the pace. Superimposed on this was Nikon's tendency of "self-inflicted" damage - no D400 (where technology had moved along quite a bit from the D300), misjudging the market's demand for the ratio D800 vs D800E, the too-small buffer of the D7100. I think Andrew is quite correct with his suggestion of "pay-for-firmware upgrades" instead of releasing a new body. I'd pay a certain sum to Nikon if they would implement some of the firmware upgrades suggested (and the d9 AF area mode for the D500) but would very likely not jump onto a new camera body that offers those features. Sony followed the initial A7 with the A7II within a year with the only significant technical change the introduction of IBIS in the latter. Significant trade-in rebates where needed to entice the customer to upgrade (and to compensate for the higher-than-usual loss of value of the predecessor body).

Nowadays, things are even more complicated for Nikon (and others) having to move a significant fraction of the customer base from DSLR to mirrorless (in a rapidly decreasing overall camera market). At least for me, the advantages mirrorless offers for certain aspects of photography and especially for Nikon in a clear improvement of the optical quality of the lenses is more than balanced out by the high cost of making the transition especially when the available lens choices are not sufficiently compelling (among other things).

Care to share, BeBu? You could be wrong, and I'm at least academically interested.

1. I want accurate aperture, shutter speed and ISO but not more precise settings. That is you still limited to 1/3 stop increments but the value you set for example 1/1000 sec will be exactly 1/1024 sec. I don't see anyone wants this.

2. I like the idea of auto GN flash as I have said earlier but it seems nobody cares.

3. For the Df I would like a simpler DSLR similar to the Df with fewer buttons and perhaps no screen on the back and is smaller about the size of a film SLR. It has to be an SLR and not mirrorless. I don't see the demand for this either.

4. I would also like a display of accurate focus distance but although some may want this but it seems technically difficult.

5. For backward compatible I would like to see the aperture display when use the AI lens to be also in 1/3 stop. This is technically easy but there is no demand.

I'm also doubtful that Nikon will (or should) make another Df

The lightweight and under-engineered feel of the Df put me right off once I got one in my hands - therefore a 'don't care' vote from me. Since I think it highly unlikely they'd make a more substantial job of a Df2.

However, I really like my little CoolPix 6000. An updated version of that might get my attention. With, of course, more pixels and better high ISO performance, even if that meant making it a bit bigger. But now I have a Sony a6000 (lucky number maybe?), which sort of fits the bill. Streamline the interface with more direct control, and Sony would definitely have a winner. As it is, the UI takes a lot of getting used to.

For backward compatible I would like to see the aperture display when use the AI lens to be also in 1/3 stop. This is technically easy but there is no demand.

The idea of Nikon fitting only whole stop detents to their mechanical aperture lenses was supposedly to allow the space to set 1/2 or 1/3rd stop increments. However, this 'feature' was hardly ever used because 1) the ring tended to pop into the nearest detent anyway, 2) nobody liked guessing at the exact aperture they'd set, and 3) back in the film days a half or 1/3rd stop change in aperture hardly mattered a damn. And I'd argue that it still doesn't matter today.

Who, honestly, can see the difference in DoF between half or 1/3rd stop changes in aperture? And exposure precision is easily taken care of by refinement of shutter speed and/or ISO control. So it would be a totally needless addition IMO, and just require more thumbwheel clicks to get where you want to be.

But if you really feel the need, there's always the option of using aperture ring control and implementing the guesstimate-between-detents method.

I really like my little CoolPix 6000

RJ, which '6000' is that?

P i'm guessing?

RJ, which '6000' is that?

 

P i'm guessing?

Is there more than one?

Dunno. It's just the CP6000 AFAIK.

It's this little beggar. And now I see that its proper name is indeed the CoolPix P6000.

The idea of Nikon fitting only whole stop detents to their mechanical aperture lenses was supposedly to allow the space to set 1/2 or 1/3rd stop increments. However, this 'feature' was hardly ever used because 1) the ring tended to pop into the nearest detent anyway, 2) nobody liked guessing at the exact aperture they'd set, and 3) back in the film days a half or 1/3rd stop change in aperture hardly mattered a damn. And I'd argue that it still doesn't matter today.

 

Who, honestly, can see the difference in DoF between half or 1/3rd stop changes in aperture? And exposure precision is easily taken care of by refinement of shutter speed and/or ISO control. So it would be a totally needless addition IMO, and just require more thumbwheel clicks to get where you want to be.

 

But if you really feel the need, there's always the option of using aperture ring control and implementing the guesstimate-between-detents method.

As I said, I don't care to request as others don't care about what I want. I am not rich enough to have them make a camera just for me.

(Sorry, now back at a computer.)

1. I want accurate aperture, shutter speed and ISO but not more precise settings. That is you still limited to 1/3 stop increments but the value you set for example 1/1000 sec will be exactly 1/1024 sec. I don't see anyone wants this.

I'd still quite like clarity on that one (which is on the list as slide 83). Are you seeing shutter speed or ISO being inaccurate? I don't really do time lapse, but if I did and there was any inconsistency, this would still absolutely annoy me. I didn't prioritise it because I thought the big issue was the aperture lever control - my understanding is that the slop in the stop-down lever leads to inconsistencies, which can be avoided ether by using an aperture ring or an E-aperture lens. This means that I have work-arounds if I do a time-lapse, but if the shutter or ISO also float, they won't help me.

2. I like the idea of auto GN flash as I have said earlier but it seems nobody cares.

Slide 36? It did seem like a good idea to me, it's just than in all honesty I very rarely shoot with on-camera flash (in as much as I shoot with flash at all), and so distance information won't help me - so I couldn't vote it higher with a good conscience. It absolutely made sense for the case you described, though - I'd have expected others to find that valid.

3. For the Df I would like a simpler DSLR similar to the Df with fewer buttons and perhaps no screen on the back and is smaller about the size of a film SLR. It has to be an SLR and not mirrorless. I don't see the demand for this either.

Honestly I think I agree (with the proviso that my priority is for a better "normal" dSLR first). My worry is that when Leica made a camera with no LCD on the back, it wasn't all that much thinner than the existing one - if the LCD doesn't cost me anything, I probably take it as a convenience. I do think that if the dials had been implemented "better" the Df could have avoided a lot of the unnecessary interaction; much of my issue is the amount that the Df seems to need menus to do anything - at least as much as other dSLRs. I've handled a Df, and found it quite large and lumpy - I especially dislike the rear buttons on turrets. I quite like the handling of my Voigtlander Bessa R (or did before my eye issues ruled out rangefinders) - much of my issue with the Df is that it really doesn't handle like that.

4. I would also like a display of accurate focus distance but although some may want this but it seems technically difficult.

It seems to depend what you mean by "accurate". There's a number in the EXIF which you can't currently see while shooting, and which I suspect might be useful (slide 13). Certainly the F mount distance encoding is coarse, and temperature-dependent; I think there might be something to be said for interpolating between changes in encoding, and a bit of user calibration, which might help. I'm not sure I'd have that many uses for it, though. I'd really like to know what you want it for, because if it's something I also want to do, it might make me upgrade my vote. (Also Nikon might find another way to implement it.)

5. For backward compatible I would like to see the aperture display when use the AI lens to be also in 1/3 stop. This is technically easy but there is no demand.

I think I agree - unless there are lenses with detents, given that dSLRs don't have "aperture direct-readout" (as I believe the hole in the F5's finder is called) I can see that it's, er, difficult to see. I don't really have enough lenses that I can only control via a (coupled) aperture ring, though - and I'd rather Nikon solved the problem by letting the aperture lever drive for AI-S lenses. Still, I can see that I'd be annoyed if I'd recently paid Nikon for some f/1.2 AI glass. Anyone care to prove BeBu wrong?

I don't think you're as misaligned from everyone as you might think. :-) Still, good to know the list - at least most of them got captured.

I wouldn't call Matthew's response an example of "last body syndrome" - more like a manifestation of "current body good enough". I feel I am a bit in the same boat - I didn't rush out to replace the D810 with the D850 nor did I do so with any camera purchase in the past (D300, D500 as well as the "forced on me" D7100 and D7200). Even a likely never to materialize D500-successor would have to have some very serious improvements (and none of the usual Nikon "backstepping") to sufficiently tempt me to rush into a purchase.

Yes. Nikon have just managed to persuade me in the last few cycles:

• The D800 was a clear step up from the D700 in dynamic range and resolution.
  
• The D810 was faster, didn't hang when writing to files in live view, had the split live view I'd asked for, and gained ISO 64, plus better video. Just enough.
  
• The D850 is substantially faster (the D810 I can vaguely treat as an action camera at 1.2x crop, but a D850 with a grip is way ahead), has a significant bump at high ISO, writes and handles much faster, has the touchscreen, removed most of my autofocus issues, added 4K video, and bumped the resolution enough that I can capture images to be displayed on 4K or 8K screens without scaling.
  

A 60MP sensor, unless it can do 8K video, is likely not to help me much - even if the resolution bump is borderline significant (certainly compared with my backup D810). It's not enough to oversample 8K properly, and I worry it'll just do 4K with more of a crop. I doubt we'll gain ISO32, I doubt high ISO will gain more than a stop over the D850, I don't really need more than 9fps. The "incremental" upgrades for a D850 successor just aren't all that appealing. Actually fixing some handling issues I have - which is "a small matter of programming" - would benefit me far more. Paying for a new camera to get them... well, I might, but I'd be saving up for a while before Nikon saw my money. I'm still paying off my D850.

Looking back, I think one of the major mistakes Nikon (and others) have made was to not lengthen upgrade cycles when it became clear that improvements didn't keep up with the pace. Superimposed on this was Nikon's tendency of "self-inflicted" damage - no D400 (where technology had moved along quite a bit from the D300), misjudging the market's demand for the ratio D800 vs D800E, the too-small buffer of the D7100.

I have a sliver of hope that if we express the issues we care about, Nikon might be less inclined to shoot themselves in the foot...

I think Andrew is quite correct with his suggestion of "pay-for-firmware upgrades" instead of releasing a new body. I'd pay a certain sum to Nikon if they would implement some of the firmware upgrades suggested (and the d9 AF area mode for the D500) but would very likely not jump onto a new camera body that offers those features. Sony followed the initial A7 with the A7II within a year with the only significant technical change the introduction of IBIS in the latter. Significant trade-in rebates where needed to entice the customer to upgrade (and to compensate for the higher-than-usual loss of value of the predecessor body).

I get that keeping some technology back to encourage upgrades is useful - and also for market segmentation. I just wish, particularly in the case of programmability, Nikon would acknowledge that while I'd love to give them the money for that camera, they don't make it, and haven't made it since I've been shooting Nikon - getting half-implemented features in dribs and drabs doesn't encourage upgrades. Put enough in there and I'll buy a new body eventually, but it'll take me time to save up. A firmware update is a one-off investment for Nikon - they don't need to re-tool the factory, they don't need to sign up for some number of new sensors, etc. If we're willing to pay for some firmware, this is a win-win, and then I'll buy a new body later when there are actual hardware features that I want. On top of that, we may be nearing the end of the high-end dSLR, and for those who think mirrorless is a way off matching the requirements, Nikon may have a long wait to get paid any other way.

Nowadays, things are even more complicated for Nikon (and others) having to move a significant fraction of the customer base from DSLR to mirrorless (in a rapidly decreasing overall camera market). At least for me, the advantages mirrorless offers for certain aspects of photography and especially for Nikon in a clear improvement of the optical quality of the lenses is more than balanced out by the high cost of making the transition especially when the available lens choices are not sufficiently compelling (among other things).

I'm not that anti-mirrorless, if the autofocus system can keep up. (I shoot enough people that eye tracking balances a bit with the existing dSLR AF system). I do shoot enough wildlife that viewfinder lag during bursts would bother me, and currently the Z7 is just not as fast as the D850. Someone cut corners on the spec, or decided to protect the D850. I do think Nikon could get the technology there eventually - but until they do, they'll be missing out on any upgrades I pay for, unless they'd like some "low-hanging fruit" in the firmware. Pretty much all of these requests have got to be much less work than "make eye tracking behave better".

Is there more than one?

Yup, there's the Coolpix S6000!

COOLPIX S6000 from Nikon

Andrew,

I can't check the shutter speed of a digital camera but I don't think it's very accurate. I know if I take 2 cameras of the same model and set the same settings and shoot the same scene with the same lens the exposure are not the same. So either the ISO or the shutter speed is not accurate. At something like 1 sec exposure time the shutters are accurate and I still see the different in exposure. So it's must be the ISO are different.

Hmm. Thanks, BeBu, that's news to me. Nikon does have subtle per-camera calibration at the raw level (one reason you're encouraged to do UniWB yourself) which may correspond to subtle differences at the wafer level. I'd not realised the result was detectable, though. The only time I've had matching cameras was when I hired a backup D810 to shoot a friend's wedding a few years ago, and I neglected to do any experiments.

I hate to ask, but... You're sure? Anyone else like to report this? I'd imagine it's a PITA for anyone stitching bullet time effects, so I'd have expected more complaints, unless everyone expected to balance the exposures retrospectively anyway.