Nikon actually listening to us ?!? -- Survey

[vivid_earth_photographics]

<p>What am I going to do with 18 vs. 12 MP that is more important than better low-light performance? I'd love to see the type of low-light performance in the D3x in a camera I could afford at the D300 level.</p>

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p>Really? In what ways would it "look and behave differently"?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Joseph,<br>

It's a pipe dream and as I said, would not be affordable to the masses.</p>

<p>1) Built in flash meter<br>

2) User replaceable shutter<br>

3) Water proof<br>

4) Reduced menu driven access..(Three Kings Plus)<br>

5) Moveable hand contours to accomodate left handed shooters.<br>

6) Opening back to accomodate film with a movable sensor to accomplish it.</p>

<p>The list CAN go on, but I hope you see my point. Consumers/pro's would love something like that, yet their desire is secondary to profit..a camera like that would be limited production and cost a arm & a leg.</p>

<p>...and yes, there are compromises, yet I maintain my original statement and stand by it, Nikon/Canon are far more profit driven than they are customer design request driven.<br>

How many professional photogs are driven to purchase a DSLR with movie mode? It's a ridiculous option in my opinion<br>

as a pro shooter, yet, it does appeal to the masses and it <strong>SELLS.</strong> If I were forced to define Nikon or Canon as a pro or consumer<br>

producer of photography goods, I'd have to say photo consumer/rank amateur. Does anyone believe the people who buy P&S's should participate in product design surveys? Ever see the D3s advertised in a Nikon TV ad campaign? I didn't think so.<br>

Yet that is where the vast majority of Nikon/Canon's profit margin lays; the sub $1000 camera range, probably lower...so no one will ever convince me the Photogs drive their<br>

concepts. It's more like some engineer says "<em>Hey, I think this widget will sell more cameras boss." </em>SLR's haven't changed that much over the years. The add on's have changed...and these companies spend a ton of money trying to convince us we must have it.<br>

As far as I'm concerned, take all those little bells & whistles and put the money back into R&D and find ways to bring down the price AND low light noise in the FX sensors. I own a D3 and a D-300; there are options on there I will never use! Can you imagine the money in material and production cost if they would eliminate that crap and instead as Isaid, put it back into R&D where it really counts?..Like lower noise sensors at more reasonable costs for starters.<br>

This is an old Toyota/Lexus comparison game..same company, different cars yet identical in quality and separated by a price chasm that can not be justified by any intelligent logical person.</p>

[cantellow]

<p>Just switched to Canon 5dMkII from Nikon D300 + several lenses. Was ready to upgrade to full frame but had a hunch that Canon are looking after its fashion/ studio shooters a bit better than Nikon who seem to be focussed on the sports/ photojournalist segment. At least, that's the impression I got from last few issues of Nikon Pro magazine I get sent through the post (UK version) - virtually nothing on fashion/ studio. Okay - the D3x was sold as a dream for studio shooters. I'm sure it is. But there is no way I can afford it! Also, Nikon have just been too slow at introducing AF-S into their short tele primes. Canon is already on its second incarnation of the 85 f/1.2 USM.<br>

Nikon produces amazing stuff and I'm pleased they are in the game and keeping Canon on their toes. But their game is exclusively targeted at the low noise, high ISO market when it comes to FX. They still haven't brought the 5dMk II's competitor to market, nor have they refreshed their short tele prime range. Hence my (reluctant) switch to the other brand in photography.</p>

<p>I'll miss my Nikon, especially its AF, feel and handling. </p>

<p> </p>

[leonard_forte1]

<p>I am contemplating switching to Canon. Nikon (seems to me) is not keeping up with canon.</p>

[greg stephens]

<p>I for one would love to have an upgraded and actually usable 80-400 zoom..... The original one wouldn't track a glacier, much less a bird in flight............</p>

[mark liddell]

<blockquote>

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

 

</blockquote>

<p>Specific to the D700:<br>

Currently sometimes you have to hit the OK button to save the changes you made, sometimes you don't<br /> A number of menu items cannot be put into my menu<br /> No 100% viewfinder on non 'pro' models<br /> Can't use scroll wheels to change values in the menu<br /> Can't change the exposure delay value to anything other than 1sec<br /> No dual card slots on non 'pro' models<br /> No 1/focal length + - option for min shutter speed on auto iso<br /> Histogram shows jpg values not RAW<br /> D-pad feel slike it will fall off each time you use it<br /> Can't switch AF points without activating the meter<br /> CLS flash system doesn't work reliably enough outside for pro use (ie. it should use radio)<br>

etc.</p>

[petrana_batik]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>No offense Joseph, I've worked with many ergo-gineers in the past, and no two were alike. I myself loath menus. I know it's a complicated task, but then again, I don't get paid to design cameras. I would love to see complex menus ELIMINATED and replaced by dedicated buttons. On the other end of the product line, I'd love to see silly marketing features ELIMINATED on narrow focused products (as shown by the new Leica X1).</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>Well, I actually like the aperture ring on the lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I like 1050's T-Birds. Doesn't alter the fact that they're not particularly ergonomic.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't have to search the forums. I'm one of the people who's mentioned this. Of course, you get even better repeatability for time-lapse if you remove the lens's stop-down lever totally or if you use lenses with a real collar driven iris (like the 28mm and 25mm PC Nikkors).</p>

<p>Again, time-lapse shooters are not the demographic that Nikon caters to. If it were, they'd simply modify the shooting cycle for time-lapse in the M or A modes so that the aperture isn't cycled from wide open to shooting aperture on every shot.</p>

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>Usability is part of ergonomics. And a camera is not an Adobe program, it's a device. Like a car. There's one steering wheel, one brake pedal, one shifter. And that is part of usability.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Kevin, yoru original comment was</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If they were, the DSLR's would look and behave differently (ergonomics).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You have just described a list of things that would adversely affect ergonomics.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>1) Built in flash meter</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Where? I haven't anything but incident metering on my flash meters in years (indeed, on the Minolta IIIF with interchangeable discs and domes, I couldn't even tell you where the disc or the spot attachments are right now. The dome has been on all through the 00's. I challenge you to find a location to place a decent sized dome on an SLR where it won't get in the way of any more critical controls.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>2) User replaceable shutter</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The shutter is a large, motor driven assembly, precision mounted. To make it user changeable, you're going to need to put a door the size of the mirror box on either the front of the camera (probably bu making the "bull nose", the part of the camera around the lens mount larger) or on the back. These are big doors, and will need a mechanism to weather seal them. You're talking about moving controls, increasing weight and size. Again, you've damaged the ergonomics of the camera. Do you have any figures on the percentage of cameras requiring shutter replacement in their lifetimes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>3) Water proof</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a truly massive hit to the ergonomics. Ever used a waterproof camera, like a Nikonos. Stiff controls, because of the sealing mechanisms. Large controls, because they're intended to be worked with or without gloves. And virtually no buttons, mostly rotary controls. Buttons "press themselves" under water. Did you know there's a little flooded chamber under the shutter button of the Nikonos? And a very stiff spring, to keep even the shaft from acting as a "plunger" under water pressure.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>4) Reduced menu driven access..(Three Kings Plus)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As in "three kings plus two programable function buttons?" We've got that, now. Or do you mean more buttons? Which menu functions would you put on those buttons? A dedicated button for manual lens selection? Dedicated buttons for sharpness or contrast? And let's not forget, we're waterproofing the camera, so those buttons are more likely to be rotary controls. Sort of like the old Nikon D100. Rotate one knob to WB, ISO, or Quality, and another knob to adjust the parameters. Except in order to eliminate all the buttons on the camera, you'd have about 15 positions on the "what to adjust knob", and then still have to use a different knob to make the actual adjustment.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> 5) Moveable hand contours to accomodate left handed shooters.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And still waterproof? Seriously, try to make the controls movable from the right to the left, and you've eliminated the right and left sides of the camera as places for connectors (when the grip is on the left side, the right hand memory card door is blocked, and the USB and HDMI connectors reside on the left side of the camera. So we relocate the connectors to areas of the body currently occupied by controls. Goodbye to "three kings plus".</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> 6) Opening back to accomodate film with a movable sensor to accomplish it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, you've just totally destroyed the ergonomics of the camera. It's now bigger (places for the film cart and take-up spool inside the camera), has more seams to seal (more weight, size, and cost) and more controls and connectors that have to be moved. And the demand for film is so low (and falling) that you're asking the entire user population to put up with accommodating it in order to satisfy the wants of a very small minority.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The list CAN go on, but I hope you see my point.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, I'm afraid I don't. You cited "ergonomics" as something that the camera companies are not giving us, then proposed six new features that make such an ergonomic mess of the camera that no one would want to use it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How many professional photogs are driven to purchase a DSLR with movie mode?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How has the movie mode affected the ergonomics of any of the DSLRs that now have it?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As far as I'm concerned, take all those little bells & whistles and put the money back into R&D and find ways to bring down the price AND low light noise in the FXsensors. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've explained the real life methods by which R&D is funded many times, and I'm not going into it again. Sufice it to say it's not the "zero sum" alternative you paint it to be. R&D is funded as a percentage of sales (anticipated sales, when figuring the budget for new products). So, if you take away the budget from the bells and whistles, it's simply gone. Poof! Vapors. Your price and low light features have to make a coherent business case to get allocated money of their own.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I own a D3 and a D-300; there are options on there I will never use! Can you imagine the money in material and production cost if they would eliminate that crap and instead as Isaid, put it back into R&D where it really counts?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I own a D3 too, and there are options that I will never use. But, guess what: the ones that I will never use <strong>aren't the same as the ones that you will never use.</strong> Can you imagine the R&D, marketing, and product distribution nightmare if there were a D3jw for me, a D3kd for you, etc. etc. etc.</p>

<p>That's why Nikon does market research, to find out the best mix of features to satisfy the needs of the most photographers.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>Specific to the D700:<br /> Currently sometimes you have to hit the OK button to save the changes you made, sometimes you don't</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That one does sound like a flaw that should be addressed. But it's not a differentiation between "a photog has used/designed them rather than an engineer", it's a comment on the competence of the engineer who did those menus. Orthogonality is a fundamental principle of user interface design.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> A number of menu items cannot be put into my menu</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, that's not a photographer vs. engineer issue, it's an inadequacy in the engineers.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>No 100% viewfinder on non 'pro' models<br>

No dual card slots on non 'pro' models</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those are cost issues, and substantial ones.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can't use scroll wheels to change values in the menu<br>

No 1/focal length + - option for min shutter speed on auto iso</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Isn't it amazing what "ergonomic" means to different people. Here you are saying "add more features", and there's Kevin saying the menus are too complex, and you're both invoking ergonomics to defend your conflicting views. The bigger question is "how many people want those features". Since you're the first I've seen (on two very active sites) mention the scroll wheels and only the second I've seen want to tie auto ISO to 1/fl. That's not "photog" design, it's "one or two far fringe photog" design.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can't change the exposure delay value to anything other than 1sec</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because remote releases, which let you have any delay you want, are so expensive. A real photographer uses one, and keeps an eye on the action instead of depending on the power of prayer to have you subject not blow, crawl, or fly away in 2, 5, or 10 seconds</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> Histogram shows jpg values not RAW</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> D-pad feel slike it will fall off each time you use it</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Amazing. Possibly a legitimate complaint on your list. But then again, only a photographer can feel that control, an engineer is (in your little world) too thick to get it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> Can't switch AF points without activating the meter</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because you've got to engage some displays. What's wrong with activating the meter? How much power do you think it takes?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>CLS flash system doesn't work reliably enough outside for pro use (ie. it should use radio)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Radio isn't international. That's why you have differnent WiFi units for the North American and European markets, and why Pocket Wizard has to sell radios in different brands in different countries (and why oyu have black, blue, and green Pocket Wizards). You can't legally use the wrong transmitter for your country.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>No offense Joseph,<br>

None taken, Petrana. You're so far the only one showing a realistic view of ergonomics. (The "improve the ergonomics by making the camera waterproof" one was epic).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've worked with many ergo-gineers in the past, and no two were alike. I myself loath menus. I know it's a complicated task, but then again, I don't get paid to design cameras. I would love to see complex menus ELIMINATED and replaced by dedicated buttons.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But then you get into personal taste. Try a design exercise, print the owners manual pages that show the top or back controls for your camera (or any camera that you find interesting) and see how many places you can find to add buttons. Then try drawing a "thumb arc" over them and see how many new buttons can be added in places where you can actually press them. I doubt most camera will accommodate even 4 new buttons. Sure, it's possible to set come cameras to log how often each menu feature is used, give them to the beta testers, and come up with a "generally appealing" pecking order for the assignment of "hard" buttons, but you've seen some of the "back seat driving" in this thread. People want their favorite functions, and if you add 4 new buttons (or even pulled off a miracle and added 10) you're not going to satisfy the guy who wants a 1/f tie in to auto ISO.</p>

[francisco_disilvestro]

<p>Aperture rings may not be ergonomic but sub command dials are much worse. Try to move from wide open to smallest aperture, with aperture ring it will take one movement, with the sub-command dial you'll have to move several times your finger</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>This has been a fascinating thread, particularly Joseph's analyses. However, I am curious as to why Joseph doesn't like having the aperture on a ring on the lens barrel. The most comfortable camera I ever handled was the Olympus OM1, that had the aperture on the lens barrel and the shutter speed on a ring just behind to the lens barrel. With my left hand under the body, I could control speed and aperture with thumb and forefinger.</p>

<p>My custom-built camera, by the way, would have rails designed to be grabbed by an Arca-Swiss clamp on the bottom and on the left side. Not for everyone, but I would like it.</p>

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p>Again, you've just totally destroyed the ergonomics of the camera.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Given the R&D now AND the mentality of designers who work for turn a buck fast companies, yes.</p>

<p>You seem to proceed under 2 assumptions.</p>

<p>1) That manufacturing methods must remain as they are and<br>

2) There is no way you are wrong about anything.</p>

<p>Joseph, you may have come from a engineering background, but every "excuse" you wrote as to "why" it can't be done is baseless and founded in the "not invented here" mentality.</p>

<p>With your way of thinking, nothing would have ever been miniturized, the transistor would never have seen evolution to the current day IC.</p>

<p>I really don't wish to debate this any further, you have your ideas which seem to be from the 1950's way of manufacturing and I have my ideas.<br>

To mention only ONE of the reasons you cite "it can't be done"..and it would ruin any decent ergonomics.</p>

<p>Built in flashmeter: Who said it can't be a incident flash meter?<br>

Maybe a remote sensor, unclip it from the camera, place and trigger..what's the problem? Surely not a technical problem.<br>

The technology is here now to accomplish that..Right now; but as I've tried over and over to get across and what you seem to not hear is that this is about what is profitable to a company. It has zero to do with ergonomics..Yes, ergonomics can be made far better but at a cost; a cost most companies will not sacrifice in the name of profit.</p>

<p>My original postulate: Nikon/Canon doesn't give a hoot about what you think, what I think or what Mr. Super Pro Shooter thinks..<br>

Their little surveys serve to pacify and placate the masses, and maybe, just maybe if they can accomplish something suggested from a end user and stay in budget; they will scream from the house tops how they listen to "us."<br>

They think about profits and how to get there regardless if you or I are happy campers. Could they build a better more ergonomically sound camera? You bet they can. Will they? Not unless it can turn a fast buck.</p>

<p>If scanning were not such a pain in the butt and overly time consuming, I'd be shooting with my med formats now.<br>

Talk about beautiful ergonomics! Few buttons, gorgeous image quality.<br>

My old 35mm F5 HP still shoots great..Not many buttons on their either. Great ergonomics.</p>

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p>Again, that's not a photographer vs. engineer issue, it's an inadequacy in the engineers.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Hmmm?..so the engineers are not communicating with the survey takers?<br>

OMG. Money..it's all about the money.<br>

No..It's not that it would cost too much, it's simply too much effort with a risk in upsetting the apple cart.</p>

<p>Nikon and canon had best take heed and read what's in the wind.<br>

If they proceed as they are now, a new camera company will arrive one day soon with (everything) the amateur AND pro want in a camera. The 2 camera giants will be left in the dust playing catch up..ask Dr. Demming about how that works.</p>

<p>Good discussion..thought provoking.</p>

<p>Joseph, you are a lot like me I think in one regard..Passionate about life in general and wishing for better days ahead.</p>

[warren_wilson]

<p>I enjoyed doing the survey because it asked some pretty intelligent questions directed to users like those who partake in this forum.</p>

<p>Those who have not had the chance would certainly enjoy it — I am glad so many well-informed photographers as those in this very thread have had an opportunity to provide information to Nikon.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>Personally I think this whole MP race is getting out of hand. How much is enough, and how are we going to have to pay for bodies while Nikon and Canon try to keep up with the Jones'?</p>

[bob_bill]

<p> I would trade high iso speed (low light ability) I need, for pixels I dont need(more detail). Hence, I shoot a d700. I shoot portraits and tend to blur or soften alot already. I dont know about you, but I am always scratching for that extra stop, not that imperceptable detail. I dont print posters often, but last did so with 7 mp and have no criticism. 12? Got room to crop. Isnt this pixel/iso race have a built in limiting factor?- the human eye? Oh, and nikon, how about updating the 17-35. </p>

[laur1]

<p>I am a Pentax user, but I appreciated Nikon's approach of sticking with sensors of fewer megapixels but better noise performance - it takes guts to go against popular trends. But Canon puts a lot of pressure on them with the new cameras - I was recently looking at some discussions where guys were really excited over 7D "surpassing" Nikon in noise performance. Nikon must be hearing this and I guess their resolve is getting a bit shaky, hence their survey.</p>

[chris_leck]

<p>I got the survey and I'm not an NPS member.</p>

[dave_reichert1]

<p>I dunno. Maybe I'm a dinosaur, but my shooting habits and the way I handle a camera have remained fundamentally the same since I bought my first F2 in 1975. As long as the shutter release falls comfortably beneath my right index finger and I've got reasonably easy access to aperture and shutter speed controls, I'm happy. I rarely access any other setting except before or after shooting a particular subject. Hell, I can't remember the last time I chimped, even to look at a histogram.</p>

<p>Once you get to know a camera, how it meters, how it frames, and how it responds when you want the shutter to open, there's really not much else that matters. For ME, if the camera fits my hand, and has a decent eye-relief, then I'm satisfied with it ergonomically.</p>

<p>Yes, I'd like more pixels. I'll happily take as many as they want to give me.</p>

[jose_perez3]

<p>I also got the survey and I am not an NPS member. In fact, I had to google the acronym to find out what it stood for (Nikon Professional Services). My guess is that Nikon sent the survey to people that had registered buying more than one Nikon digital SLR and/or at least one professional SLR lens. I purchased the 70-200mm f2.8 lens new. I basically told Nikon on the survey that pixel count did not matter as much as Nikon having available great FX lenses like the 14-24mm f2.8 but at a reasonable price.I almost forgot- I mentioned that Nikon needs to release an AFS 80-400mm lens upgrade.</p>

[paul_aylett1]

<p>I'd certainly like to see the D800 with a FF 24mp sensor. For me, 12mp just doesn't allow enough detail for a models face in a full length portrait.</p>

[justinweiss]

<p>I got the survey and I'm not an NPS member. I liked how in the question about why you like FX cameras, two of the possible answers were basically "Because owning an FX camera makes me feel superior to other people" and "Because I feel good about owning a high-end camera."<br>

<br /> LOL, Nikon market researchers. LOL.</p>

[peter_kervarec]

<blockquote>

<p>I've only been working in ergonomics for a quarter of a century. & Tell me what a camera designed by a "photog" would "feel like".</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>To Joseph Wisniewski, who cares if you worked in ergonomics for 25 years, people are allowed to have an opinion here. Most likely you have worked in the Sarcasm, Know All & Right at All Costs department all your life. Typical of your response on this forum.</p>