When will Nikon (and Canon, Fuji, etc.) enter the 21st century?

<p>Every time I deal with cameras I feel like I'm stepping back in time to an antiquated pre-technology age.</p>

<p>I bought my wife a Nikon 1 that is a great bit of hardware but all of the software systems around the hardware are antiquated, full of bugs, and just about awful. I understand if they don't want to include a GPS because of battery concerns*, but why don't they at least grab GPS data from a phone? Why is the only way they can connect to an iPhone (or Android) via pretending to be a WiFi AP and forcing our phone to disconnect from the internet WiFi to connect to the camera? An Apple watch (and dozens of others) can maintain a permanent connection to an iPhone via Bluetooth. The watch always has accurate GPS data from the phone. It can stream photos or video in real time to the phone. Why can't Nikon do this? Why is it taking Nikon so long to incorporate radio's for lighting?</p>

<p>EVERY camera should be able to connect to our phones via Bluetooth. To get constant GPS data so photos can be geotagged when taken, allow easier uploads/downloads, control, liveview, etc.</p>

<p>Why don't our cameras allow apps? It's not technology holding them back as the tiny Apple Watch has thousands of apps. Would an app that grabs the weather from your phone and puts it in a field be useful to anyone? What about a competing camera app like maybe one for better HDR or Video? Or perhaps an app that allows us to create user defined presets like Canon and Nikon consumer cameras have had for years? Nikon make great hardware. Perhaps its time to let others do the software?</p>

<p>Why do lenses (except Sigma) still have to be sent in for firmware updates?</p>

<p>* Though even this is thinking from 20 years ago as that's not such an issue anymore with newer technology that apparently Nikon are unaware of</p>

<p> </p>

<p>A lot of us want a camera to just be a camera, and if I want cell phone camera capability, I'll use the camera in my iPhone.<br /><br />It is perhaps possible that Nikon actually has done research and found that their target markets don't want the features you describe. There have been android-based cameras, for instance, but they didn't set the world on fire.</p>

<p>Walker -- I don't carry a phone, I do not want gps in my camera -- I have a gps if I want that. If I want apps they'll be on my computer. I would not buy your dream camera -- suspect as Peter suggested, many folks want a camera that is just a camera. Be nice if phones were just phones, speaking as a camera guy.</p>

<p>I want a camera which also microwaves the meals, washes the clothes and dishes and vacuums the rugs, plus GPS, home thermostat control, security system, etc. Just kidding. I want a camera to take pictures...period! Yes cellphones are great for snaps and short videos. Dinosaur here...just pictures please on my camera.</p>

<p>It's always about the money. They will produce the camera you describe when it makes financial sense, when there's a market for such a product and when they are confident it will make an adequate profit. </p>

<p>Samsung tried and failed to sell Android MILCs. Nikon tried and failed to sell Android compacts. The market doesn't want them. it wants cameras that operate like cameras.</p>

<p>The wifi implementation is a kludge but Bluetooth is slow. It would take forever to transfer photos and probably wouldn't work for live view camera remote. It maxes out at 3 MB per second and that's only in high speed mode, which actually uses a second 802.11 link for the data. </p>

<p>The places I shoot--no cell coverage! <br>

Instead I will happily give up built-in flash and video, for a savings in cost!</p>

<p>I'm second to Nick Sanyal. I like to have a camera, top mechanical engineered, NO video, NO GPS, NO build in flash, MORE simplified software system, reduced bulk, like a Nikon FM3a or similar, build in battery grip, NO secondary vertical control buttons, ( never had on the earlier film cameras added motor-drive, and we never get handicapped or disfigured because of this ) never using them anyway. Haw a character not like other thousand same form of plastic junk. I like to have, like a real 35mm film camera, but, not big and heavy like a concrete block.<br /> And I like to haw a super wide angle lens like Canon haw, 11-24 mm f/4 Rectilinear. Or, a prime 11mm.<br>

Oh, and I hate cellphone. The "BORG' maker.</p>

Why should everything be connected to everything?

<p>I'm surprised Bluetooth is not used more effectively in cameras. Since it is digitally keyed to the paired device, it is more reliable in "noisy" environments, and some transmitters can communicate up to 150 feet (or more), drawing little power compared to Wi-Fi.</p>

<p>GPS does not rely on telephone or Wi-Fi connections. All it needs is a clear view of the sky. Neither Wi-Fi nor Bluetooth connections between devices depend on outside connections either.</p>

<p>Bluetooth v4.0 transmits data up to 24 MB/s, which is ample for high fidelity stereo sound and at least YouTube quality video. I use Bluetooth to control a small 8-channel audio recorder, and monitor the sound with Bluetooth headphones from a distance of more than 150 feet while shooting video. There is normally a delay of about 0.2 seconds (Godzilla sub-title quality), but some TX/DX units trim this to 0.02 seconds.</p>

<p>My Sony A7ii and A7Rii have a well-implemented version of Wi-Fi with matching applications for iOS and Android devices. It is useful for controlling the camera remotely and exchanging high resolution images, including real-time viewing. It's a bit of a power hog, so I turn it off (Airplane Mode) until needed. Sony doesn't use Bluetooth, but that's probably not long in coming.</p>

<p>If you have a GPS application in your iOS device (e.g., MotionX GPS, emulating an hand-held device), you can create a document with a log of your perambulations and match that with your images based on time of capture, and put it into the image metadata. I don't know the name of the program, but I know it exists because my son uses it. You can also synchronize the camera's time with your phone, which is satellite-accurate.</p>

<p>I was on a whale watching tour last summer (whale waiting tour is more accurate). Using GPS data I was able to track our voyage through the San Juan islands, including a brief excursion into Canadian waters. Fortunately I had my passport in case we were boarded (we weren't) and no pocket knife longer than 1-1/2".</p>

<p>Walker, tough room.<br>

I need my camera to take the best image possible. Any other bells or whistles are lost on me. They are in my way. That includes video and a dozen other settings and features stuffed into the menus. But, I am one photographer. Everyone has their own style and list of 'wants' and I understand that so I don't complain about it. I just try not to hit any buttons with red dots on them. <br>

I carry a GPS unit for safety when I'm off the grid. If necessary, I will snap the lat. and long. coordinates from that. Added bonus, it finds my way back, too.<br>

I'm shooting uncompressed RAW files always, so streaming them is a moot point and I prefer to upload the cards directly into my PC reader and then reformat them for reuse.<br>

Now, I do agree Nikon's software leaves a lot to be desired although it has improved leaps and bounds since this digital age left the starting blocks, but I choose PS and other specialized programs for post work anyway. I would love to see them implement more firmware upgrades, though, a la Fuji. That is true customer service and shows old world respect for their users. There is always room for improvement with the menu structures.<br>

My ideal camera would be a totally manual Nikon Pro body, that new Sony 42 meg FF sensor, no motor drive, no auto focus, optical viewfinder, carbon fibre build, waterproof with all exterior controls. The tiny battery would then last for days in the field, the body could be much smaller and Nikon would sell 10's of them. ;)</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>My ideal camera would be a totally manual Nikon Pro body, that new Sony 42 meg FF sensor, no motor drive, no auto focus, optical viewfinder, carbon fibre build, waterproof with all exterior controls. The tiny battery would then last for days in the field, the body could be much smaller and Nikon would sell 10's of them. ;)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You and the other five people that want exactly that configuration won't sell out 5 grand for it...<br>

you don't save cost when they take stuff out.<br /><br />Here's why.<br /><br />If I can sell 1 million D-999s with built-in flash and video, for 1500 bucks... but instead make one model with built-in flash and video for 950,000 of you and one without in a quantity of 50,000... the price of the built-in flash model is now 1600 and the one without ends up being 2 grand, because most of those 100,000 people ALSO want something that adds cost to the camera (Nikon Df anybody?)<br /><br />Economies of scale.<br /><br />If a camera has features you don't want... wait for it... DON'T USE THOSE FEATURES... Don't like video? Ignore it. It's pretty easy to do.<br>

If camera companies start making super-niche products, they have super-niche prices. They already know this.</p>

<p>@ Peter Hamm -<br>

Firstly, I WOULD 'shell' out $5,000 for it. Carbon Fibre? Pretty presumptuous on your part. My first digital body cost me $7200.<br>

Secondly, my last 4 bodies have all had video. I used one once for 2 minutes. So, I DON'T use it. They've also had built-in flash. Guess what? I have 7 other flash heads and I DON'T use that either.<br>

The Nikon DF was crippled as a pro body or it would have sold more, definitely one more.<br>

You are preaching to the choir and repeating things you've learned from miriads of other threads here. <br>

Lastly, when you see this icon ;) after a post, you have to imagine the author is less than serious. </p>

 

<p>The internet needs a sarcasm font...</p>

 

<p>I'm in the camp of not wanting most of that. I definitely do not want GPS built in to my camera. It might become "evidence," LOL. I have no smart phone--mine doesn't even have GPS. And, I will never buy an Apple product as long as Tim Cook is working there.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>People are also complaining about all of the Quality Control issues with Nikon and other manufacturers in the last few years. The more features you try to pack into a camera (or any other electronic device), the more you open up the possibility of bugs. I have never used video in any of my digital bodies, but I do understand economies of scale as someone pointed out. I doubt there is anyone out there who uses 100% of the features in any modern digital camera. Nikon and the others are trying to find the "sweet spot" for the majority of users, not satisfy the desires of every user. I imagine Nikon could make a lot of money by creating a Custom Design Camera Division. That way you could go online and design your dream camera beginning with a base camera and adding only those features you want. Automobile manufacturers do that, but I'm not sure how feasible it would be for a digital camera. Or for that matter how cost prohibitive it would be.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Bluetooth v4.0 transmits data up to 24 MB/s, which is ample for high fidelity stereo sound and at least YouTube quality video.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>24 Mbits/s - that's 3 MBytes. And to get that you have to use a high speed mode that needs to be paired with an 802.11 antenna. Bluetooth can do audio but that's much easier than video. On a camera you'd get a low res, low framerate feed and the ability to change settings and trigger the shutter at best. With wifi you can get live view on your cell phone.</p>

<p>Here is a different take on it. For all the fancy bells and whistles, the camera, whether digital or film, the camera is and always will be nothing but a <em>RECORDING DEVICE. </em>If you think otherwise you are deluding yourself</p>

<p>Digital has brought the techno-nerds scurrying out from under the wood work. Does all of that high techie stuff make you a better photographer? Many of us don't give a hoot in hell about whether our cameras can link to our phones of Facebook or Twitter or anything for that matter. I have a 4 year old Blackberry which, <em>perish the thought</em>, I use primarily to make PHONE CALLS and the occasional text. So many people nowadays get so absolutely wrapped over the axel over techie stuff like megapixels and Wi-Fi and all the rest of that crap that they lose sight of the fact that when it comes to producing creative and artistic image, the camera provides about 5% and the PERSON BEHIND IT about 95%</p>

<p>If someone could figure out a way to put a 16MP back on my F2 I would be happier than a pig in slop. I already put maybe 20-30 rolls of film through it a year and have since 1974 when I got it. No frills or bells and whistles, just the finest 35mm mechanical camera every made.</p>

<p>Just my 2¢</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><a name="00duWD"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=17942">Ellis Vener</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Hero" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" /></a>, Apr 30, 2016; 12:11 p.m.</p>

<p>Why should everything be connected to everything?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong><em>BINGO</em>! </strong>Give that man a cigar!</p>

<p>I'm with Barry on this, but I'm not holding my breath. Several years back I advocated for a "capable" body with various plug-ins. This was based on a rather old magnetic recorder (50yrs ?)....hope Nikon notices this :>)...where certain functions were assigned to an electronic board/s and when it came to repairs, this item was switched and the machine would continue to operate. Anyway, it was an outstanding design, since you could take those elec boards with you to rather remote spots in this world like Africa (sands), Amazon or Arctic, etc. without losing weeks to repair these items.</p>

<p>Indeed, many of us would just have the principle controls w/o all the bells and whistles.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Just happy my target is the print, so not to be burdened with all this non-sense.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The watch always has accurate GPS data from the phone</p>

</blockquote>

<p>how I missed this</p>

<blockquote>

<p>EVERY camera should be able to connect to our phones via Bluetooth. To get constant GPS data so photos can be geotagged when taken, allow easier uploads/downloads, control, liveview, etc.<br /><br>

No they shouldn't. I don't want all of my landscape photos geotagged because I don't want hoards of people to wreck my favorite spots. All the other apps you mention do not help one make better photographs. I'm just being devil's advocate so don't take me too seriously. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nikon and others perfectly understand their markets. Want GPS on many of their cameras? Then buy the very expensive accessory. Want wireless connectivity? Then buy the very expensive accessory. Want better software? Buy third party options. Want to configure your lens with a USB hub? Go for Sigma.</p>

<p>I don't want a 'smart watch.' Every day, I put on a perfectly servicable Seiko chronograph that I have worn for the past 15 years. Battery lasts about 4 years--and it does not need charged every day. My HTC One M8 is smarter than I am--it insists on recommending or trying to lead me to using it more. All I need is to make calls, run Google Maps, and occassionally check emails. It's nice that it has the D7100 manual loaded in it--and the compass is very nice. Screw texting and Farcebook...</p>

<p>My Nikon does exactly what I want it to do. I have a third party program that was free to tether it with when needed, and a Vello wireless remote. Flash system is Sigma. Most lenses are Sigma. I need to take pictures--my notes tell me where I was... ;-) There is already too much male bovine excrement loaded into the mechanics of the camera. I want to take good photos--not be connected to every damned thing that those looking to extract cash from my wallet want me to be plugged into. None of which helps me take a better image!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I want to take good photos--not be connected to every damned thing that those looking to extract cash from my wallet want me to be plugged into. None of which helps me take a better image!<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess you don't want a SQUARE plugin for the camera - ie swipe your card when you want something better than a 3 MP JPEG.</p>

<p>Why can't a camera connect directly into photo.net and start threads that bait many of us into responding?</p>